HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20060522
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
May 22, 2006
5:00 P.M.
I.Call to Order
II.RolI Call
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 #38,2006- Water Service Agreement Fire District North 40
b) Re-keying Aspen Country Inn
c) Resolution #39, 2006 - Wheeler Opera House Balcony Seats Refurbishment
d) Resolution #40, 2006 - Water Treatment Plant Sedimentation
e) Minutes - May 9, 2006
Vll.First Reading of Ordinances
VlIl.Public Hearings
a) Ordinance #20,2006 - 719 East Hopkins Subdivision
b) Ordinance #21,2006 - Long Rezoning 802 West Main
IX.Action Items
a) Resolution #41, 2006 - MOU - Aspen School District
X.Adjournment
Next Regular Meeting June 12.2006
COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMA TEL Y 7 P.M.
-vla..
MEMORANDUM
CC:
Mayor and Council Members
Phil Overeynder, Public Works Director-~ ~.
Steve Barwick, City Manager
TO:
FROM:
CC:
John Worcester, City Attorney
DATE:
May 16, 2006
RE:
Water Service for Aspen Fire Station at North Forty
SUMMARY: Council approval of the attached resolution would find that the new Aspen Fire
Station located at the North Forty is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan and that the
terms of a 1969 Water Main Extension Agreement apply to this project. This determination will
allow the Aspen Fire Protection District to proceed with plans to construct the new station.
BACKGROUND: In the late 1960's the City entered into an agreement to extend a water main to
the Airport Business Center. The. agreement is not clear on what area was anticipated to be served
by this extension. The City agreed to extend water service to the residential and educational
components of the North Forty project in the mid 1990's. At this time, the City specifically
excluded the area of the North Forty project designated for commercial development because 'there
was no specific plan for the type and intensity of commercial development. The Aspen Fire
Protection District has subsequently entered into a contract to purchase one of the two commercial
parcels and wishes to construct a new fire station to serve the growing area west of the Castle and
Maroon Creek bridges. Because the municipal code requires a water service agreement and because
the contract terms of the original 1969 Water Main Extension Agreement is unclear, the Fire Station
Project is being brought to Council make a determination on extension of water service.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council entered into a 1969 agreement for a water main
extension to the Aspen Airport Business Center (AABC). The exhibit that describes the area to be
served by this extension is missing from the agreement, which has led to uncertainty on the area to
be served. In 1996 council determined that the terms of the 1969 agreement applied to a portion of
the North Forty project, but specifically excluded the area zoned for commercial development from
this determination. Subsequent to this determination, the water system improvements for the North
Forty residential and educational components were constructed and accepted by the City.
DISCUSSION: Aside from specifying the water system improvements necessary to serve the
North Forty, the major issue for extension of water service is consistency of any proposed
development with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). Plans for the Fire Station were
reviewed by the Community Development Department. (See attached memo.) That review found
the proposed Fire Station to be consistent with the AACP.
1
Other issues relevant to provision of water service on this parcel pertain to the original 1969 Water
Main Extension Agreement, which differ in a number of aspects from current City polity with
respect to extension of water service. These are discussed in detail under "Current Issues."
CURRENT ISSUES: Resolution 93-5, which describes the City's policies on water service
extension requires an agreement to annex to the City before extending service. No such policy was
in place when the 1969 agreement for the AABC was adopted. The North Forty agreement did not
require annexation as a requirement for extending water service because it would have been
inconsistent with the terms of the original agreement.
Additionally, the 1969 agreement specifies that water connections, (within the service area that is in
question in the contract), may be made when tap fees are paid and no additional charges will be
imposed. For new water service extensions completed after 1993, the City required additional fees
for dedication of water rights and well development charges that were not imposed on the North
Forty residential and educational components. If Council concurs with staff's recommendation to
find this project consistent with the AACP and the terms of the 1969 agreement, the Aspen Fire
Station project would also be exempt from these newer standard conditions.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The 1969 Water Main Extension Agreement requires payment
of standard tap fees and water rates for all users served under the agreement. This would mean the
City would not be in a position to collect well development and in-lieu of water rights charges for
this project. These two fees, if applied to this project, would be in the range of $4,000 of lost
revenue to the Water Fund. However, since this project is a public benefit and the facility will pay
other applicable water fees, this loss does not represent a significant financial impact.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: The Fire Department has agreed to utilize low water
consumption landscaping on the portion of the property reserved for future development of Fire
Station facilities, covering approximately half of the one-acre site.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council find that the Fire Station proposal is
consistent with the 1969 Water Main Extension Agreement and direct staff to enter into a utility
connection permit under the terms of that agreement.
ALTERNATIVES: If council were to elect not to extend water service, it is possible that legal
action could be initiated to interpret the requirements of the 1969 Water Main Extension
Agreement.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to adopt Resolution # 3 ({
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ~~~o_.Q ~
2
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Phil Overynder, Director of Public Works
FROM:
Chris Bendon, Connnunity Development Director
-J4A
Joyce A. Allgaier, Deputy Director
THRU:
RE:
Finding of Consistency with the Aspen Area Connnunity Plan-Request for a Water Service
Agreement with the City of Aspen from the Aspen Fire Protection District
BACKGROUND: The Aspen Fire Protection District has requested the City of Aspen Water Department to
enter into a Water Service Agreement with them to serve their proposed station in the North Forty. The Water
Department has asked the Connnunity Development Department whether this proposal is consistent with the
Aspen Area Connnunity Plan, a prerequisite to enter into the agreement.
The Fire District is proposing to develop a 15,500 to 16,000 square foot fire sub-station on Lot 2, Block 2, of
the North Forty PUD/Subdivision. The sub-station would be located on the west side of the lot (toward
Highway 82), and would be two-stories in height.
The fire station recently gained voter approval for bonding. Land use approvals for the station development
were granted from the Pitkin County Board ofConnnissioners for the following land use actions:
. Scenic Review;
. GMQS Exemption for the development of an Essential Connnunity Facility, and a deed
restricted apartment for a station manager;
. Special Review for the development of the facility,
. Master Plan Approval;
. Rezoning of the property from AH2/PUD to the Public zone district.
As approved, the front of the station, or west side would be buried into a small bench on the property, with one
level being buried, and one level exposed, thus being perceived as a one-story building from the highway. The
upper level for this portion of the station would contain an entrance area, a meeting room, an office and a one-
bedroom, deed restricted apartment for a station manager. The lower level would contain storage, gathering
space and four small bunks for volunteer firefighters. There would also be three bays for emergency vehicles
located on the west side, as well as some parking spaces.
The rear of the station would contain three drive-through bays (going north to south) for emergency vehicles, a
training tower, and additional parking. On the east portion of the lot, a berm would be constructed with
associated landscaping to be left as open space for now.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The North Forty PUD/Subdivision is located within Pitkin County and is contained within the Urban Growth
Boundary of the AACP. The land is designated Mixed Use on the AACP Future Land Use Composite Map.
Staff finds that the fire station development is in conformance with the AACP. We find it is in keeping
with the intended uses of the AACP and conforming to the Mixed Use designation. It is appropriate to have a
publicly serving facility of this nature contained within an area of the Urban Growth Boundary to serve the
needs of this portion of the UGB, especially. This area is intended for development in the AACP as is seen in
the existing development of the North Forty residential neighborhood, Colorado Mountain College and the
Aspen Airport Business Center. Staff does not find any component of the specific development scenario that
would not be in keeping with the AACP in terms of design, open space, land use and compatibility with the
mixed use nature of the North Forty/Aspen Airport Business Center neighborhoods.
RESOLUTION # 3 ~
(Series of 2006)
A RESOLUTION FINDING THAT THE PROPOSAL OF THE ASPEN FIRE PROTECTION
DISTRICT TO CONSTRUCT A NEW FIRE STATION ON THE COMMERCIALLY
DESIGNATED AREA OF THE NORTH FORTY PROJECT IN PITKIN COUNTY IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE ASPEN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN AND IS TO BE PROVIDED
WITH WATER SERVICE UNDER THE TERMS OF A 1969 WATER MAIN EXTENSION
AGREEMENT FOR THE ASPEN AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER.
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council entered into a Contract for Contribution toward Water
Main Construction for the Aspen Airport Business Center in November, 1969; and,
WHEREAS, the above-referenced agreement was recorded without an exhibit which
delineates the area to be served under the agreement, which has led to a dispute over the terms of
the agreement; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed the plans for Aspen Fire Protection
District to construct a new fire station on an area ofthe North Forty Project located within said
disputed area; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed the plans for the proposed fire station and
finds that this proposal is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council wishes to extend water service to the proposed North
Forty Fire Station.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
That the terms of the 1969 Contract for Contribution toward Water Main Construction apply
to the North Forty Fire Station project and further direct staffto execute a utility connection permit
for said project with terms consistent with the 1969 agreement.
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
iLb.
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Ed Sadler, Asst. City Manager
DATE OF MEMO: May 9, 2006
DATE OF MEETING: May 22, 2006
RE: New Locks for Aspen Country Inn (and my last memo to the Aspen City Council)
SUMMARY: Attached is an estimate for new locks at Aspen Country Inn (ACI) in the
amount of$8,940.5l for the hardware only. Labor is separate and it is proposed that
Housing Staff install the locks to save money. In order to address security in Aspen's
only senior preference housing project and to also keep the rents as low as possible as
previously expressed by City Council, the request for funding for this item is from the
general Fund rather than utilizing rental revenues from ACI.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council has previously addressed both the security
and rental rates at ACI, and had expressed interest in increasing security and also a desire
to keep rental rates as low as possible. This project is a tax credit property and as such
revenues must pay for all costs associated with the project unless otherwise funded by the
City (owner of the property).
BACKGROUND: In January, 2005, if you will remember, there was an incident with a
tenant where he lit several fires and then committed suicide. The buildings were
evacuated in the middle of the night and residents were displaced for a short amount of
time. Residents were also inconvenienced while repairs were made to the property. A
survey of residents was conducted about security issues and only two issues received a
majority of votes: 1) doing background checks on new residents, and 2) a more secure
keying system. Security again became an issue during the most recent X games when
residents woke up to find several attendees sleeping in the lobby. This again elevated the
issue and housing Staff has worked closely with BEST ACCESS SYSTEMS to put
together a package that is both reasonable in cost and providing better security for the
residents. Best Access is the system that the majority of City Buildings are going to for
security reasons.
DISCUSSION: ACI is Aspen's only senior preference housing project. Under normal
circumstances, if ACI was to need any upgrades or repairs, like other projects it would be
expected to pay for these items out of rental income. On the other hand, Council has
previously taken steps to hold rental rates for seniors down at this facility. Council has
also expressed an interest in increasing security at this project in the interest of the well
being of many of Aspen's senior citizens. I.,ooking at all of these factors, we believe that
new locks will increase security, and that by requesting the funds for these locks from the
general fund and having housing staff install them that it will assist in keeping rental rates
as low as possible.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The direct cost to the &%'~fund will be $8,940.51.
Labor costs will be covered by the Housing Office budget.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: None known.
RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that City Council approve this appropriation
from the OIlRIlF!lI Fun<j..and.. that the Housing Office be approved to commence this work.
~U.r1r-s (IS?!)
ALTERNATIVES: Tliere are two alternatives: I) not install new locks, and 2) have the
locks installed, but have the ACI rental fund pay for the purchase ofthe locks.
~~
....~=$-r
. 1iI-" -
". .~ ACCESS SYSTEMS
Stanley Security Solutions, Inc.
Best Access Systems Division
Phone: Fax:
Security Solutions
Aspen/Pitkin county housing authority
530 E. Main
Aspen, CO 81611
USA
Attn: Tom McCabe
Phone: (970) 920-5069
Aspen Housing 41523
New !1est System 72T's
Fax: (970) 920-5580
Date: 5/4/2006
Quote Number: 41523
Item
Catalog No.
Main Building
72KCON15D-STK-626-Less Core
Description
WE ARE PLEASED TO QUOTE AS FOllOWS
Qty Unit
Unit Price
2
3
72T7K-STK-626
1 E74C4RP3-626--Right
Cylindrical Medium Duty .
Passage
Medium Duty Oeadbolt
Cylinder - Standard mortise
West Building
4 72T7K-STK-626 Medium Duty Deadbolt
5 72KCON15D.STK-626-Less Core Cylindrical Medium Duty -
Passage
6 82T7KL-STK-626-Less Core Tubular - One-way deadbolt
7 1 E72S2RP-626--Right Cylinder - Standard rim
8 5K7D15C-STK-626 Cylindrical Light Duty -
Storeroom
9 1 E74C4RP3-626--Right Cylinder - Standard mortise
20 each
$57.00
Amount
$1,140.00
$2.588.54
$189.48
---------
---------
$3,918.02
$0.00
$3,034.84
$1,140.00
$595.08
$63.16
$157.83
$31.58
---------
---------
$5.022.49
$0.00
PRICES INCLUDE
. Complete door by door survey with order
. Schematic planning
. 1 Control key with initial order
. 1 Operating key included with each combinated core
MATERIA $8,940.51
INSTALLATION $0.00
TOTA $8,940.51
58 each
6 each
$44.63
$31.58
WHEN ORDERING PLEASE SUPPLY SPECIFIC KEYING INFORMATION
Locking and latching hardware may be subject to ADA technical requirements concerning access for disabled persons. Conformance to such
requirements, as well as other building safety code regulations, is the responsibility of the end user.
These commodities, technology or software may be exported or re-exported from the United States only in accordance with U.S. export
administration regulations. Diversion contrary to U.S. law prohibited.
Prices quoted are effective for 90 days.
Terms: Net 30 Upon Approval
Quotes subject to correction of clerical error.
Note: tax not included
Page 1 of 1
-----------------
-----------------
Material Sub-Total
Installation Sub-Total
68 each $44.63
20 each $57.00
12 each $49.59
2 each $31.58
3 each $52.61
1 each
$31.58
-----------------
-----------------
Material Sub-Total
Installation Sub-Total
By: Jacob Hauzen
Title: Sales Agent
Signature
3[0,
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and Council
FROM:
Gram Slaton, Wheeler Executive Director
THRU:
ACM Randy Ready; Wheeler Board of Directors
DATE OF MEMO:
10 May 2006
MEETING DATE:
22 May 2006
RE:
CY Young Industries - Balcony Seating Refurbishment
SUMMARY: Approval of this contract would allow the Wheeler Opera House to schedule
total seating refurbishment for its balcony-area seating during August/September 2006,
possibly in sync with the orchestra-level seating replacement (if approved). Staff and Board
recommend approval of the request.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: At the January 24, 2006, City Council work session, a
memo was prepared for Council regarding a comprehensive media plan for the Wheeler Opera
House, including the recommendation for full seating replacement in the theatre. Council
approved the media plan in concept with the understanding that individual components would
be brought back at an appropriate time for contract approval.
BACKGROUND: Seating replacement has been the #1 area of concern for Wheeler user
groups, as repeatedly demonstrated in conversations regarding the 21" Century Master Plan.
This was further emphasized in the GenoveseVanderhoof & Associates organizational audit
presented to Council in June 2005.
DISCUSSION: It is the opinion of Wheeler staff and Board that replacing the Wheeler's
seating needs to be a priority item in upgrading the facility to be the kind of top-shelf cultural
asset the City of Aspen and its citizens want it to be. While Council will receive a separate
presentation regarding the orchestra seating replacement, it was determined after careful
review by staff and Board that the best approach to addressing these concerns for the balcony
area in the near term is to do a full refurbishing of its seating, rather than replacement. This is
due to several concerns, particularly the costs associated with possibly re-raking the balcony's
rows to accommodate better row spacing, and the possibility of downsizing or otherwise
repositioning the projection booth in order to accommodate more balcony seating. As the
likelihood of responsibly addressing these concerns is at least several years away, Wheeler
staff and Board feel that it is imperative to refurbish the balcony's seating in 2006, particularly
if orchestra seating is replaced (and therefore accornplish a uniform overall look).
~ 52, BJO
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Total cost of the project is Bfltr..e'u $38,866 aud $33,688.
[Contracts attached.]
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: None.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff and Board recommend approval of the request.
ALTERNATIVES: CY Young Industries is the only seating refurbisher that the Wheeler has
been able to find that does onsite work. Other refurbishers require the theatre to remove,
crate, and ship its seats for refurbishment. No reasonable alternatives have been discovered or
can be recommended, as this is a unique situation with a sole provider (approved as such by
the Aspen City Attorney).
PROPOSED MOTION: Council moves to approve ~iJ.Ml~ ft!to contract with CY
Young Industries, Inc., for the purposes of refurbishment of balcony seating for the Wheeler
Opera House in 2006.
CITY MANAGER. CO>.jMENTS*~~ ~ ~ YE
~ ~~5 u -r w (~
l?:er. '
RESOLUTION # 39
(Series of 2006)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, AND CY YOUNG INDUSTRIES, INC., SETTING
FORTH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REGARDING BALCONY
SEATING REFURBISHMENT 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 CY Young Industries, Inc., a copy of
which contract is annexed hereto and made a part thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that contract
between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and CY Young Industries, Inc. regarding
refurbishment of balcony seating for the Wheeler Opera House, 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
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This Agreement made and entered on the date hereinafter stated, between the CITY
OF ASPEN, Colorado, ("City") and CY Young Industries, Inc., ("Professional").
For and in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree
as follows:
Scope of Work. Professional shall perform in a competent and professional
manner the Scope of Work as set forth at Exhibit" A" attached hereto and by this reference
incorporated herein.
Completion. Professional shall commence work immediately upon receipt
of a written Notice to Proceed from the City and complete all phases of the Scope of Work
as expeditiously as is consistent with professional skill and care and the orderly progress of
the Work in a timely manner. The parties anticipate that all work pursuant to this agreement
shall be completed no later than September 16, 2006. Upon request of the City, Professional
shall submit, for the City's approval, a schedule for the performance of Professional's
services which shall be adjusted as required as the project proceeds, and which shall include
allowances for periods of time required by the City's project engineer for review and
approval of submissions and for approvals of authorities having jurisdiction over the project.
This schedule, when approved by the City, shall not, except for reasonable cause, be
exceeded by the Professional.
Payment. In consideration of the work performed, City shall pay
Professional on a time and expense basis for all work performed. The hourly rates for work
performed by Professional shall not exceed those hourly rates set forth at Exhibit "B"
appended hereto. Except as otherwise mutually agreed to by the parties the payments made
to Professional shall not initially exceed $32,830.00 . Professional shall submit, in timely
fashion, invoices for work performed. The City shall review such invoices and, if they are
considered incorrect or untimely, the City shall review the matter with Professional within
ten days from receipt of the Professional's bill.
Non-Assignability. Both parties recognize that this contract is one for
personal services and cannot be transferred, assigned, or sublet by either party without prior
written consent of the other. Sub-Contracting, if authorized, shall not relieve the
Professional of any of the responsibilities or obligations under this agreement. Professional
shall be and remain solely responsible to the City for the acts, errors, omissions or neglect of
any subcontractors officers, agents and employees, each of whom shall, for this purpose be
deemed to be an agent or employee of the Professional to the extent of the subcontract. The
City shall not be obligated to payor be liable for payment of any sums due which may be
due to any sub-contractor.
Termination. The Professional or the City may terminate this Agreement,
without specifYing the reason therefore, by giving notice, in writing, addressed to the other
party, specifYing the effective date of the termination. No fees shall be eamed after the
effective date of the termination. Upon any termination, all finished or unfinished
documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs, reports or other
material prepared by the Professional pursuant to this Agreement shall become the property
of the City. Notwithstanding the above, Professional shall not be relieved of any liability to
the City for damages sustained by the City by virtue of any breach of this Agreement by the
Professional, and the City may withhold any payments to the Professional for the purposes
of set -off until such time as the exact amount of damages due the City from the Professional
may be determined.
Covenant Against Contingent Fees. The Professional warrants that s/he has
not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working
for the Professional, to solicit or secure this contract, that s/he has not paid or agreed to pay
any company or person, other than a bona fide employee, any fee, commission, percentage,
brokerage fee, gifts or any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award
or making of this contract.
Independent Contractor Status. It is expressly acknowledged and understood
by the parties that nothing contained in this agreement shall result in, or be construed as
establishing an employment relationship. Professional shall be, and shall perform as, an
independent Contractor who agrees to use his or her best efforts to provide the said services
on behalf of the City. No agent, employee, or servant of Professional shall be, or shall be
deemed to be, the employee, agent or servant of the City. City is interested only in the
results obtained under this contract. The manner and means of conducting the work are
under the sole control of Professional. None of the benefits provided by City to its
employees including, but not limited to, workers' compensation insurance and
unemployment insurance, are available from City to the employees, agents or servants of
Professional. Professional shall be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts
of Professional's agents, employees, servants and subcontractors during the performance of
this contract. Professional shall indemnifY City against all liability and loss in connection
with, and shall assume full responsibility for payment of all federal, state and local taxes or
contributions imposed or required under unemployment insurance, social security and
income tax law, with respect to Professional and/or Professional's employees engaged in the
performance of the services agreed to herein.
Indemnification. Professional agrees to indemnifY and hold hannless the
City, its officers, employees, insurers, and self-insurance pool, from and against all liability,
claims, and demands, on account of injury, loss, or damage, including without limitation
claims arising from bodily injury, personal injury, sickness, disease, death, property loss or
damage, or any other loss of any kind whatsoever, which arise out of or are in any manner
connected with this contract, if such injury, loss, or damage is caused in whole or in part by,
or is claimed to be caused in whole or in part by, the act, omission, error, professional error,
mistake, negligence, or other fault of the Professional, any subcontractor of the Professional,
or any officer, employee, representative, or agent of the Professional or of any subcontractor
of the Professional, or which arises out of any workmen's compensation claim of any
employee of the Professional or of any employee of any subcontractor of the Professional.
The Professional agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, and to provide defense for and
defend against, any such liability, claims or demands at the sole expense of the Professional,
or at the option of the City, agrees to pay the City or reimburse the City for the defense costs
incurred by the City in connection with, any such liability, claims, or demands. If it is
determined by the final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction that such injury, loss,
or damage was caused in whole or in part by the act, omission, or other fault of the City, its
officers, or its employees, the City shall reimburse the Professional for the portion of the
judgment attributable to such act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or
employees.
Professional's Insurance. (a) Professional agrees to procure and maintain, at
its own expense, a policy or policies of insurance sufficient to insure against all liability,
claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8
above. Such insurance shall be in addition to any other insurance requirements imposed by
this contract or by law. The Professional shall not be relieved of any liability, claims,
demands, or other obligations assumed pursuant to Section 8 above by reason of its failure
to procure or maintain insurance, or by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance
in sufficient amounts, duration, or types.
(b) Professional shall procure and maintain, and shall cause any subcontractor of the
Professional to procure and maintain, the minimum insurance coverages listed below. Such
coverages shall be procured and maintained with forms and insurance acceptable to the City.
All coverages shall be continuously maintained to cover all liability, claims, demands, and
other obligations assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. In the case of
any claims-made policy, the necessary retroactive dates and extended reporting periods shall
be procured to maintain such continuous coverage.
(i) Workers' Compensation insurance to cover obligations imposed by
applicable laws for any employee engaged in the performance of work under this contract,
and Employers' Liability insurance with minimum limits of FIVE HUNDRED
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) for each accident, FIVE HUNDRED THOU-
SAND 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 Workers' Compensation requirements of this
paragraph.
(ii) Commercial General Liability insurance with minimum combined
single limits of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and
ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) aggregate. The policy shall be
applicable to all premises and operations. The policy shall include coverage for
bodily injury, broad form property damage (including completed operations),
personal injury (including coverage for contractual and employee acts), blanket
contractual, independent contractors, products, and completed operations. The policy
shall contain a severability of interests provision.
(iii) Comprehensive Automobile Liability insurance with mmlmum
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 Professional's owned,
hired and non-owned vehicles assigned to or used in performance of the Scope of
Work. The policy shall contain a severability of interests provision. If the
Professional has no owned automobiles, the requirements of this Section shall be
met by each employee of the Professional providing services to the City under this
contract.
(iv) Professional Liability insurance with the minimum limits of ONE
MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) each claim and ONE MILLION DOLLARS
($1,000,000) aggregate.
(c) The policy or policies required above shall be endorsed to include the City and
the City's officers and employees as additional insureds. Every policy required above shall
be primary insurance, and any insurance carried by the City, its officers or employees, or
carried by or provided through any insurance pool of the City, shall be excess and not
contributory insurance to that provided by Professional. No additional insured endorsement
to the policy required above shall contain any exclusion for bodily injury or property
damage arising from completed operations. The Professional shall be solely responsible for
any deductible losses under any policy required above.
(d) The certificate of insurance provided by the City shall be completed by the
Professional's insurance agent as evidence that policies providing the required coverages,
conditions, and minimum limits are in full force and effect, and shall be reviewed and
approved by the City prior to commencement of the contract. No other form of certificate
shall be used. The certificate shall identify this contract and shall provide that the coverages
afforded under the policies shall not be canceled, terminated or materially changed until at
least thirty (30) days prior written notice has been given to the City.
(e) Failure on the part of the Professional to procure or maintain policies providing
the required coverages, conditions, and minimum limits shall constitute a material breach of
contract upon which City may immediately terminate this contract, or at its discretion City
may procure or renew any such policy or any extended reporting period thereto and may pay
any and all premiums in connection therewith, and all monies so paid by City shall be repaid
by Professional to City upon demand, or City may offset the cost of the premiums against
monies due to Professional from City.
(f) City reserves the right to request and receive a certified copy of any policy and
any endorsement thereto.
(g) The parties hereto understand and agree that City is relying on, and does not
waive or intend to waive by any provision of this contract, the monetary limitations
(presently $150,000.00 per person and $600,000 per occurrence) or any other rights,
immunities, and protections provided by the Colorado Govemmentallmmunity Act, Section
24-10-101 et seq., C.R.S., as from time to time amended, or otherwise available to City, its
officers, or its employees.
City's Insurance. The parties hereto understand that the City is a member of
the Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency (CIRSA) and as such participates in
the CIRSA Property/Casualty Pool. Copies of the CIRSA policies and manual are kept at
the City of Aspen Finance Department and are available to Professional for inspection
during normal business hours. City makes no representations whatsoever with respect to
specific coverages offered by CIRSA. City shall provide Professional reasonable notice of
any changes in its membership or participation in CIRSA.
Completeness of Agreement. It is expressly agreed that this agreement
contains the entire undertaking of the parties relevant to the subject matter thereof and there
are no verbal or written representations, agreements, warranties or promises pertaining to the
project matter thereof not expressly incorporated in this writing.
.
Notice. Any written notices as called for herein may be hand delivered to
the respective persons and/or addresses listed below or mailed by certified mail return
receipt requested, to:
City:
City Manager
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Professional:
Nancy Young
CY Young Industries, Inc.
16201 West I 10th Street
Lenexa KS 66219
Non-Discrimination. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex,
marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin,
ancestry, handicap, or religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform
services under this contract. Professional agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's
municipal code, Section 13-98, pertaining to non-discrimination in employment.
Waiver. The waiver by the City of any term, covenant, or condition hereof
shall not operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term. No
term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement can be waived except by the written consent
of the City, and forbearance or indulgence by the City in any regard whatsoever shall not
constitute a waiver of any term, covenant, or condition to be performed by Professional to
which the same may apply and, until complete performance by Professional of said term,
covenant or condition, the CitY shall be entitled to invoke any remedy available to it under
this Agreement or by law despite any such forbearance or indulgence.
Execution of Agreement by City. This agreement shall be binding upon all
parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, this agreement shall not be
binding upon the City unless duly executed by the Mayor of the City of Aspen (or a duly
authorized official in his absence) following a Motion or Resolution of the Council of the
City of Aspen authorizing the Mayor (or a duly authorized official in his absence) to execute
the same.
General Terms.
(a) It is agreed that neither this agreement nor any of its terms,
provisions, conditions, representations or covenants can be modified, changed, terminated or
amended, waived, superseded or extended except by appropriate written instrument fully
executed by the parties.
(b) If any of the provisions of this agreement shall be held invalid, illegal
or unenforceable it shall not affect or impair the validity, legality or enforceability of any
other provision.
(c) The parties acknowledge and understand that there are no conditions
or limitations to this understanding except those as contained herein at the time of the
execution hereof and that after execution no alteration, change or modification shall be made
except upon a writing signed by the parties.
(d) This agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of
Colorado as from time to time in effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed, or caused to be executed by
their duly authorized officials, this Agreement in three copies each of which shall be deemed
an original on the date hereinafter written.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGEl
'*
ATTESTED BY:
By:
Title:
Date:
WITNESSED BY:
By:
Title:
Date:
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
PROFESSIONAL:
-----,...--. ,-.-----~~~~
EXHffiIT "A" to ProCessional Services Agreement
Scope of Work
. Provide upholstery material, to he dedded upon by Purc.h'lser
. Cut, sew, and reupholster to original specifications
. Supply new cold molded seat foam, I" cut poly back Foam, and spring deck
barrier, new bushings and bumpers
. Wipe down wood outer backs with wood oil to replenish existing finish
. Provide a renovated chair for approval prior to the commencement of work on all
chairs designated for renovation
. Ensure that all fabric and foam meet California 177 fire code requirements
. Provide seat and back size breakdown
. Perform work while the facility sleeps, if required
. All shipping, handling, and packaging
__."H._______...~_._.,_._....~_.__
EXHIBIT "B" to ProfessiOllal Services Agreement
Rate Schedule
Maximum of $245 per chair for up to 134 chairs, not to exceed $32,830
~d.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and Council
FROM:
Mark O'Meara, Assistant Water Director
/-,
Phil Overeynder, Public Works Director.:/>~
Steve Barwick, City Manager
THROUGH:
CC:
DATE:
May 16, 2006
RE:
East Water Treatment Plant Sedimentation Basin Upgrade-
Contract Award to Gould Construction
SUMMARY: The sedimentation basin is an integral part of the treatment process for the
East Water Treatment Plant. The original design failed to incorporate the mechanical
flocculation that is now mandated by water treatment regulations for pretreatment of
water. This contract with Gould Construction will incorporate installation of flocculation
equipment, the control system to run the equipment, and add a cool air ventilation system
to the Administration Building. Due to the additional equipment for the ventilation
system, as well as increased costs for waiting a year and necessary efficiency upgrades,
this project will need additional funding through a supplemental appropriation. Total
cost ofthe project will be $462,044.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In 2002, Council approved the replacement of the
two (two) Clarification Units for the West Water Treatment Plant. Due to icing and
warranty issues these units were not accepted until 2004. The latest work on the
Sedimentation Basin was in 1997 when the Administration Building was built. The
building was constructed above the Basin with support members for the building drilled
down to the floor elevation outside the basin. Previous to 1997, the structural metal
failed inside the basin during the East Water Treatment Plant renovation that occurred in
1993 and the metal was replaced in 1994.
DISCUSSION: Sedimentation Basin-- The design and function ofthe Basin is to
combine the dirt particles in the water so they increase their density and settle out. This
part of the treatment process is called pretreatment due to the initial sediment removal
from the water. Normal operation of these basins is to have a polymer addition, then the
water is sent to a sedimentation basin or clarification basin with mechanical flocculators.
The paddles on the flocculators move in a circular motion in the water causing uniform
application ofthe polymer in the water. This causes particle collisions to occur, which
aides in increasing particle size for settling by gravity.
1
The original design for the Sedimentation Basin did not incorporate the mechanical part
of the process. Instead, the water went to a quiescent basin in which some of the particles
would combine and settle out. This is no longer an acceptable treatment practice for
compliance with State Regulations or Federal regulations that now require mechanical
flocculation in treatment processes.
Ventilation System-- The Sedimentation Basin sits below the Administration offices and
during the summer months the south side of the building becomes uncomfortably hot. A
ventilation system utilizing the cool air above the 480,000 gallons of water in the Basin
has been added to this project to allow cool shaded air to be circulated into the
Administration building for cooling.
CURRENT ISSUES: In 2004, the engineers estimated this project at $266,350 after the
initial design work was completed. In 2005, this project did not go to bid due to a
regional shortage of concrete and materials. The project was bid in 2006 with the low bid
going to Gould Construction for $462,044.
The initial project design was downsized for a lower plant capacity due to the extensive
work necessary to keep the plant's hydraulic capacity at 12.0 million gallons per day
(MGD). The capacity used for this upgrade was 8.0 million gallons per day. In the event
that demand increases in the future, a final phase can be implemented to accommodate
these needs and remain in compliance with the regulations. The combined capacity of
the East and West Treatment Plants is 16.0 MGD; whereas, peak usage on the plants is
currently in the range of 8.0 MGD.
Existing operational problems will be addressed allowing for emergency egress, and
complete drain down ofthe Basin making sludge removal more efficient. An air-cooling
system will be added for the Administration offices to add comfort to staff that suffer
from south exposure sunshine in the summer.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The current engineer's estimate is $320,000 for the
flocculation system. Our original budget estimate for this work was $266,350 in 2004.
The difference of approximately $54,000 of this increased cost can be attributed to
addressing the operational problems and general inflation in cost since the original
estimate 2004. The original pricing did not include the modifications for emergency
egress or the ventilation system that figured in at $7,500 and $25,000 respectively from
the engineer's estimate. The engineer's total estimated price is $352,500.
Cost for this project was bid at $462,044. The Water Department has an existing budget
of $265,000 for the project; therefore, additional funds will be necessary for its
completion. Due to the nature of the construction industry and inflation, the bid price for
the flocculators came in at $433,350, the ventilation system at $26,540, and the
emergency access at $2,154, for a total project cost of $462,044.
2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: These additions will increase the amount of
energy the treatment facility will consume. There is potential for a decrease in the
chemical addition due to higher efficiency in the Basin removing dirt particles. The air
handling system will become more efficient running from an automated system thus will
turn on and off thermostatically.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends awarding the contract to Gould
Construction. Staff further recommends a supplemental appropriation of $195,694.
These actions will continue to keep us within the drinking water regulations and improve
facility processes.
ALTERNATIVES: Electing not to approve this project will result in non-compliance of
the East Water Treatment Plant with newly applicable State and Federal regulations.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to adopt Resolution # Ifl) and direct the City
Manager to approve Resolution # ;...j 0 .
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
~~
3
RESOLUTION # 1../0
(Series of2006)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, AND GOULD CONSTRUCTION, INC., SETTING FORTH THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS REGARDING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EAST PLANT SEDIMENTATION
BASIN AND VENTILATION FOR THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 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 Gould Construction, Inc., a copy of which contract is annexed hereto and
made a part thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section I
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that contract between the
City of Aspen, Colorado, and Gould Construction, Inc., setting forth the terms and conditions
regarding improvements to the East Water Treatment Plant Sedimentation Basin and ventilation
for the Administration Building, 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
EXHIBIT "A"
CITY OF ASPEN
GENERAL CONDITIONS
FOR
SERVICE AGREEMENTS
These General Conditions have been prepared by the City of Aspen to be incorporated by
reference into Service Agreements entered into between service providers ("Contractor") and the
City of Aspen ("City"). The provisions herein may be interrelated with standard provisions of the
Service Agreement customarily used by the City of Aspen to contract for services. A change in one
document may necessitate a change in the other.
Any amendments to the following terms and conditions mutually agreed to by the
Contractor and the City shall be specifically noted on the Service Agreement.
I. Completion. Contractor shall commence the provision of services as described in the
Service Agreement in a timely manner. Upon request of the City, Contractor shall submit, for the
City's approval, a schedule for the performance of Contractor's services which shall be adjusted as
required. This schedule, when approved by the City, shall not, except for reasonable cause, be
altered by the Contractor.
2. Payment. In consideration of the services provided, City shall pay Contractor the
amounts set forth in the Service Agreement. Contractor shall submit, in timely fashion, invoices for
services performed. The City shall review such invoices and, if they are considered incorrect or
untimely, the City shall review the matter with Contractor within ten days from receipt of the
Contractor's billing. Contractor's invoice shall be for the period ending the last day of each month
and submitted to the City no later than the 5th day of each month.
3. Non-Assignability. Both parties recognize that this contract is one for personal services
and cannot be transferred, assigned, or sublet by either party without prior written consent of the
other. Sub-Contracting, if authorized, shall not relieve the Contractor of any of the responsibilities
or obligations under this agreement. Contractor shall be and remain solely responsible to the City
for the acts, errors, omissions or neglect of any subcontractor's officers, agents and employees, each
of whom shall, for this purpose be deemed to be an agent or employee of the Contractor to the
extent of the subcontract. The City shall not be obligated to payor be liable for payment of any
sums due which may be due to any subcontractor unless agreed to in writing beforehand by the
City.
4. Termination. The Contractor or the City may terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30)
days notice, without specifying the reason therefor, by giving notice, in writing, addressed to the
other party, specifying the effective date of the termination.
The City shall have the right to terminate the Service Agreement upon three (3) days notice if
Contractor fails to comply with the terms and conditions set forth in Sections 1,3,5,6,7, 10, 13,
14, 16, 19 or 21. For breach of any other term and condition of the Service Agreement, City may
terminate the Service Agreement with ten (10) days prior notice to cure and failure by Contractor to
so cure.
No compensation shall be eamed after the effective date of the termination. Notwithstanding the
above, Contractor shall not be relieved of any liability to the City for damages sustained by the City
by virtue of any breach of this Agreement by the Contractor, and the City may withhold any
payments to the Contractor for the purposes of set-off until such time as the exact amount of
damages due the City from the Contractor may be determined.
5. Covenant Against Contingent Fees. The Contractor warrants that s/he has not been
employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working for the
Contractor, to solicit or secure this contract, that s/he has not paid or agreed to pay any company
or person, other than a bona fide employee, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts
or any other consideration contingent upon. or resulting from the award or making of this
contract.
6. Equipment. Materials and Supplies. Unless otherwise agreed to by the City, Contractor
shall acquire, provide, maintain, and repair at Contractor's expense such equipment, materials,
supplies, etc., as necessary for the proper conduct of the services to be provided in accordance with
the Service Agreement.
7. Contract Monitoring. Contractor agrees to allow City to reasonably monitor the services
to be provided in accordance with the Service Agreement.
8. Independent Contractor Status. It is expressly acknowledged and understood by the
parties that nothing contained in this agreement shall result in, or be construed as establishing an
employment relationship. Contractor shall be, and shall perform as, an independent contractor who
agrees to use his or her best efforts to provide the said services on behalf of the City. No agent,
employee, or servant of Contractor shall be, or shall be deemed to be, the employee, agent or
servant of the City. City is interested only in the results obtained under this contract. The manner
and means of conducting the work are under the sole control of Contractor. None of the benefits
provided by City to its employees including, but not limited to, workers' compensation insurance
and unemployment insurance, are available from City to the employees, agents or servants of
Contractor. Contractor shall be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of
Contractor's agents, employees, servants and subcontractors during the performance of this contract.
Contractor shall indemnify City against all liability and loss in connection with, and shall assume
full responsibility for payment of all federal, state and local taxes or contributions imposed or
required under unemployment insurance, social security and income tax law, with respect to
Contractor and/or Contractor's employees engaged in the performance of the services agreed to
herein.
9. Indemnification. Contractor agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers,
employees, insurers, and self-insurance pool, from and against all liability, claims, and demands, on
account of injury, loss, or damage, including without limitation claims arising from bodily injury,
personal injury, sickness, disease, death, property loss or damage, or any other loss of any kind
whatsoever, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with this Service Agreement, if such
injury, loss, or damage is caused in whole or in part by, or is claimed to be caused in whole or in
part by, the act, omission, error, professional error, mistake, negligence, or other fault of the
Contractor, any subcontractor of the Contractor, or any officer, employee, representative, or agent
of the Contractor or of any subcontractor of the Contractor, or which arises out of any workmen's
compensation claim of any employee of the Contractor or of any employee of any subcontractor of
the Contractor. The Contractor agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, and to provide defense for
and defend against, any such liability, claims or demands at the sole expense of the Contractor, or at
the option of the City, agrees to pay the City or reimburse the City for the defense costs incurred by
the City in connection with, any such liability, claims, or demands. The Contractor also agrees to
bear all other costs and expenses related thereto, including court costs and attorney fees, whether or
not any such liability, claims, or demands alleged are groundless, false, or fraudulent. If it is
determined by the final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction that such injury, loss, or
damage was caused in whole or in part by the act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or
its employees, the City shall reimburse the Contractor for the portion of the judgment attributable to
such act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or employees.
10. Contractor's Insurance. (a) 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 Section 9 above. Such insurance shall
3
be in addition to any other insurance requirements imposed by the Service Agreement or by law.
The Contractor shall not be relieved of any liability, claims, demands, or other obligations assumed
pursuant to Section 9 above by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance, or by reason of
its failure to procure or maintain insurance in sufficient amounts, duration, or types.
(b) Contractor shall procure and maintain Workmen's Compensation insurance to cover
obligations imposed by applicable laws for any employee engaged in the performance of work
under the Service Agreement, and Employers' Liability insurance with minimum limits of FIVE
HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) for each accident, FIVE HUNDRED THOU-
SAND 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.
(c) If the Service Agreement requires any insurance in addition to that referenced above at
subsections (a) and (b), or a particular type of coverage, Contractor shall procure and maintain, and
shall cause any subcontractor of the Contractor to procure and maintain, the minimum insurance
coverages referenced in the Service Agreement. All insurance coverages shall be procured and
maintained with forms and insurance acceptable to the City. All coverages shall be continuously
maintained to cover all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by the Contractor
pursuant to Section 9 above. In the case of any claims-made policy, the necessary retroactive dates
and extended reporting periods shall be procured to maintain such continuous coverage.
(d) The policy or policies required above shall be endorsed to include the City and the
City's officers and employees as additional insureds. Every policy required above shall be primary
insurance, and any insurance carried by the City, its officers or employees, or carried by or provided
through any insurance pool of the City, shall be excess and not contributory insurance to that
provided by Contractor. No additional insured endorsement to the policies 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.
(e) The certificate of insurance provided by the City shall be completed by the Contractor's
insurance agent as evidence that policies providing the required coverages, conditions, and
minimum limits are in full force and effect, and shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to
commencement of the contract. No other form of certificate shall be used. The certificate shall
identify the Service Agreement and shall provide that the coverages afforded under the policies
shall not be canceled, terminated or materially changed until at least thirty (30) days prior written
notice has been given to the City.
(f) Failure on the part of the Contractor to procure or maintain policies providing the
required coverages, conditions, and minimum limits shall constitute a material breach of contract
upon which City may terminate the Service Agreement as provided by Section 4 above, or at its
discretion City may procure or renew any such policy or any extended reporting period thereto and
may pay any and all premiums in connection therewith, and all monies so paid by City shall be
repaid by Contractor to City upon demand, or City may offset the cost of the premiums against
monies due to Contractor from City.
4
(g) City reserves the right to request and receive a certified copy of any policy and any
endorsement thereto.
(h) The parties hereto understand and agree that City is relying on, and does not waive or
intend to waive by any provision of this contract, the monetary limitations (presently $150,000.00
per person and $600,000 per occurrence) or any other rights, immunities, and protection provided
by the Colorado Govemmental Immunity Act, Section 24-10-101 et seq., C.R.S., as from time to
time amended, or otherwise available to City, its officers, or its employees.
11. City's Insurance. The parties hereto understand that the City is a member of the
Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency (CIRSA) and as such participates in the CIRSA
Property/Casualty Pool. Copies of the CIRSA policies and manual are kept at the City of Aspen
Finance Department and are available to Contractor for inspection during normal business hours.
City makes no representations whatsoever with respect to specific coverages offered by CIRSA.
City shall provide Contractor reasonable notice of any changes in its membership or participation in
CIRSA.
12. Waiver of Presumption. The Service 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 Service Agreement.
13. Certification Regarding Debarment. Suspension. Ineligibility. and VoluntarY Exclusion.
Contractor certifies, by acceptance of the Service 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 this statement, an explanation was attached to
the Bid and was determined by the City to be satisfactory to the City.
14. Warranties Against Contingent Fees. Gratuities. Kickbacks and Conflicts of Interest.
Contractor 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 Contractor for the purpose of securing business.
Contractor agrees not to give any employee or former employee of the City a gratuity or any
offer of employment in connection with any decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation,
preparation of any 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 therefor.
Contractor represents that no official, officer, employee or representative of the City during
the term of the Service Agreement has or one (1) year thereafter shall have any interest, direct or
5
indirect, in the Service Agreement or the proceeds thereof, except those that may have been
disclosed at the time City Council approved the execution of the Service Agreement.
In addition to other remedies it may have for breach of the prohibitions against contingent
fees, gratuities, kickbacks and conflict of interest, the City shall have the right to :
I. Cancel the Service Agreement without any liability by the City;
2. Debar or suspend the offending parties from being a Contractor, vendor, or
sub-contractor under City contracts;
3. Deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the
value of anything transferred or received by the Contractor; and
4. Recover such value from the offending parties.
15. Termination for Default or for Convenience ofCitv. The services contemplated by the
Service 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.
16. Fund A vailabilitv. 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 the Service Agreement contemplates the City utilizing state or federal funds to meet its
obligations herein, the Service Agreement shall be contingent upon the availability of those funds
for payment pursuant to the terms of the Service Agreement.
17. City Council Approval. If the Service Agreement requires the City to pay an amount of
money in excess of $25,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid until it has been approved by the City
Council of the City of Aspen.
18. Notices. Any written notices as called for herein may be hand delivered or mailed by
certified mail, return receipt requested to the respective person or address listed for the Contractor
in the Service Agreement.
19. Non-Discrimination; penaltv. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex,
marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry,
handicap, or religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform services under this
contract. Contractor agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, Section 13-98,
pertaining to non-discrimination in employment.
20. City of Aspen Procurement Code. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained
herein or in the Contract Documents, the Service Agreement shall be subject to the City of Aspen
Procurement Code, Chapter 3 of the Aspen Municipal Code.
21. Compliance With All Laws and Regulations. Contractor shall give all notices and
comply with all laws, regulations, and ordinances applicable to the provision of the services
contemplated by the Service Agreement. Contractor shall obtain all necessary business licenses and
permits, and shall pay all requisite occupation taxes levied by the City of Aspen upon persons
engaged in business within the City limits.
6
22. Waiver. The waiver by the City of any term, covenant, or condition hereof shall not
operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term. No term, covenant, or
condition of the Service Agreement can be waived except by the written consent of the City, and
forbearance or indulgence by the City in any regard whatsoever shall not constitute a waiver of any
term, covenant, or condition to be performed by Contractor to which the same may apply and, until
complete performance by Contractor of said term, covenant or condition, the City shall be entitled
to invoke any remedy available to it under the Service Agreement or by law despite any such
forbearance or indulgence.
23. Execution of Service Agreement bv City. The Service Agreement shall be binding upon
all parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, the Service Agreement shall not be
binding upon the City unless duly executed by the City Manager of the City of Aspen (or a duly
authorized official in his or her absence).
24. General Terms.
(a) It is agreed that neither the Service Agreement nor any of its terms,
provlSlOns, conditions, representations or covenants can be modified, changed, terminated or
amended, waived, superseded or extended except by appropriate written instrument fully executed
by the parties.
(b) If any of the provisions of the Service Agreement shall be held invalid,
illegal or unenforceable it shall not affect or impair the validity, legality or enforceability of any
other provision.
(c) The parties acknowledge and understand that there are no conditions or
limitations to this understanding except those as contained herein at the time of the execution
hereof and that after execution no alteration, change or modification shall be made except upon a
writing signed by the parties.
(d) The Service Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of
Colorado as from time to time in effect.
7
SERVICE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made this _ day of Mav
the City of Aspen ("City") and the Contractor identified hereinbelow.
, 2006, by and between
WITNESSETH, that whereas the City wishes to purchase the services described
hereinbelow and Contractor wishes to provide said services to the City as specified herein.
NOW THEREFORE, III consideration of the following covenants, the parties agree as
follows:
CONTRACTOR
NAME: Gould Construction, Inc.
ADDRESS: 6874 Highway 82, PO Box 130, GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO, 81602
CONTACT PERSON: PETER WARE VICE PRESIDENT
PBONE NUMBERS
HCI<E, -91'o ~ - ~ z::rq
WORK, 970-945-7291 EXTfl7 ~7Cj - 5760
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER OR FEDERAL 1.0. NUMBER: 742034624
DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE
Service to be provided is outlined in the SEDIMENTATION BASIN FLOCCULATION IMPROVEMENTS
AT THE CASTLE CREEK WTP
City of Aspen project #006-024, McLaughlin Rincon project number 3-3-26.
DURATION OF AGREEMENT AND SCHEDULE OF SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED
Completion of this project shall be performed by November 1, 2006.
DESCRIPTION OF AMOUNT, METHOD OR MANNER OF COMPENSATION
Payment will be received upon completion of the proj ect. Total cost of the
work is not to exceed $462,044, compensation for the work will be provided
through a City of Aspen purchase order.
Please invoice usinq City's Purchase Order Number:
8
.__._-_.-.~,-'~"'~_.
AMENDMENTS TO GENERAL CONDITIONS
Allmate.tials brought on site by the contractor and subc:ontrcOctors shall be remain the property of the
COntractor and $ub contractor until accepted by the City of Aspen; Materials left unused shall not become
City property unless it is agreed in writing that the City of Aspen accepts the left over
Material.
The parties acknowledge and understand that this Service Agreement is, except as specifically
amended hereinabove, subject to all of the terms and conditions set forth in the City of Aspen
General Conditions for Service Agreements, a copy of which is appended hereto as Appendix "A"
and by this reference made a part hereof.
Having agreed to the above and foregoing, the parties hereto do affix their signatures.
City of Aspen:
By:
By:
Title:
Vtc& ~&7tWNT
Gtcx>co ~~L.C17~
Serv~981.doc
9
Mayor Helen Klanderud and Aspen City Council
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ~\.AI)
_ lA-A .
Joyce Allga1ef, beputy Director of Community Development
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
lIIIa.
MEMORANDUM
RE:
719 E. Hopkins Multi-Family Subdivision
Second Reading of Ordinance No.$ Series of2006-Public Hearing
MEETING DATE: May 22,2006
ApPLICANT /OWNER:
719 East Hopkins Avenue, LLC. John
R. Louderback and Jacqueline M.
Louderback.
REPRESENTATIVE:
Stan Clauson, AICP - Stan Clauson
Associates.
LOCATION:
719 E. Hopkins Avenue.
Lots E and F, Block 104, City and
Townsite of Aspen.
ZONING:
Mixed-Use (MU) Zone District.
EXISTING LAND USE:
Six (6) Unit Multi-Family Residential
Building - all free-market.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Five (5) Unit Multi-Family Residential
Building - two (2) free-market and three
(3) affordable housing.
PHOTO: Existing structure.
SUMMARY:
The Applicant requests subdivision and
associated land use approvals to raze the existing
six (6) 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.
P&Z ACTION AND RECOMMENDATION:
P&Z approved the associated land use reviews
and recommended approval, with conditions, of
the subdivision request 4-0.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
A roval, with conditions.
LAND USE REOUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURE:
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals to redevelop the site:
. Subdivision for the construction of multiple dwelling units pursuant to Land Use Code
Section 26.480, Subdivision. City Council is final review authority after considering a
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Public Hearing.
. A certificate of compliance from the Multi-family Replacement Program pursuant Land
Use Code Section 26.530, Resident Multi-Family Replacement Program. Review is by
the Community Development Director in conjunction with a building permit review.
. A growth management review for the development of affordable housing pursuant to
Land Use Code Section 26.470.040(C)(7), Affordable Housing. The Planning and Zoning
Commission is the final review authority. P&Z granted approval with conditions.
. Special review approval to increase the allowable FAR for free-market residential from
.75:1 FAR to 1:1 FAR pursuant to 26.71O.180.C.10 - Floor Area Ratio for Mixed-Use
Zone District. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority. P&Z
granted approval with conditions.
. Condominiumization is a subdivision exemption that requires approval of the Community
Development Director pursuant to the Land Use Code Section 26.480.090,
Condominiumization. Review is by the Community Development Director upon
substantial completion of construction. However, the proposed Ordinance acknowledges
this approval for a future date.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The Applicant has requested approval to raze the eXlstmg six (6) unit multi-family
building located at 719 East Hopkins Avenue and replace it with a new five (5) unit
building containing two (2) free-market and three (3) deed-restricted residential units.
The affordable housing is proposed as two (2) studio units and one (I) two-bedroom unit.
The property contains approximately 6,000 square feet of lot area and is located in the
MU Zone District.
h
d
d
fill
T e eXlstmg an . propose structures are as 0 ows:
Existing MU Zone Requirement Proposed Structure
Structure
Units 6 No Reauirement/limit 5
Bedrooms 7 Minimum on.5 4 bedrooms for affordable
bedrooms as affordable housing.
housing I
1 The Multi-Family Housing Replacemenl Program requires Ihe replacement of 50% of the original units, bedrooms
and net livable square footage as affordable housing.
2
Gross square feet 4,597 s.f. No Requirement/limit 8,575 s.f.
Net livable 3,178 s.f. Minimum of 1,589 s.f. as 1,659 s.f. as affordable
square feet affordable housing! housing.
Floor Area - 3,919 s.f. 12,000 s.f. 6,258 s.f.
Total
Floor Area - FM 3,919 4,500, which can be 6,000
Res. increased to 6,000 through
Special Review
Floor Area - AH o s.f. No Requirement/limit 258 s.f:'
Res.
Parking o spaces 1 space per unit. Deficient 2 spaces for each free-
parking may be market unit. 0 spaces for
maintained. each affordable housing
unit.
Minimum Lot 6,000 s.f. 6,000 s.f. 6,000 s.f.
Size
Minimum Lot 60 Feet 60 Feet 60 Feet
Width
Front Yard 11.8 Feet 10 feet, which may be 1 0 feet
Setback (North) reduced to 5 feet through
special review.
West Side Yard 5 Feet 5 Feet 5 Feet
Setback
East Side Yard 7.5 Feet 5 Feet 5 Feet
Setback
Minimum Rear 11 Feet 5 Feet 5 Feet
Yard Setback
Maximum Unknown. 32 Feet (parcel density:::: 32 Feet.
Height (Staff one unit per 1,500 s.f. of
estimates lot area).
variation
between 15
and 20 feet.)
STAFF COMMENTS:
Subdivision:
The Applicant is requesting subdivision approval, including condominiumization,
because the development of multi-family dwelling units requires approval of subdivision
pursuant to the definition of subdivision in the City's land use code.
2 258 square feet is the FAR measurement. The affordable housing component of the project represents 1,659 net
livable square feet and a gross area of 2,252 square feet.
3
In reviewing the subdivision portion of the application, Staff believes that the proposal
meets the applicable subdivision review standards established in Land Use Code Section
26.480.050, Review Standards. Staff feels that the proposal is consistent with the infill
development goals established in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff further
believes that the site subject to the proposal is suitable for development and contains no
known geologic hazards and currently contains residential uses.
Staff has included, as a condition of approval, that the applicant work with the staff to
provide a detached sidewalk and tree planting area with trees along the Hopkins Avenue
frontage. This is a requirement of subdivision and staff is recommending that a design be
filed with the plat. The grade of the adjoining property will not make this an easy task
and staff has worded the condition to allow some flexibility (condition #2).
Subdivision approval may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by City
Council based on the criteria found in Exhibit A. Staff believes the criteria have been
met by this application and staff is recommending approval. P&Z recommended
approval of the subdivision request.
Multi-Family Replacement Program:
When demolishing existing multi-family residential dwelling units, if the units were ever
lived in by local, working residents, replacement units are subject to the terms of the
multi-family replacement program provisions as are set forth in Land Use Code Section
26.530, Resident Multi-family Replacement Program. In this situation the Applicant is
not proposing to replace as many units as are being demolished, which means that 50% of
the number of units, 50% of the number of bedrooms, and 50% of the square footage
being demolished must be replaced in the new development as on-site affordable housing
pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.530.040(B), Housing Replacement Requirements:
Fifty Percent Replacement.
The Applicant is proposing to construct three (3) affordable housing units, consisting of a
total of four (4) bedrooms, in order to satisfy a portion of the Multi-Family Housing
Replacement Program requirements as outlined above. With the proposed 1,659 square
feet of net livable affordable housing area being proposed, the proposal exceeds the
minimum affordable housing requirements of the code and staff finds the proposal in
compliance.
Growth Management Review: Affordable Housing
The Applicant requires growth management review for the development of affordable
housing. Staff believes that the proposal satisfies the review standards for granting
growth management approval to construct affordable housing units. Staff finds that there
continues to be a need for the development of additional affordable units in that the
overall development ceiling for affordable housing that is established in the growth
management section of the land use code has not yet been reached.
The Housing Authority Board was disappointed in the sub grade nature of the units and
recommended against their approval. The Housing Board also provided a recommended
4
set of conditions to be placed on the approval. P&Z granted approval of the affordable
housing units with these additional conditions as recommended by Housing.
Development of below-grade affordable housing was recently prohibited in the Land Use
Code. This application, however, was submitted well before these recent changes and the
affordable housing may be developed below grade. These below-grade units do meet the
applicable requirements. Considering the Housing referral comments, staff did and
continues to recommend the applicant restudy the design of these units to increase the
amount of above-grade space. This would significantly improve the quality of the
affordable housing and the quality of the overall project.
REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS:
The City Engineer, Fire Marshall, Water Department, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District, Housing Department, and the Parks Department have all reviewed the proposed
application and their comments have been included as conditions of approval when
appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance No.~, Series of 2006, upon second reading.
At second reading, staff recommends that City Council discuss the sub-grade nature of
the affordable housing units. The applicable code permits this type of development, but
staff believes the project would be significantly improved if this portion of the
development were amended.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
RECOMMENDED MOTION <ALL MOTIONS ARE MADE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
"I move to approve Ordinance No.~, Series of 2006, upon second reading."
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A - Review Criteria and Staff Findings
EXHIBIT B - Application
EXHIBIT C - Referral Comments
EXHIBIT D - P &Z minutes
5
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 project satisfies the requirements of the resident multi-family replacement program and
provides deed restricted affordable housing within the City of Aspen's municipal boundaries.
Staff does not believe that this application conflicts with the goals and objectives of the AACP.
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
Staff believes that the proposed multi-family use is consistent with the land uses in the
immediate vicinity which primarily include multi-family buildings. Staff finds this criterion to be
met.
c. 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.
d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of
this Title.
Staff Finding
The proposed development is in compliance with the MU 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.
6
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. 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 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 is providing to affordable housing units as required by the Replacement
Housing Program and meets the affordable housing review standards of the growth management
section of the land use code. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth
at Chapter 26.630.
Staff Finding
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.
7
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 16.470. 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. 44-1001, ~
1)
Staff Finding
The proposed free-market residential units are exempt from growth management because they
are replacement units. The Applicant has also concurrently applied for growth management
review to construct the proposed affordable housing units. Please see Staff's responses to the
review standards for a growth management review for the development of affordable housing.
8
ORDINANCE NO. f)!J
(SERIES OF 2006)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING
SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR 719 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE MUTI-FAMIL Y
BUILDING LOCATED ON LOTS E AND F, BLOCK 104, CITY AND TOWNSITE
OF ASPEN PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel ID: 2737-182-11-003
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from 719 East Hopkins Avenue, LLC; John R. Louderback, Member; represented by Stan
Clauson Associates, requesting approval of Subdivision, Growth Management Review
for the development of affordable housing, Special Review for an increase to the
allowable free-market residential Floor Area, and condominiumization to construct a
multi-family building consisting of two free-market residential units and three deed-
restricted affordable housing units on the property located at 719 East Hopkins Avenue,
Lot E and F, Block 104, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, the subject property 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 duly noticed public hearing on March 7,2006, the Planning
and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. \3, Series of 2006, by a four to zero (4-0)
vote, approving with conditions, a Growth Management Review for the development of
affordable housing, Special review for an increase to the allowable free-market
residential Floor Area, and recommended City Council approve with conditions
subdivision and condominiumization to construct a multi-family building consisting of two
(2) free-market residential units and three (3) deed-restricted affordable housing units
located on the subject property; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the application
according to the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has
reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the
Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and considered public comment at a public
hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds the application meeting or exceeding all
applicable standards of the land use code of the City of Aspen Municipal Code and that the
approval of the proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area
Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
Ordinance No. :l1J
Series of 2006
Page 1 of6
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, the City Council hereby approves with conditions, Subdivision review in
order to construct a multi-family building consisting of two (2) free-market residential
units and three (3) deed-restricted affordable housing units on the property located at 719
East Hopkins Avenue, Lot E and F, Block 104, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin
County, Colorado.
Section 2: Plat and A!!: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. The Subdivision
plat shall include a design for a detached sidewalk and minimum tree planting area,
including trees, to be installed along the Hopkins A venue frontage that is acceptable to the
City Engineer and the Community Development Director. The tree planting area shall be at
least 5 feet wide or as otherwise dictated by the grading and improvements of adjacent
properties. The final Condominium Plat may be approved and signed by the Community
Development Director upon substantial completion of construction.
Section 3: BuUdin!!: Moratorium
The provisions of Ordinance 19, Series of 2006, shall apply to this approval. The
Community Development Department shall be prohibited from issuing a building permit for
this project until such time as the provisions of Ordinance 19 are no longer in effect.
Section 4: BuUdin!!: 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. 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,
construction phasing, and a construction traffic and parking plan for review and
approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent. The
Construction Management Plan shall conform to the standards and requirements for
construction management plans in effect at the time of building permit submission.
Ordinance No.2/)
Series of 2006
Page 2 of6
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 Community Development Engineer.
h. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall meet the building code requirements.
Section 5: Dimensional Reauirements
The redevelopment of the building as presented complies with the dimensional
requirements of the Mixed-Use (MU) Zone District. The structure shall meet all of the
required Residential Design Standards applicable to a multi-family building. Compliance
with these requirements will be verified by the City of Aspen Zoning Officer at the time
of building permit review.
Section 6: Trash/Utility Service Area
The trash enclosure, located to the rear of the property to the side property line and
accessed from the alley, shall not use a dumpster style trash container. The trash
containers shall be wildlife proof.
Section 7: Sidewalks. Curb. and Gutter
The sidewalk adjacent to the property shall be installed according to the City Engineer's
requirements and ADA requirements prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy on
any of the units within the development. The Applicant shall repair any curb and gutter
adjacent to the property that is deemed to be in disrepair by the City Engineer before a
certificate of occupancy is issued for any of the units within the development.
Section 8: Affordable Housinl!
The affordable housing units shall be in compliance with the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority's Employee Housing Guidelines. The Applicant shall record a deed
restriction on each of the affordable housing units at the time of recordation of the
condominium plat and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of occupancy for the building,
classifying the units as Category 2 units. Included in the governing documents shall be
language reflecting the potential for the units to become ownership 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.
Ordinance No. J".o
Series of 2006
Page 3 of6
Section 9: Fire Mitil!.ation
The Applicant shall install a fire sprinkler system and alarm system that meets the
requirements of the Fire Marshal.
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, patio drains) to
ACSD lines shall be allowed. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. 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.
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 redevelopment. If a new supplemental transformer is
required to be installed on the subject 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. If after the subdivision plat is recorded and in
the event an easement is required, then the Community Development Director shall
review and approve the easement on the condominium plat.
Section 13: Exterior Lil!.htinl!.
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, SchoolZands dedication, the Applicant 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 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: Vested Ril!.hts
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.
Ordinance No. 2JJ
Series of 2006
Page 4 of6
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: Lots E and F, Block 104,
City and Townsite of Aspen.
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.
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 developer pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the Community Development Department, the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission, or the Aspen City Council, are hereby incorporated in
such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth
herein, unless amended by other specific conditions.
Section 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
Ordinance NO~
Series of 2006
Page 5 of6
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 Ordinance is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall
be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions thereof.
Section 19:
That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy of this
Ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 20:
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 22 day of May, 2006, at 5:00 in the
City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which
hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation
within the City of Aspen.
Section 21:
This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final adoption.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 8th day of May, 2006.
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
Approved as to form:
John Worcester, City Attorney
Ordinance No. J,.,(!)
Series of 2006
Page 60f6
MEMORANDUM
fi~tlrt ~
11'1 ~~
{i~I~
To:
Development Review Committee
From: Alex Evonitz, Com. Dev. Engineer
Date: January 4, 2006
Re: 719 East Hopkins Street
Redevelopment Request
Attendees; Alex Evonitz, Com. Dev. Eng.; Randy Mosby, Engineering; Chris
Bendon, Director ot Com Dev; Denis Murray, Building Dept.; Ed
VanWalraven, Aspen Fire; Cindy Christensen, Housing; Brian Flynn, Parks;
Dylan Johns, Zone 4 Architects; Stan Clauson, SCA, Applicant.
The Development Review Committee has reviewed the application at
their February 15, 2006 meeting and has compiled the following
comments:
Building Department - Denis Murray;
. Common path of egress travel is suspect and needs to be
discussed.
. Allot the normal permit requirements will be met betore the City
accepts an application.
. Energy compliance requirements are to be submitted tor review.
. Unit below grade need to access Hopkins not directly to the alley.
. ICB is required it greater then 4-units and must meet type B-2003 ICC
ANSI Accessibility requirements.
. Sound proofing requirements.
. Access to the public-way needs to be shown on the NE corner ot
the project after the existing tree is removed.
Fire Protection District - Ed VanWalraven;
. The project must be sprinkled and have an alarm system for over
5000 s.t..
. A separate service is recommended for fire protection and sized so
not pumping is required.
Engineering Department - Randy Mosby;
. Water and Sanitary service details need to be determined when
more engineering details are available.
Page 2 of 3
February 15, 2006
719 East Hopkins Street
. Sidewalk work needs to be coordinated with the existing walks in
place. If any damage occurs full length sidewalk sections need to
be replaced.
Housing Office - Cindy Christensen; A'y,p ~ wofe ,~ tW:,1";3 ~
. The AHU in the basement will be a problem. The normal light and
ventilation requirements are required.
. No below grade units are recommended.
. Ownership Units are preferred. If they are rentals and the Owners do
not comply for one year, they will convert to Ownership Units.
. Parking space should be parallel to the street. The Benedict
Commons spaces can be used for a negotiated price.
Zoning Officer - Attendance not requested;
Environmental Health - Attendance not requested;
Parking - Attendance not requested;
Parks - Bryan Flynn;
. Tree Protection: A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at
the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining
on site and their represented drip lines. A formal plan indicatinq the
location of the tree protection will be reauired for the bldq permit
set. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction
backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within
the drip line of any tree remaining on site. This fence must be
inspected by the city forester or his/her designee (920-5120) before
any construction activities are to commence
. Excavation: an excavation under the drip line permit will need to be
approved along with the tree permit. Specific excavation
techniques will be required for the excavation along the East side of
the house in order to address proper protection of the spruce tree
located on the neighbors lot. Vertical excavation will be required
and over digging is prohibited in this zone. This note must be
represented on the buildinq permit set.
. The applicant will need to contract with a tree service, and have
them on call in order to address all roots greater than 2 inches in
diameter. Root trenchinq will be required around all trees with
excavation next to and/or under the drip line. This can be
accomplished by an experienced tree service company or trained
member of the contractor's team.
Page 3 of 3
February 15, 2006
719 East Hopkins street
. An approved tree permit will be required before any demolition or
significant property changes take place. Parks is requiring that the
tree permit be approved prior to submission of the building permit.
Please contact the City Forester at 920-5120. Mitiqation for
removals will be paid cash in lieu, on site or off site on the
development proposed on Hopkins.
. Planting in the Public Right of way will be subject to Landscaping in
the ROW requirements. Irrigation, sod, proper drainage, etc...
. Drywelllocations should be considered outside of any drip lines in
areas that minimize root cutting.
. Questions:
. Does the existing structure have a basement level?
. The pave stone walkway are on grade?
Water/Electric - No attendance;
Community Development Engineer - Alex Evonitz;
. A current soils report and improvement survey is required as part of
the building permits application.
. All standard permit requirements must be met before issuance of
building permits.
. Excavation Stabilization looks like it will be required. No penetration
into the City ROW (road or alley) is allowed.
. Utility riser boxes existing and new that are serving this structure are
required to be located on the owner's property and not in the City
ROW.
. Please coordinate the professionals working with the team to make
the permit submittal a complete and consistent package.
Aspen Consolidated Waste District - No attendance;
~.6t'l-c
.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Housing Board, Community Development Department
FROM:
Cindy Christensen, Operations Manager - Housing
THRU:
Tom McCabe, Executive Director
DATE:
March I, 2006
RE:
719 EAST HOPKINS REDEVELOPMENT
Parcel ID No. 2737-182-11-003
ISSUE: The applicant is proposing to convert a multi-family building into two townhouses with
three deed-restricted units.
BACKGROUND.' The redevelopment of this property is subject to the Resident Multi-Family
Replacement Program as there is history that this has housed working residents. Section
26.530.040.B states that the demolition of such units requires the construction of replacement
employee housing consisting of no less than 50 percent of the number of units, 50 percent of the
number of bedrooms and 50 percent of the net residential area demolished. The applicant has
satisfied this Code section.
Currently, there exists on the site approximately 3,178 square feet in residential net livable floor
area consisting of six residential units with a total of seven bedrooms. Mitigation would require, at
a minimum, three units, three and one-half bedrooms and 1,589 square feet of net livable floor area.
The employee housing units being proposed are to be located in the lower level of one of the
structures and would be in the form of two studios and one two-bedroom unit comprising a total of
1,659 square feet. The square footage exceeds the requirement of 1,589 square feet. The units are
to consist of a 400 square foot studio, a 408 square foot studio, and an 851 square foot two-
bedroom unit. These meet the minimum square footages for Category. 2 units as stated in the
Guidelines.
No on-site parking is being proposed for the employee housing units. The applicant is requesting a
waiver for three parking spaces through a cash-in-lieu payment of $90,000. The Housing Board
would highly recommend that a waiver not be granted and that on-site parking be provided for the
employee housing units.
Ownership units would be preferred, but the applicant is proposing the deed-restricted units as
rental units.
RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Board reviewed the application at their regular meeting on
March 1,2006. Although under the current land use regulations the three employee-housing units
being proposed satisfy the mitigation requirement and adhere to the Land Use Code, the Housing
Board deemed the three uuits unacceptable as they were all below grade and no on-site parking is
being provided for the employee housing units as a waiver is being requested. The Housing staff
has been given direction to approach the Community Development Department to reconsider the
need to address the location of the employee housing units as what is being proposed is less
desirable; i.e., subterranean, locations.
If the project is approved as proposed, however, Staff would reconunend the following conditions
be incorporated into the approval:
1. At least one parking space should be allocated and reserved for one of the three employee-
housing units.
2. The three employee housing units shall be classified as Category 2 units.
3. If all of the units are approved as proposed, all of the units must meet or exceed the
requirements for natural light as established in the International Building Code.
4. The units will be deed-restricted as rental units but will allow for the units to become
ownership units at such time the owners would request this change and/or at such time the
APCHA deems the units out of compliance over a period of more than one year. At such
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.
5. Rental of the units shall be open to all qualified employees of Aspen and Pitkin County and
shall not be tied to employment for the free-market component.
6. The governing documents shall be drafted to reflect the potential for the rental units to
become ownership units. Since the project is a mixed free-marketldeed-restricted project,
the assessments shall be based on the value of the free-market unit compared to the deed-
restricted unit. This language shall be required in the approval and in the Covenants
associated with the project. No changes to this restriction would be allowed without
APCHA's approval.
7. The deed-restriction shall be recorded at the time of recordation of the Condo Plat and prior
to Certificate of Occupancy.
8. APCHA or the applicant shall structure a deed restriction for the units such that I II 0"1 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.
2
~l<<~h P
Aspen Plannini!: & Zonini!: Commission Meetini!: - Minutes - March 07. 2006
motion would be clear that action was taken on certain of the elernents and
continuing the other elernents to another date certain. Horn stated that is what he
requests. Bendon said he did not know if the development of Shady Lane within
the existing easement even needs to come back to P&Z; it sounds like it does not
have dramatic changes from what it is. Horn said it will affect the site plan for this
property; they want to return Shady Lane.
Bendon suggested at the applicant's fence variance request and the relocation of
Shady Lane be continued to a date certain with the understanding that in the
interirn staff might decide that the Shady Lane relocation to be within the easement
does not necessarily require a P&Z action. Marion said that he did not want these
to becorne negotiations; so if there is a motion, let's vote on it. Tygre said that
they would either vote on motion #2 or make another motion and not re-discuss the
rnerits of the application. Bendon suggested voting on the motion on the table and
there could be a second motion to continue the fence variance.
MOTION restated #2: Brandon Marion moved to approve Resolution #12,
Series 2006, approving with conditions a Stream Margin Review, Special Review
to establish the rivers Top of Slope and variance for the building orientation, not
allowing the fence variance, allow the window height variance from the residential
design standards and striking the relocation of Shady Lane (section 8) to construct
a new single-family residence at 17 Shady Lane. Ruth Kruger seconded. Roll call
vote: Johns, yes; Rowland, yes; Skadron, yes; Wilson, yes; Kruger, yes; Marion,
yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 7-0.
MOTION #3: Brandon Marion moved to continue the public hearing to April
18, 2006 so that the applicant may resubmit an amendment to this application
regarding the fence height variance including the design submission and if needed
the reestablishment of the original easement on Shady Lane without moving Shady
Lane. Steve Skadron seconded. Roll call vote: Rowland, yes; Johns, yes; Wilson,
yes; Skadron, yes; Marion, yes; Kruger, yes; Tygre, no. APPROVED 6-1.
PUBLIC HEARING:
719 EAST HOPKINS - MULTI-FAMILY
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for 719 East Hopkins. Proof of notice
was provided. Dylan Johns rescused himself.
Chris Bendon explained the public hearing was for 719 East Hopkins; it was a
6,000 square foot site in the mixed use that was currently developed with 6 multi-
family residential units. The proposal was to redevelop with 5 units, 2 being free
market and 3 affordable housing units to comply with the multi-family housing
11
Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!!: - Minutes - March 07.2006
replacernent program. Bendon said the property is not on the historic registry; it
was until 2 or so years ago and was found by HPC and City Council not to have
any historic merit and was taken off of the historic list.
Bendon stated the application calls for subdivision approval, which is a
recommendation from P&Z to City Council; GroW1h Management Approval for
the Affordable Housing Units, which is final at P&Z; Special Review for increased
in floor area, which is allowed in this zone district and final at P&Z; Special
Review for Parking, a decrease in parking to zero parking spaces on site. The
Special Review for parking will be discussed ifit is really needed to be part ofthe
review proeess.
Bendon said there was a discussion around the sub-grade nature of the affordable
housing units; there was no prohibition in the land use code for the affordable
housing units being sub-grade but part of the criteria was the negative
recommendation from the Housing Board.
Stan Clauson stated that he represented the applicant John Lauderback. Clauson
said the existing property consists of a single family wood frame residence and a
later construction consisting of 5 units to the rear. Clauson noted the parking was
in the right-of-way as was typical of many residences in Aspen where parking
evolved. Clauson said the existing 6 units contain 7 bedrooms and 3,178 square
feet of net livable on the 6,000 square foot lot. Clauson said under the multi-
family replacement it requires the replacement of 3 units, 3.5 bedroorns, 1,589
square feet of net livable replacement housing fully deed-restricted but they are
providing 3 units with 4 bedrooms and 1,659 square feet consisting of2 studio
units and I two-bedroom unit. Clauson said that they were exceeding the
requirement.
Clauson said that in the mixed use district the over all floor area was 2 to 1; the
free-market rnaxirnum was I to I with special review. Clauson said that not even
in the housing guidelines were there any statements prohibiting or recommending
that units not be sub-grade. At pre-application they were told there was no
prohibition against sub-grade units. Clauson said that this was not a mitigation for
some kind of housing but the most burdensome employee mitigation in the land
use code with the 50% replacement requirement. Clauson said on the 6,000 square
foot lot what evolved was 2 townhouses at grade and the 3 separate units; in every
respect this project meets the code; there were no requests for variances from the
residential design standards; no request for height variances; no setback variance
requests. Clauson said they respectfully withdraw their request for special review
for the parking variance because the code clearly says in Section 26.515.0IOB
12
Aspen Plannim! & Zonin!! Commission Meedn!! - Minutes - March 07. 2006
"existing deficit of parking may be maintained if the property was redeveloped".
Clauson stated the new project will provide 4 on-site parking spaces dedicated to
the free market unit and there will be 3 on street new parking spaces with a
restoration of the curb and an addition of a sidewalk across the front.
Public comments:
Mike Hexner introduced his wife Karen Justice and stated they lived directly
across the street; he stated concern for the parking on the street because it was
busy. Hexner said the look ofthe project looks great and hoped the height would
not increase; they were working with Jo1m Lauderbeck on a non-reflective roof.
Brandon Marion asked ifthere were any code clarifications as to livability of the
employee units and if so he would like that brought forward.
MOTION: Brandon Marion moved to continue the public hearing on 719 East
Hopkins to April 18'h; seconded by Steve Skadron. All infavor, APPROVED.
Meeting adjourned at 7:00 pm.
'~
"'~~/
'Jackie Lo ian, Deputy City Clerk
13
Aspen Plannine: & Zonine: Commission - Minutes - April 18. 2006
along the property line adjacent to Red Mountain Road at 17 Shady Lane and
allowingfor the relocation of Shady Lane as proposed in Exhibit C. John Rowland
seconded. Roll call vote: Speck, yes; Johns, yes; Rowland, yes; Kruger, yes;
Tygre, no. APPROVED 4-1.
Discussion of motion: Johns asked ifthere was a specific representation as far
as this variance applying to this plan. Lindt replied it was Exhibit C. Kruger liked
the new plan because of the way the fence was broken up; Johns agreed that It was
a nice design. Tygre said that in order to approve the variances to residential
design standards the cornmission's fmding must find the criteria as being rnet.
Tygre said that she did not see a site specific reason for the 42 inch fence to be
rnore than 42 inches in certain locations. Tygre said that she did not feel that
the criteria had been met for the fence even though it was an improved plan. Johns
said the site specific was being at the base of Red Mountain with vehicles and
snowplowing was why that fence would be more than 42 inches in some spots.
+
CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING (3/7/6):
719 EAST HOPKINS MULTI-FAMILY
Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing for 719 East Hopkins. Chris
Bendon stated that the below grade units were allowed in the code because this
application was submitted in accordance with the old code.
Stan Clauson stated that this was a multifamily replacement ordinance project,
which means 50% of the units and square footage of an existing free market
building (rented to locals over the years) needed to be replaced. Clauson said this
fully complies with the multi-family replacement ordinance; there were 3 deed
restricted units and more than the number of bedrooms by a half of a bedroom.
There were 3 parking spaces on the street and 4 parking spaces in garages to serve
the free market units.
Clauson said that the code did not require above grade affordable housing when
this application was submitted and these units provide housing. Clauson said this
was a constrained site at 6,000 square feet and trying to put free market and
affordable housing units was difficult without meeting the requirements of the new
code. Clauson said that the key issue or stumbling block seemed to be the
affordable housing units below grade.
John Rowland inquired about egress concerns from the DRC. Clauson responded
that there were more than 4 units therefore the International Residential Code
requires accessibility, so there were some design challenges. Clauson said the
window wells provided the necessary light and egress.
7
Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission - Minutes - April 18. 2006
Jasmine Tygre asked if the additional FAR was for the affordable housing on site.
Bendon replied that was correct the free market floor area would be limited to
4500 square feet if the affordable units were not located on site.
Ruth Kruger asked where the entrances were to the affordable housing units. Hans
Berglund showed the plans where the stairs and elevator come down from the
vestibule to the 3 apartments. Berglund said per the International Code there were
window wells for egress. Kruger said the affordable units were in the back of the
lower level.
No public comments.
Brian Speck asked if one of the conditions was the detached sidewalk and trees.
Bendon responded that Section 6 included the ADA requirements for the sidewalk
and Section 2 spoke to the tree plantings.
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #13, Series 2006,
approving with conditions, a growth management review for affordable housing,
special review for floor area, and recommending City Council approve with
conditions, the subdivision application for 719 East Hopkins Avenue multi-family
development. John Rowland seconded. Roll call vote: Speck, yes; Kruger, yes;
Rowland, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 4-0.
i CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (4/4/6):
1001 UTE AVENUE SUBDIVlSION/CONSOLIDA TED PUD
Ruth Kruger opened the continued public hearing on 1001 Ute Avenue. Chris
Bendon stated the public notice was provided at the last hearing. James Lindt said
the application was to construct 2 single family residences at 100 I Ute; Planning &
Zoning shall be the final review authority on the 8040 Greenline Review and
recommending body to City Council on the Subdivision, PUD and Growth
Managernent requests. The parcel was vacant except for the tennis courts leased to
the Gant; the parcel was located to the west of Ajax. Park. The parcel was about 7
acres; the 4 acres to the south were located in the county, the 3 acres on the lower
portion were in the City zoned R-15. Lindt said the proposal was to subdivide the
property into 2 single family houses of about 5,040 square feet each (lot 1 and lot
2) and subdivide 4 open space parcels (one open space parcel would take care of
the access, a single driveway to serve both lots); the second open space parcel
would contain the tennis courts, which will be moved to the west by about 30 feet
and still leased to the Gant; the third open space parcel was a common open space
area and the fourth open space parcel was currently located in the County and
would be deeded to the City for open space with a conservation easement. Lindt
8
!w. I..
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Mayor Klanderud and City Council (\ I.. A
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director \.:)JVVV)
802 West Main Street Rezoning, Long Family Investments LLLP- Public
Hearing 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2006
DATE:
May 22, 2006
ApPLICANT /OWNER:
Long Family Investments, LLLP represented by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc.
LOCATION: 802 West Main Street
CURRENT ZONING: R-15 (Moderate- Density Residential) Zone District
PROPOSED ZONING: MU (Mixed Use) Zone District
SUMMARY:
The Applicant is requesting to rezone the subject property from the Moderate Density
Residential (R-15) Zone District to the Mixed-Use (MU) Zone District. No specific
development plan is proposed at this time. A future mixed use development is anticipated
and would need to be in conformance with the Land Use Code. The site is comprised of
three (3) Aspen Townsite lots, totaling 9,000 square feet in size.
CURRENT LAND USE:
The subject property is currently developed with a single family dwelling of approximately
1,747 sq. ft.
STAFF & P&Z RECOMMENDATION:
Approval. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this proposal by a three
(3) to one (1) vote.
SUMMARY:
The Applicant is requesting to rezone the property located on the northeast corner of the
intersection of 7th Street and West Main Street. The property is located within the Aspen
Townsite, is currently zoned R-15, and is being proposed for designation as MU, Mixed Use.
The Applicant is not proposing any development at this time but would be subject to the
provisions of the underlying zoning that would set the standards for development on this
9,000 square foot lot. The existing single-family residence would remain until such time as a
development scenario was proposed.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Staff supports this rezoning. The corner of Main and 7th Streets is, and will likely always be,
a heavily trafficked intersection. It also represents a "gateway" to the historic Townsite of
Aspen. Development on this corner should reflect the importance of this corner, in termS of
both uses and massing - there should be some prominence to the development in this
location. Staff believes the development of a single-family residence or a duplex does not
reinforce the importance of this corner. This is not to say that a building should "loom" over
the intersection. But an appropriately-scaled development, similar to the 7th and Main
affordable housing project, would be more-appropriate massing for this corner.
A duplex would likely be trying to "shield" itself from its context. Staff believes this
indicates incongruence between the use and the context - land uses should reflect the context
in which they exist. In this manner, uses feel like they naturally fit. For example, a single-
family home naturally "fits" within the heart of the West End neighborhood. In any event,
the context of this corner especially on the ground floor, is a tough environment. But, staff
believes that a mixed-use building, with a commercial use on the ground floor is better able
to fit within this context.
Also, staff understands the desire for more locally-serving commercial uses. This is a stated
goal of the AACP and has continued to be a concern. Staff believes this is an appropriate
area to increase the amount of commercially zoned land - it is on Main Street, it is within an
area that is already commercial, and it is accessible (visually, pedestrian, auto). The expected
mix of development (from staffs perspective) is professional offices, affordable housing, and
free-market housing. Staff believes this is a more-appropriate mix of uses for this parcel than
a duplex or single-family residence.
Zoning Context: (Also, see Exhibit C for full zoning texts.) Several of the properties to the
south of the subject property, across Main Street toward the mountain, are zoned R-15; the
same zone district in which the subject property is currently located. Properties to the north
and west of the subject site are zoned R/MF PUD and include such multi-family complexes
as the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing and The Villas.
Diagonally across the 7th and Main Street intersection is the 7th & Main Affordable Housing.
To the east, starting with the Christian Science Building and Hickory House, the MU Zone
District begins and continues on both sides of Main Street into the commercial core to the
Jerome Hotel. This same area is overlaid with the Main Street Historic District designation.
There are a variety of land uses at the greater intersection of 7th and Main, in the vicinity of
the subjectproperty. There are numerous multi-family residences, some duplexes and single-
family residences and then the mixture of office/commercial/restaurant uses along Main
Street.
2
The followinl!. options are available for a 9,000 s.f. lot in the R-15 Zone District.
. The existing single-family house may be redeveloped as a single-family residence
with an allowable floor area of 4,080 sq. ft. and a height of 25 feet.
The followinl!. options are available for a 9.000 s.f.lot in the Mixed Use Zone District.
. The existing single-family house may be redeveloped as a single family with an FAR
of 3,660 sq. ft. and for a duplex it would be 4,080 sq. ft. and a height of 25 feet.
. A mixed use building could be built with an allowable commercial FAR of6,750 sq.
ft. (.75:1) and a free-market residential FAR of 6,750 sq. ft. (.75:1). Both of these
uses could be increased to I: I floor area ratio with special review. The affordable
housing component unlimited as long as the cumulative development on the entire
site does not exceed 2:1. Very recent code amendments require that the total
amount of free-market residential floor area on the parcel shall be no greater
than the total floor area attributed to the commercially-oriented uses on the
parcel. This would not allow for a lop-sided development, heavily weighted toward a
free-market component.
. Mixed use development on the property would be allowed to go up to 32 feet in
height and residential structures may rise to 25 feet. The Bavarian Inn residential
units immediately adjacent to and west of the Long property were limited to only 20
feet with flat roofs to maintain compatibility with the neighborhood. The Bavarian
Inn structure, itself, located to the north across the alley from the property is limited
to between 25 and 32 feet in height, depending on density.
. New mixed use development would be subject to the Growth Management Quota
System requirements. For a new mixed use development the review authority falls
with the P&Z and requires positive findings regarding the existence of growth
management allotments, consistency with AACP, 60% employee generation
mitigation and minimal impact on infrastructure.
. Any new mixed use development would need to meet the Commercial Design
Guidelines, Off-street parking, and dimensional requirements and be subject to
driveway access approvals and other infrastructure (sidewalk, curb, street tree, etc.)
requirements.
. If the property were rezoned to MU with the Main Street Historic District Overlay
then the floor area ratio would drop from 2:1 for mixed use to 1:1 (or 1:1.25 by
special review). District designation would also give the HPC purview over the
design elements of any future development to ensure compatibility with the Main
Street corridor. Historic District designation is not being applied for.
Access:
Access to the property is currently from Main Street. This is not a concern at this time along
with a rezoning proposal; however, Staff would like to acknowledge that the access may
need to be configured to be from the alleyway. Full evaluation of this matter would need to
occur at the time of development review.
3
REVIEW PROCEDURE
Rezoning: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall be the recommending body to City
Council on a rezoning request. A public hearing must be conducted and the criteria by which
the Commission evaluate the application are attached in Exhibit A. A public hearing will
also be conducted by the City Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff finds that the proposed rezoning application meets the requirements set forth in Land
Use Code Section 26.310.040, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District
Map, to approve an amendment to the official zone district map. There are both physical
changes that have occurred and policy directive that support this rezoning. The Community
Development Director does feel that the extension of the MU District is appropriate for this
site and significantly preferred over a single-family or duplex residence at this site.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
"I move to approve Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2006, upon second reading."
Attachments:
Exhibit A - Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B - Zoning Map with Properties in Vicinity
Exhibit C - MU & R-15 Zone District Code Sections
Exhibit D - Application (Distributed with May 8th first reading packet)
Exhibit E - P&Z Resolution No. 07, Series of 2006 & Minutes
4
ORDINANCE NO. 21
(SERIES OF 2006)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN
APPROVING THE REZONING OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE "LONG
FAMILY PARCEL" LOCATED AT 802 WEST MAIN STREET TO THE MU
(MIXED-USE) ZONE DISTRICT FROM R-15 (MODERATE DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT) FOR THE LAND DESCRIBED AS LOTS Q, R,
AND S, BLOCK 12 IN THE TOWNSITE AND CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO.
ParcelID: 2735/2308005
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Long Family Investments, LLLP, requesting to rezone the Long Family Parcel
located at S02 West Main Street from the R-15 (Moderate-Density Residential) Zone
District to MU (Mixed Use) Zone District; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable code standards, the
Community Development Department recommended approval of the proposed rezoning;
and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered
the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code at a duly
noticed public hearings on, January 3, 2006, February 7, 2006, February 21,2006, March
21,2006 and March 2S, 2006, and approved Resolution No. 09, Series of 2006, at a final
hearing on April IS, 2006, by a three to one (3-1) vote, recommending that City Council
rezone the subject property to the MU Zone District; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds
all applicable development or review standards and that the approval of the rezoning is
consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY
COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Land Use Section 26.310, Amendments
to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, the Planning and Zoning
Commission hereby recommends that City Council rezone the subject property containing
Lots Q, R, and S, Block 12 in the City and Townsite of Aspen, from the R-15 (Moderate-
Density Residential) Zone District to the MU (Mixed Use) Zone District.
Section 2:
All material representations and commitments made by the applicant, whether in public
hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City
Ordinance No. 21, Series of2006
802 W. Main Street
Page 1
Council, are hereby incorporated in this approval and the same shall be complied with as if
fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 3:
This ordinance shall not 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 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 5:
A public hearing on the Ordinance was held on the 22nd day of May 2006, at 5:00 in the City
Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which
hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation
within the City of Aspen.
Section 6:
This ordinance shall become effective thirty days (30) following final adoption.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 8th day of May, 2006.
Attest:
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _day of
,2006.
Attest:
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
John Worcester, City Attorney
Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2006
802 W. Main Street
Page 2
Exhibit A
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
REZONING
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the Planning and Zoning
Commission and City Council shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable
portions of this title.
Staff Finding
Staff does not feel that the proposed rezoning application is in direct conflict with any
portion of the Land Use Code. The proposed rezoning could allow for a pattern of residential
and mixed use development that is consistent with the residential development pattern that
exists in the neighborhood especially that pattern and mixture of uses found along Main
Street. Staff also finds that if the full build-out of the site were to occur, that the building
size could be significantly larger than what is around it. The Bavarian Inn structure is around
5,915 sq. feet and what could occur on the Long property would be 18,000. The maximum
allowable FAR in the R/MF Zone District is 1.5 to I, MU is potentially 2:1.
Another consideration under this criterion is the purpose statements of the MU and the R-15
districts. The R-15 district is more favorable to higher density residential development
(would be in keeping with the current pattern on this side of 7th Street). But, the MU district
could also bring about this result with multi-family residential along with a mix of uses that
potentially could serve this part of the town and be more appropriate with the traffic impacts
to residential use.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the goals and objectives of the
AACP. The AACP advocates for mixed-use development that brings about vitality and
diversity in this area. The AACP specifically calls for the revision of the locally-serving
commercial zone districts (done), stemming the loss of locally -serving commercial space
(ongoing), and the creation of additional locally-serving commercial zone land. The
application presents this opportunity and presents a clear decision for the community - an
additional single-family/duplex or a mixed-use building. The application also directly
addresses a stated policy of the AACP Economic Sustainability section - Encourage local
ownership of businesses. Recommendation #3 of the Economic Sustainability Report was
"Develop a broader-based economy by supporting commercial and affordable housing
opportunities. . . Study ways to encourage locally owned and operated businesses. Explore
ways to develop locally owned and local serving retail space." Staff believes this application
is consistent with these policy directives. Staff also believes this application to implement
5
action items of the Economic Sustainability Report - Retain and expand through infill SCI
opportunities wherever possible to help counter Downvalley economic leakage and provide
needed goods and services to Aspen residents. Study mechanisms for affordable retail
development. Staff believes this rezoning is consistent with the AACP.
c. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone
districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood
characteristics.
Staff Finding
The subject property abuts land that is zoned MU, R-15, and R/MF PUD so the proposed
rezoning application would create neither spot zoning nor a zone incompatible with the
environs. The development of this site as mixed use would provide a buffer between the
residential development to the west and the increasing traffic impacts of Main Street and
continue the pattern of use along Main Street (which is definitely mixed use). The subject
property is also in a place that would be subject to street noise and lights so it does not
present itself as the best location for a single family dwelling or multi-family. The bottom
floor dwellers of the 7th and Main Affordable Housing have had problems with noise and
headlights onto their property. The Long property could have the same problem if developed
with multi-family on the bottom floor. The mixed use approach to the property could allow
for the siting of the commercial/office use to be closer to the street, than the residential
component and extend a pedestrian orientation of the built environment.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road
safety.
Staff Finding
The possibility exists under MU zoning for the property to develop with a much higher
intensity of use than under R-15 zoning. Considering the location of this proposal at the "S-
Curves", certain access points could exacerbate the traffic situation. These would need to be
discussed upon submission of a development application, but staff believes that the access
issue can be resolved with possible limitations to turning movements onto 7th Street, and
alley usage. (Presently, the traffic flow is regulated on the alley @ 7th Street. This was put in
place at the time of the Bavarian Inn redevelopment-traffic is limited by signs that allow only
right-in only onto the alley from 7th and right-out only from the alley. Access to the
development from the 8th St./alley intersection is discouraged by a "Service and Emergency
Vehicle Access Only" sign).
For the purposes of analysis, we can look at the maximum build-out of the site of 18,000
square feet of mixed use which would have to be residential and mixed commercial/office.
We do not believe that the proposed rezoning will have a significant impact on traffic
generation or road safety because the proposed rezoning because the street infrastructure and
access to transit exists. Any future site design would need to be closely scrutinized for
specific driveway locations onto the adjoining streets. Staff believes this criterion is met.
6
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result
in demands on public facilities, and whether the extent to which the
proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities,
including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities,
water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Staff Finding
Staff does not feel that there will be an increase in the demand for public facilities as a result
of the proposed rezoning request. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result
in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
StaffFinding
Staff does not believe that the proposed rezoning application would result in significant
adverse impacts on the environment. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application is consistent with the community and
neighborhood character of the area in that the new zoning would allow for a continuation of
the MU zoning. It most definitely would be a change to this corner of the Main Street "S
Curves" but iflooked at within the entire Main Street context, this zoning is consistent. Staff
finds that this criterion to be met.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel
or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed
amendment.
Staff Finding
The R-15 zoning of this property accommodated the existing single-family structure and is
the only R-15 property north of Main Street (in the immediate area). The neighborhood
includes significant multi-family development to the west and mixed-use development to the
east. One could find that with the fairly recent development of the Bavarian and duplex
housing, residential uses have become more ingrained as a neighborhood pattern on this side
of 7th.
Traffic in this vicinity has increased since the latest rezoning of this property. CDOT's
Record of Decision supports the "Modified Direct" (which would go right by this property),
and the recent implementation of MU rezoning along Main Street are recent changes. The
AACP desire for mixed-use development, mixed-use neighborhoods, and a desire for local
serving commercial development also demonstrate recent changes. This rezoning could both
implement the desired policy of mixed-use development and provide a buffer to the
7
residential area to the west from the impacts of traffic. Staff believes that a single-
family/duplex residence has significantly less opportunity to address these goals.
This criterion does not require a "change in conditions" to support a rezoning, only that any
changes be recognized in the rezoning discussion. Staff believes there are both physical and
policy changes that have occurred that support this rezoning.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conDict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application would not be in conflict with the
purpose and intent of the land use code or the public interest. Staff finds this criterion to be
met.
8
802 W. Main Vicinity Map with Zoning
It ,,-.
f"'..f
l~ -'--.._--...~
. W./t
~ ____~ "11:&4""'810
N
o 87.5 175
350
525
700
Feet
e ~,,- i.... ~
26.710.180 Mixed-Use (MD).
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Mixed-Use (MU) Zone District is to provide for a varietyoflodging,
multi-family, single-family, and mixed-use buildings with commercial uses serving the daily or fre-
quent needs of the surrounding neighborhood, provide a transition between the commercial core and
surrounding residential neighborhoods, and to provide a variety of building sizes compatible with the
character of the Main Street Historic District.
B.
Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Mixed-Use (MU) zone district:
1. On Historic Landmark Properties: Retail and Restaurant Uses, Neighborhood Commercial
Uses, and Bed and breakfast. _
2. Service Uses.
3. Office Uses.
4. Lodging, Timeshare Lodge, Exempt Timesharing.
5. Arts, Cultural and Civic Uses.
6. Public Uses.
7. Recreational Uses.
8. Academic Uses.
9. Child care center.
10. Affordable Multi-Family Housing.
II. Free-Market Multi-Family Housing.
12. Single Family Residence.
13. Duplex Residence.
14. Two Detached Single-Family Residences.
15. Home occupations.
16. Accessory uses and structures.
17. Storage accessory to a permitted use.
(
.
".
C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Mixed-Use (MU)
zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425:
1. Commercial Parking Facility, pursuant to Section 26.515.
D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted
and conditional uses in the Mixed-Use (MU) zone district:
1. Minimum lot size (square feet): 3,000.
2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet):
a. Detached residential dwellings: 4,500. 3,000 for Historic Landmark properties.
b. Duplex dwellings: 4,500. 3,000 for Historic Landmark properties.
c. All other uses: Not applicable.
3. Minimum lot width (feet): 30.
4. Minimum front yard setback (feet): 10, which may be reduced to 5, pursuant to Special
Review, Section 26.430.
City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005.
r I . ,. Part 700, Page 39
~tl...i"I'" L
5.
6.
7.
Minimum side yard setback (feet): 5.
Minimum rear yard setback (feet): 5.
Maximum height:
a. Commercial, Lodge, Timeshare Lodge, Exempt Timesharing, Multi-Family, and .
Mixed-Use Buildings: 32 feet. . .
b. Detached residential and Duplex dwellings: 25 feet.
Minimum distance between buildings on the lot (feet): 10.
Pedestrian Amenity Space: Pursuant to Section 26.575.030.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR):
A. The following FAR schedule applies to uses cumulatively up to a total maximum
FAR of 2: I. For properties within the Main Street Historic District, this maximum
cumulative FAR shall be 1:1, which maybe increased to 1.25:1 by Special Review,
pursuant to Section 26.430.
1. Commercial; Lodge; Timeshare Lodge, Exempt Timesharing; Arts, Culturill
and Civic uses; Public Uses; Recreational Uses; Academic Uses: .75:I,which .
may be increased to 1: 1 by Special Review, pursuant to Section 26.430.
2. Affordable Multi-Family Housing: No limitation, other than the cumulative
FAR limit stated above.
3. Free-Market Multi-Family Housing: .75:1, which maybe increased to 1:1 by
Special Review, pursuant to Section 26.430.
B. The following FAR schedule applies to single-family and duplex uses when devel-
oped as the only use of the parcel:
1. Detached residential and Duplex dwellings established prior to the adoption of
Ordinance 7, Series of2005: 100% of the allowable floor area ofan equivalent-
sized lot located in the R6 zone district. (See R6 Zone District.) Receipt of a
Development Order shall constitute the date the use was established. Replace-
ment after Demolition shall not effect a new establishment date for the purposes
of this section. City of Aspen Historic Transferable Development Rights shall
not be extinguished in this zone district and shall not permit additional floor
area.
8.
9.
10.
2. Detached residential and Duplex dwellings established after the adoption of Or-
dinance 7, Series of 2005: 80% of the allowable floor area of an equivalent-
sized lot located in the R6 zone district. (See R6 Zone District.) City of Aspen
Historic Transferable Development Rightsshall not be extinguished in this zone
district and shall not permit additional floor area.
(Ord. No. 56-2000, ~ 7 (part); Ord. No. 25-2001, ~ 5 (part); Ord. 1-2002 ~ 20; Ord. No. 7-2005 ~l
(part), 2002)
City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005
Part 700, Page 40
..,
26.710.050 Moderate-Density Residential (R-15).
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Moderate-Density Residential (R -15) zone district is to provide areas
for long term residential purposes with customary accessory uses. Recreational and institutional uses
customarily found in proximity to residential uses are included as conditional uses. Lands in the Mod-
erate-Density Residential (R-15) zone district typically consist of additions to the Aspen Townsite and
subdivisions on the periphery of the City. Lands within the Townsite which border Aspen Mountain are
also included in the Moderate-Density Residential (R -15) zone district.
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Moderate-Density Residential
(R -15) zone district.
1. Detached residential dwelling;
2. Duplex;
3. Two detached residential dwellings
4. Home occupations;
5. Accessory buildings and uses; and
6. Accessory dwelling units and Carriage Houses meeting the provisions of section 26.520.040.
C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Moderate-Density
Residential (R -15) zone district, subject to h'1e standards &"1d procedures established in Chapter 26.425:
1. Arts, Cultural, and Civic Uses.
2. Academic Uses.
3. Agricultural Uses.
4. Recreational Uses.
5. Group home.
6. Child care center.
7. For historic landmark properties: bed and breakfast and boardinghouse.
D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted
and conditional uses in the Moderate-Density Residential (R-15) zone district.
1. Minimum lot size (square feet): Fifteen thousand (15,000). For Historic Landmark Properties:
three thousand (3,000).
2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet:
a Detached residential dwelling: 15,000. For Historic Landmark Properties: 3,000.
b. Duplex: 7,500. For Historic Landmark Properties: 3,000.
c. Bed and breakfast, boardinghouse: No requirement.
3. Minimum lot width (feet): 75. Historic Landmark Properties: 30.
4. Minimum front yard setback (feet):
Residential dwellings: Twenty-five (25).
Accessory buildings and all other buildings: Thirty (30).
5. Minimum side yard setback (feet): Ten (10).
6. Minimum rear yard setback (feet):
City of ."'-spen Land Use Code. June, 2005
. Part 700, Page 10
Principal buildings: 10
Accessory buildings: Five (5).
7. Maximum height (feet): Twenty-five (25).
8. Minimum distance between detached buildings on the lot (feet): Ten (10).
9. Percent of open space required for building site: No requirement.
10. External floor area ratio (applies to conforming and nonconforming lots of record):
Lot Size Allowable Floor Area for Allowable Floor Area for Two De-
(Square Feet) Single-Family Residence* tached DweIlings or one Duplex* .
0--3,000 80 square feet of floor area for 90 square feet of floor area for each 100
each 100 in lot area, up to a square feet in lot area, up to a maximum
maximum of2,400 square feet of 2, 700 square feet of floor area.
of floor area.
3,000--9,000 2,400 square feet offloor area, 2,700 square feet of floor area, plus 30
plus 28 square feet of floor square feet of floor area for each addi-
area for each additional 100 tional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a
I square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 4,500 square feet of floor
maximum of 4,080 square feet area.
of floor area.
.. .
9,000--15,000 4,080 square feet offloor area, 4,500 square feet of floor area, plus 7
plus 7 square feet of floor area square feet of floor area for each addi-
for each additional 100 tional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a
square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 4,920 square feet of floor
maximum of 4,500 square feet area.
of floor area.
15,000-- 4,500 square feet offloor area, 4,920 square feet of floor area, plus 6
50,000 plus 6 square feet of floor area square feet of floor area for each addi-
for each additional 100 tional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a
square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 7,020 square feet of floor
maximum of6,600 square feet area.
of floor area.
50,000+ 6,600 square feet offloor area, 7,020 square feet of floor area, plus 3
plus 2 square feet of floor area square feet of floor area for each addi-
for each additional I 00 square tionallOO square feet in lot area.
feet in lot area.
~
i
\
*Total external floor area for multiple detached residential dwellings on one lot shall not exceed the
floor area allowed for one duplex. Total external floor area for multiple detached residential dwell-
ings on a lot less than twenty-thousand (20,000) square feet listed on the Inventory of Historic
City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005.
Part 700, Page 11
--------~._---- -_._--_._~._-~------~,-- ---- ~ --..-
Landmark Sites and Structures shall not exceed the floor area allowed for one detached residential
dwelling.
Each City of Aspen Historic Transferable Development Right certificate extinguished, pursuant to
Section 26.535, Transferable Development Rights, shall allow an additional 250 square feet of
Floor Area. Each residence on the parcel, excluding Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage
Houses, shall be eligible for one Floor Area increase in exchange for the extinguishment of one
Historic TDR. No more than one Floor Area increase shall be allowed per residence. Properties
listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area in-
crease. Non-conforming Uses and structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area increase.
(Ord. No. 56-2000, 99 2, 7 (part); Ord. No. 25-2001 992,5 (part); Ord. No. 1-2002920 (part), 2002;
OnL No. 54, 2003 97)
.-
City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005
?art 700, Page 12
'~-.
RESOLUTION NO. 07
(SERIES OF 2006)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL REZONE THE
PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE "LONG FAMILY PARCEL" LOCATED AT 802
WEST MAIN STREET TO THE MU (MIXED-USE) ZONE DISTRICT FROM R-15
(MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT) FOR THE LAND
DESCRIBED AS LOTS Q, R, AND S, BLOCK 12 IN THE TOWNSITE AND CITY
OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel ID: 273512308005
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Long Family Investments, LLLP, requesting to rezone the Long Family Parcel
located at 802 West Main Street from the R-15 (Moderate-Density Residential) Zone
District to MU (Mixed Use) Zone District; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable code standards, the
Community Development Department recommended approval of the proposed rezoning;
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, during a duly noticed public hearing on March 21, 2006, after being
continued from January 3, 2006, February 7, 2006, February 21, 2006, and March 28,
2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 09, Series of 2006,
at a final hearing on April 18, 2006, by a three to one ( 3-1) vote, recommending that City
Council rezone the subject property to the MU Zone District; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development
proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development or review standards and that the
approval of the rezoning 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 Land Use Section 26.310, Amendments
to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, the Planning and Zoning
Commission hereby recommends that City Council rezone the subject property containing
Lots Q, R, and S, Block 12 in the City and Townsite of Aspen, from the R-15 (Moderate-
Density Residential) Zone District to the MU (Mixed Use) Zone District.
E"hi~,+ E.
Section 2:
All material representations and commitments made by the applicant, whether in public
hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City
Council, are hereby incorporated in this approval and the same shall be complied with as if
fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 3:
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 18th
day of April, 2006.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
City Attorney
Jasmine Tygre, Chair
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
ASDen Plannim!: & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! - Minutes - February 07. 2006
Jasmine Tygre opened the regular Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting in
Council Chambers at 4:30pm. Commissioners John Rowland, Steve Skadron,
Brian Speck and Jasmine Tygre were present. Dylan Johns, Brandon Marion and
Mary Liz Wilson were excused. Ruth Kruger was seated at 6:00 prn. James Lindt,
Joyce Allgaier, Community Development; Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City
Clerk were also present.
DECLARA nONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Ruth Kruger was conflicted on the Long Family Rezoning.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (11/05):
920/930 MATCHLESS DRIVE SUBDlVISIONIPUD
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for Matchless Drive SubdivisionIPUD.
MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to continue the public hearing for 920/930
Matchless Drive Subdivision/PUD to February 28'\ seconded by Brian Speck. All
in favor, motion carried.
~
PUBLIC HEARING;
LONG FAMILY REZONING - 802 WEST MAIN
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for 802 West Main. Joyce Allgaier
explained this application was for a rezoning without any development application
associated with it. Allgaier stated that it was a rezoning fromR-15 to Mixed Use.
Allgaier stated it was a 9,000 square foot piece of property owned by the Long
Family Investments represented by Stan Clauson. Mixed Use came through the
Intill Ordinance and it was found along the Main Street corridor from this end of
Main Street right down to the Jerome. Currently there was a single family
dwelling on the property; ifit were redeveloped the single family dwelling could
be developed as large as 8,080 square feet under the R-15. The allowed height was
25 feet. Allgaier said if it were rezoned mixed use the single family house could
be 3,660 square feet and a duplex would max out at 4080 square feet. There were
more uses allowed under mixed use. The maximum square feet for a mixed use
building would be 18,000 square feet (a 2;1 Ratio); 6,700 square feet for free
market housing; a maximum of 6,750 commercial square footage within a mixed
use building and affordable housing was unlimited up to the maximum 2; I ratio.
The maxirnum height for mixed use or multi-family would be 32 feet; if it were a
single family or duplex the height limit would be 25 feet. Any mixed use
development would be subject to the commercial design guidelines; off-street
parking guidelines; the other dimensional standards set in the MU Zone District.
2
Aspen Plannin!! & Zooin!! Commission Meetin!! - Minutes - Februarv 07. 2006
Allgaier said that staff recommends approval of this project. The impacts that
were associated with that intersection and the future irnpacts of that intersection
with high traffic volumes and a neighborhood that could support a mixed use with
offices, residential and affordable housing; the provisions of the AACP support the
rezoning.
Steve Skadron asked if actions like this one (rezoning in an area like this) create
the possibility of a domino effect of rezoning; where each adjacent R-15 property
might determine itself the best use. Allgaier replied that has been known to happen
especially when there is more ofthe opportunity for sprawl along a commercial
core. Allgaier said that she didn't think that could happen here just because ofthe
land uses that already exist and the new affordable housing. Skadron said the
purpose of the mixed use zone district was to provide for a variety of different uses
bur it doesn't require a variety of mixed uses, does it. Allgaier replied no, but there
were stringent limitations as to how rnuch you can build. Skadron asked what the
effect of the Historic Designation Overlay. Allgaier responded the floor area ratio
goes from 2: 1 to 1: 1 with the Historic Overlay subject to design review by the
Historic Preservation Commission. Allgaier said the applicant did not request the
Historic Overlay.
Skadron asked the height of the 7'h and Main Affordable Housing. James Lindt
replied that it was approved at 32 feet.
John Rowland asked why restaurant or food facilities were not part of the
conditional use. Allgaier replied that it was more trying to give Historic
Landmarks additional uses.
Jasmine Tygre asked under the mixed use provision in the code what would trigger
review of the project. Allgaier said the planning commission would review of the
growth rnanagernent quota system requirernents and commercial design guidelines
evaluated, so there would be a process for any mixed use building. Lindt said that
if a single family house or duplex were proposed they would not need a growth
rnanagement review; if they were to do a mixed use or multifamily complex would
require growth management review and subdivision review. Tygre asked if you
put in a 200 square foot office, would you be eligible for the 18,000 square feet
under mixed use. Lindt replied that you would.
Tygre asked the relative frontages of the Main Street side and the 7th Street side of
this property. Allgaier responded there were 100 feet on the 7th Street and 90 feet
on the Main Street side because it was made up of three individual lots of 30 feet
by 100 feet.
3
Asoen Planninl! & Zonin!! Commission Meetinl! - Minutes - Februarv 07. 2006
Michelle Bonfiles Tevo, Stan Clauson Associates, representing the Long Family
stated that in their application they are not recommending any residential use on
the ground floor level of this property because of the impact of traffic. Bonfiles
Tevo said that because of the traffic they were asking for mixed use; they saw this
site as a transitional site from the commercial uses along Main Street into this
dense residential area.
Tygre stated concern for not having a specific development application, which was
normal in a rezoning, but she wanted a better idea of what the commission was
letting the city in for with a rezoning. Allgaier said there were many options for
what the mix could be in the mixed use zone.
Public Comments;
1. Neil Siegel, Villas of Aspen Board Member, said they were a townhouse
community of 36 townhomes and their position was that the applicant was
premature unless tied to sorne development plan. Siegel said that there were
synergistic effects that can't possibility evaluate in terms of density, height, traffic
irnplications and the like. Siegel said this was a tricky intersection coming from
any direction. Siegel said that this was not a buffer as mixed use because the
Villas of Aspen were right there and very residential.
2. Eric Cohen, co-listing agent of the subject property, said there were a fair
amount of discussions on the mixed use change and what the outcomes would be.
Cohen stated he did not think that the three units with a small office space would
work; he suggested the first floor commercial service orientated uses, smaller free-
rnarket and significant affordable housing on the upper floor. Cohen said the
mixed use was the incentive to placing affordable housing on site.
Jasmine Tygre asked if affordable housing was a requirement of mixed use. James
Lindt answered it was not a required cornponent; there were incentives to doing
on-site affordable housing services or mitigates both cornponents of development
(commercial and free-market).
John Rowland stated that he was in favor of the rezoning; the neighborhood had a
hybrid mix of different zoning categories and felt it was appropriate.
Steve Skadron said that he liked the application however he was concerned for a
future mixed use project with a lot of uncertainty of what the project might consist
of and the impact of traffic on the neighborhood. Skadron said that he could
4
ASDen Plannine: & Zonine: Commission Meetine: - Minutes - February 07. 2006
ultimately support this with a specific development application but he was not
cornfortable with it as it stands now.
Brian Speck said that he felt the same way John did and a mixed use project made
sense in the area and supported it.
Jasmine Tygre stated concern for this because she did not believe this was an
appropriate site for a mixed use project; even through it was an extension of Main
Street the Main Street that was east ofih was co~letely different, they were two
different entities. Tygre said this was more of a 7 Street property than a Main
Street property and the uses were more in line with residential. Tygre said the
impacts of deliveries was a problem for this site and did not feel this was an
appropriate area for this kind of mixed use zone; it was a disservice to the other
parts of the residential area. Tygre said that it was possible that a rnixed use
project of a particular type might be successful here in which case she would like
to see another way to apply for it through a PUD or a site specific review, which
could be evaluated and not the blanket rezoning approval to a kind of use for only
certain circumstances. Tygre said that she could support a particular project.
Michelle Bonfiles Tevo requested a continuance.
James Lindt stated that the applicant could request a continuance (26.304 Common
Development Procedures of the Code) and a second continuance could be by the
commission's request.
MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to continue the public hearingfor the Long
Family PUD, 802 West Main to February 21'/; seconded by Brain Speck. All in
~favor, APPROVED.
PUBLIC HEARING:
410 SOUTH WEST END STREET - SUBDIVISION
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for 410 South West End Street. James
Lindt stated the proof of public notice appeared to meet the jurisdictional
requirements.
Lindt noted the application was submitted by John Provine and Ronald Soldering
living Trust subject to review for subdivision, growth managementJor affordable
housing and certificate of compliance for multifamily replacement program to
construct 2 free-market units and 2 affordable housing units at 410 South West End
Street. Planning and Zoning was final review on the growth management for the
affordable housing and recommending body to City Council on the Subdivision
5
Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!!.- Minutes - Februarv 21. 2006
Jasmine Tygre opened the regular Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting in
Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30pm. Cornrnissioners Brian Speck, Brandon
Marion, Steve Skadron, John Rowland and Jasmine Tygre were present. Ruth
Kruger arrived at 6:00 pm. Dylan Johns and Mary Liz Wilson were excused.
James Lindt, Joyce Allgaier, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy
City Clerk were in attendance.
COMMENTS
Steve Skadron cornplirnented the Deputy City Clerk on the detail of the minutes.
Brandon Marion asked if the auto disincentives were actually working or not.
Allgaier replied that they have not taken any action at this point but it would be
appropriate to ask City Council to direct staff to pursue with assistance frorn the
parking department.
MOTION: Brandon Marion moved to direct staff to create a resolution on the
auto disincentives; Steve Skadron seconded. All infavor, APPROVED.
Allgaier stated that because of the Hannah Dustin's complexity it would likely take
two meetings; with that in mind that hearing would be continued.
MINUTES
MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to approve the minutes from 12/06/05, 12/13/05,
01/03/06, and 01/17/06; seconded by Brian Speck. All infavor, approved.
MOTION: Brandon Marion moved to approve the minutes from 11/29/05;
seconded by Brian Speck. All infavor. APPROVED. (Steve abstained).
DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Ruth Kruger was conflicted on the Long Family Rezoning.
. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (02/07/06):
~.
LONG FAMILY REWNING - 802 WEST MAIN
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for 802 West Main.
provided at the February 7t Hearing.
Notice had been
Allgaier provided on overview noting where Main Street came into this property
with the straight shot possibility. The current zoning was R-15; a single family
dwelling could be built there of 4080 square feet. Allgaier said that if it were a
mixed use building they would be allowed up to 18,000 square feet cumulatively
for a mixture of uses; the maximurn square footage for a free market component of
a mixed use 6,700 square feet or .75 floor area ratio; maximum for the commercial
2
Aspen Planninl! & ZOniD!! Commission Meetinl! - Minutes - Februarv 21.2006
and office component would be the same 6,700 square feet and affordable housing
had an unlimited square footage up to the maxirnum 2: 1 ratio.
AIIgaier said there needed to be a code amendment to make the code clearer for the
mixed use provisions so there would not be more free market residential and only a
smaIl office component.
AIIgaier provided 5 options for P&Z to proceed: (I) Deny the application for
rezoning; (2) Approve the rezoning and request staff initiate a code amendment
immediately; (3) Approve the rezoning and include in the resolution the effective
date of the rezoning; (4) Approve the rezoning with a PUD overlay requiring some
provision which precludes a lopsided mixed use development; (5) Continue the
public hearing for a six month period and initiate a code amendment immediately.
Allgaier said that staff supported the Mixed Use Rezoning and likes the idea of
designating it with a PUD and thinks that option 3 would work and does not want
to see that lopsided mode of development.
Brandon Marion asked the number of units that could be placed on the property if
it were Residential Multifamily and what height limit. AIIgaier replied between 6
and 12 units with a 25 to 32 foot height limit for a multifamily structure; it
depended on the parcel density with a greater than one unit per 1500 square feet
then the building height could be 32 feet. AIlgaier said it was an incentive for
more density and to intensify the use of the land.
Marion asked if the applicant at a later time could come in for the rezoning and a
development plan as a PUD application as opposed to approve as zoning subject to
a PUD. AlIgaier replied if the applicant proposed it that way; if they proposed
both the rezoning and a mixed use development that required some approvals from
the planning commission and growth management. AIIgaier said they do not have
the authority to teII someone what kind of application they need to submit.
AIIgaier noted that a PUD refers to the underlying zone district, which is what is
used as a review basis. AIIgaier said that if the commission wanted 3 free-market
multifamily units in the application and it covered the concerns then it could be
their PUD and they would not have to come back.
Jasmine Tygre asked if there would be dimensional requirements in the mixed use
zoning; there would be so much office or commercial square feet. AlIgaier replied
yes it would include something like that to help package it better to obtain the goal.
3
Aspen Plannin2 & Zonin!! Commission Meetin2 - Minutes - February 21. 2006
Stan Clauson introduced Ronald and Roger Long; he pointed out that the Longs
have lived in Aspen for over 4S years and grew up in this house. Clauson said this
property represents a little finger of R -1 S into one of the densest neighborhoods as
the RMF (Residential Multifamily) and continues the streetscape of Mixed Use,
which was the Office Zone. Clauson said this house contained an office at one
time.
Clauson stated that the record of decision from CDOT .was that Main Street would
be continued out remains a factor for appropriate redevelopment ofthis property.
Clauson said the issue was what can happen in a mixed use district almost
inappropriately of having a minimal amount of commercial to avail them to a large
single family residence, which was not the point of this application. Clauson said
looking at the options nurnbers 1,3 and S do not provide a resolution because the
code amendment could entail a considerable amount of discussion. Clauson
requested the commission look at option 2 because it was consistent with the
nature of the site and the nature of this application. Clauson said that if the
cornmission doesn't feel that option 2 provides enough protection then option 4 the
PUD overlay rnight offer that additional protection; they don't think that it is
necessary because it was inconsistent with the site and application.
Roger Long said that the Long Family Investments was truly not developers; it was
an instrument formed to protect family assets, which their father initiated. Roger
Long stated that they agreed with the way the property stands now as being
inappropriate as a residential structure and the mixed use zone was appropriate.
Ronald Long added that they felt as the development and traffic increased that this
was a house on the highway and not a house in the West End; in the future West
Main was still going to be on the highway. Ronald Long said that a mixed use
structure could also serve as a buffer to the surrounding residences and hopefully
mitigate the highway irnpacts.
Steve Skadron asked the irnpact traffic would have in the MU Zone on the adjacent
RMF zone. Clauson replied that staff provided an analysis and comment that they
don't believe that the traffic impact would be significant relative to the background
traffic that is currently there. Clauson said there was no short cut through the
Villas that would cause impact that area. Skadron inquired about the businesses
that would attract the traffic and determine the amount of traffic. Clauson said the
amount of commercial square footage was 6,700, which .was the maximum amount
and most likely an office nature given the location would have a minimal impact.
Clauson stated that only a historic structure could have a restaurant and not this
structure.
4
Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! - Minutes - February 21. 2006
Brian Speck asked if the large trees would be preserved. Ron Long replied a large
spruce and a ponderosa pine were on city property.
Public Comments:
I. Tom Melberg, co-listed property, stated the property was listed below what a
single farnily lot would go for in the West End. Melberg said that most of the
commissions concerns would be addressed by the real estate market forces of the
property location.
2. Neil Siegel, representing the Villas, said the traffic implications as discussed
were not predicated on a worse case condition for the property and because there
was no development plan it can't be considered under a desirable situation or what
is likely but rather what is the rnost pernicious potential use and evaluated on that
basis. Siegel said that it is apparent the trickiness of the 7tJJ. and Main is circulation
around and the traffic implications are real. Siegel said the purpose of the MU
district was to provide a transition between the existing commercial use and the
residential use; as presently set forth there is no commercial use whatsoever to the
West of ih and in that district. Siegel said that rather than providing a transition it
is an encroachment.
3. Eric Cohen had questions with regards to whether they were seeing a project
or just getting an approval and subject to what ever comes in based on that project.
Cohen noted that he sat on the City Planning and Zoning Commission and on the
InfiIl Committee.
Tygre said that Joyce has done an admirable job on the explanations. Tygre said
that when there were additional questions to the extent to which the language of
the Mixed Used Zone really accomplished what the Infill Committee, City Council
and P&Z thought it was going to accomplish. Tygre said the loopholes put P&Z
into the sturnbling block.
Marion said P&Z has never seen an application with this many options connected
with it; there was some ambiguity in what they were dealing with. Marion said
that there was no question that this was a transitional or tough property to figure
out. Marion said if there was justification of the continuation of the MU Zone
District because basically there was a finite point to it right at ih; if we extend that
one property does the next property move across the boundary. Marion said that if
the code is wrong then the code has to be fixed and look at the application in light
of that code.
5
Asuen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Meetin!!: - Minutes - February 21. 2006
Skadron asked if this will cause a domino effect for rezoning for each of the
adjacent properties. Allgaier responded that MU came down Main Street; next to
the subject property was Affordable Housing and across the street was a new
duplex.
John Rowland concurred with Brandon and Steve on the uncertainties but when
you put on the planner hat and think of this intersection as urban design, this is an
established node with an elernent missing that is this property. Rowland asked if
this property was on the pedestrian walking distance. Allgaier replied that Hopkins
was to the South and it was located right on the transit stop on the comer.
Rowland said that as a city we should embrace this opportunity as a welcoming
node or some sense of arrival; there were no pedestrians walking around.
Brian Speck said that he was similar to John's concerns and syrnpathetic to sorne
of the concerns about the future but as a commission we have to rnake decisions to
the applicant as they sit before the commission. Speck agreed that this was more
of a commercial node and liked the Mixed Use complex.
Tygre said that she did not believe this was an appropriate spot for a mixed use
project; the importance of 7th Street marking an end to the Mixed Use District was
expressed well by Brandon. Tygre said the Mixed Use District ends at th; that
may change but it doesn't change now and to take that one piece surrounded by
Residential Zoning on the other side of7lh Street given the existing traffic
circulation problems in that area seems to be a poor location for Mixed Use
Zoning. Tygre stated the code had to be changed but it doesn't effect her decision
about this particular application.
MOTION: Brian Speck moved to approve Resolution #7, Series of 2006,
recommending that City Council rezone the "long Family Property" located at
802 West Main Street to MU, Mixed Use Zone District. Seconded by John
Rowland. Roll call vote: Marion, no; Skadron, no; Rowland, yes; Speck, yes;
Tygre, no. DENIED 3-2. MOTION WITHDRA WN.
Discussion of motion: Skadron asked for clarification of option #4. Allgaier
explained the option #4 would approve a rezoning to MU with a PUD Overlay,
which is the application of zoning to a piece of property, It was not granting
approval of a specific PUD; the applicant would have to come in with a specific
development application. Allgaier said since there was not a proposed site specific
development plan because there was none proposed; the application was rezoning.
Skadron said that he was looking for control of what was going to happen on this
site. Allgaier said that you have to trust what this zoning yields what MU is
6
Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Meetin!!: - Minutes - February 21. 2006
intended to do; what was allowed by right in that zone district that is appropriate
for that site. Allgaier clarified that a PUD Overlay would require the applicant
submit a cornplete PUD application for review with option #4. Allgaier stated that
a property cannot be rezoned contractually; rezoning means that it rneets the
review standards and the commission is comfortable with that rezoning. Allgaier
said the question was do you feet the MU is appropriate here.
The commissioners discussed Option #4 and chose not to act on that option
because of the uncertainty ofthe MU zone district. The applicant requested a
continuance for language to be drafted for PUD wording that appropriately meets
the concerns of the commissioners.
1-
NEW MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to continue the public hearing for the
Long Family Investments, 802 West Main Street to March 21'1; seconded by
Brandon Marion. All infavor, APPROVED.
PUBLIC HEARING;
414 North 1st Street. Hallam Lake ESA
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the 414 N. 1st Street, Hallam Lake
Environmentally Sensitive Area Review. Chris Bendon stated that notice,
publication and mailing were provided.
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the public hearing to March 21";
seconded by Brandon Marion. All infavor, APPROVED.
PUBLIC HEARING:
HANNAH DUSTIN MIXED USE ADDlTON
Jasrnine Tygre opened the public hearing for Hannah Dustin Mixed Use Addition.
Joyce Allgaier stated the applicants would provide the overview and all the aspects
of the application.
Stan Clauson, representing Hyman Avenue Holdings LLC, stated this was a
cornbined application including a nurnber of parts; subdivision; growth
management for affordable housing; addition of mixed use development; free-
market residential units; commercial design review; special review and
condominiumization. Clauson said there were 4 townsite lots and the Hannah
Dustin Building occupies 2 of the 4 lots; presently there was a parking area on the
other 2 lots; adjacent to the parking area is the Benedict Commons Building.
Clauson said there is a sidewalk that goes along Spring Street but no sidewalk on
Hyman Avenue until you reach the Benedict Commons Building at present time.
7
~
Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission - Minutes - April 18. 2006
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (03/28/06):
802 WEST MAIN STREET- LONG FAMILY REZONING
Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing. Joyce Allgaier recapped the
property location utilizing a map. Allgaier said the subject property was currently
zoned R-15 and proposed Mixed Use (MU) for the rezoning without a
development application; it was strictly a rezoning to evaluate on the potential land
uses in a MU Zone District with the review criteria in the packet.
Allgaier said the subject property was 3 Aspen townsite lots totally 9,000 square
feet with currently a single family dwelling at about 1750 square feet. The
potential of the Mixed Use (staff memo page 2) was a 2 to 1 ratio; free market
could be up to a .75 to I ofthe development or 6,750 square feet; the commercial
or office component at not more than the total floor area of the free market; there
could be as much affordable housing as desired. Allgaier said that no one free
market unit could be more than 2,000 square feet in size. The MU Zone District
height could go up to 32 feet in contrast to 25 feet in the residential zone. Allgaier
said when there was an application for the mixed use building they would have to
go back to P&Z for the Growth Management Quota System requirements and
Commercial Design Guidelines making sure there was compatibility, off street
parking and ensuring that any dimensional requirements meet the code. Staff finds
this property could serve as a transition between the more highly developed Main
Street and the residential neighborhood behind; it could anchor the existing Main
Street. This property was compromised for residential purposes because of traffic.
Allgaier said that the new development had to be highly sensitive to the traffic
issues and where access comes from and how newly generated traffic associated
with a rnixed use development would work and while this doesn't seem to be an
issue now but will need to be addressed and carefully looked at when they come
back for the development. Staff found the project favorable to rezoning.
Stan Clauson introduced Ronald and Roger Long who grew up in this house and
remember a dentist office in the house and this house was in the Office Zone, a
pre-cursor to the Mixed Use Zone. Clauson said that any development plan would
come back to P&Z. Clauson said that the redevelopment under MU would allow
for a structure that would enhance the developrnent; it was rezoned to R-15 in the
1 970s, which included increased traffic counts at the intersection of 7'h and Main; a
CDOT record of decision through the NEP A process that extended Main Street and
future light rail past the subject property and onto a new bridge at Castle Creek;
rezoning of the Office 0 Zone along Main Street into the Mixed Use Zone MU,
which was a changed circumstance; the multi-family affordable housing at 7'h and
Main; adoption of the AACP 2004, which prornotes infill and increased densities
to build up areas of Aspen.
3
Asoen Plan nine: & Zonine: Commission - Minutes - April 18. 2006
Dylan Johns asked if the Main Street Overlay was purely an option or was there
other framework. Allgaier said that the Historic Preservation Officer did not think
that this property or building was contributing to the Main Street District.
Jasmine Tygre asked staff's position on this property becoming Mixed Use while
the other properties on the part of7'h Street were all residential, why should this
property become commercial. Allgaier replied the site was quite compromised for
what can be developed as a single family house. Tygre asked for an explanation
for the term anchor. Allgaier answered visually anchor was a substantial building
that can handle what that intersection is like and not a smaller residential
development but something that defines that intersection and becomes the entrance
to Main Street.
Allgaier submitted a letter dated March 13th from Herb Klein.
Public Comments:
1. Nancy Henricks, owner at Villas of Aspen, noted that in February the
president of their association sent a letter. Henricks wanted to see the Longs
pleased with this but she can not see why this should be mixed use; there were a lot
of kids and traffic. Henricks said that she would like to see the City purchase the
property and make a park out this property.
2. Marc Friedberg asked ifthe comer were rezoned could the property next
door be rezoned having a cascading effect all the way to the bridge, ifthere is a
bridge there. Allgaier responded the likely hood of that was minimal because this
was a brand new deed restricted affordable housing; the rezoning could be applied
for in the future.
3. Fredrick Uhlr lives in the Aspen Villas and said that there was a store put in
the new housing and was taken out and is now used as a living quarters; there was
the Christian Science; the Hickory House; years ago there was a gas station on the
side of 7th Street. Uhlr asked why anyone would go through the trouble of
rezoning and have no other idea about the property.
4. Rowine St. Andre said that her Aspen has been gone a long time ago; she
spoke of slowing things down and keep the comer the way it is.
5. Ron Long said that somebody missed the comer on Main Street and hit one
of the boulders in front of the garage; that was one reason this comer was not
suitable for a single family residence.
6. Roger Long said the subject property was under contract so they were not
hiding anything.
Allgaier said the permitted uses under the MU Zone were not retail or restaurant
uses but service, office lodging, arts, cultural, public, recreational, academic uses
and child care were allowed.
4
Asoen PlanniDl! & Zonin!! Commission - Minutes - Aori118. 2006
John Rowland said that he struggled with the zoning maps but this was a terrible
intersection that needs a sense of place and another residence would not apply.
Rowland supported stairs decision and looked forward to this rezoning.
Dylan Johns said that he shared the same concerns as John with the relationship; he
did not think that R-15 was a good zone, maybe RMF to make it all whole. Johns
said that this was a challenging site to develop under any circumstance and that
any proposal that comes though will be seen by P&Z.
Brian Speck agreed with John and Dylan because of the area he could see a mixed
use development. Speck said he did not like not knowing what kind of
development was going to go there and would like more restrictions like the
Bavarian had for height. Speck liked the idea of anchoring that corner and would
support this project.
Jasmine Tygre stated that she was in direct opposition to the other members of the
commission; she said this was not an appropriate spot for mixed use zoning and
looking at the map she can not see how this cannot be considered spot zoning.
Tygre said ih Street divides part of town that is more developed than the other
side, which is primarily residential in character and doesn't follow the staff
recommendation. Tygre asked why you would want to intensify uses on a corner
that already has circulation and traffic problems; she thought that this was a terrible
solution. Tygre said that she'll vote against it because it was inconsistent with
items (page 6 & 7 staff memo) "C, 0 & G".
MOTION: John Rowland moved to approve Resolution #007, Series 2006,
recommending City Council rezone the "Long Family Property" located at 802
West Main Street to MU, Mixed Use Zone District. Seconded by Brian Speck. Roll
L call vote: Johns, yes; Speck. yes; Rowland, yes; Tygre, no. APPROVED 3-1.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 3/7/6:
17 SHADY LANE
Jasmine Tygre opened the continued hearing on 17 Shady Lane. James Lindt
stated at the previous hearing the commission approved a Stream Margin Review
and Design Standards Variances for a new single family house at 17 Shady Lane.
Lindt explained that the commission requested more detail on the fence request.
The applicants have redesigned the fence and the slight relocation of Shady Lane
to the north. Lindt said the resolution approves both the fence and relocation; if
P&Z chooses only the fence to be approved then Section 3 can be stricken.
5
Page I of2
Chris Bendon
G'<<b&~
-
From: Helen Klanderud
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 11 :06 AM
To: Chris Sendon
Subject: FW: 802 W Main
Chris,
I'm not certain it is appropriate for individual P&Z members to submit an e-mail such as this only to council. I am
going to check with John, but I believe you should have this.
Helen
From: Jasmine Tygre [mailto:jtygre@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 1:56 PM
To: J.E. DeVilbiss; jacktarquin1@yahoo.com; Helen Klanderud; Rachel Richards; Torre
Subject: 802 W Main
The Long Property (802 W. Main)
Although a majority of the P&Z approved the rezoning of this property to Mixed Use, I dissented and
would like to explain my vote:
My finding is that this project does not meet the following rezoning criteria:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title..
Staff sees this parcel as an extension of Main Street. However, the subject property is on the west
(downvalley) side of Seventh Street, which is entirely residential and is zoned either R-15 or R/MF
PUD. Staffs memo acknowledges this existing pattern of development. The rezoning seeks to change
the nature of the neighborhood, without any indication that the people who live in the area desire such a
change (in fact, public comments and letters indicate the opposite).
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements ofthe Aspen Area
Community Plan.
Staff believes that creating a "locally-serving commercial zone" on the site is consistent with the
AACP; however, it's not clear why an area already impacted by traffic and circulation problems would
be appropriate for this kind of upzoning. Moreover, restaurant and retail uses, and neighborhood
commercial uses are allowed only for Historic Landmark Properties, which this is not.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land
uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
The property does not abut MU - it is across heavily-traveled Seventh Street from the Main
Street MU properties.
D. The effect ofthe proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff
acknowledges the possible exacerbation of existing traffic and circulation problems, but believes these
could be solved in the context of a specific development application. There is little question that
increased intensity of use will impact not only this property but the neighboring parcels as well. What is
the justification for imposing such negative impacts on a traditionally residential neighborhood?
5/16/2006
Page 2 of2
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community
character in the City of Aspen. ..
Staff admits that the MU zoning would be a change to this corner, and yet concludes that this
criterion has been met. Huh?
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Again, Staff finds that "residential uses have become more ingrained as a neighborhood pattern
on this side of 7th" - a changed condition - but recommend commercial upzoning nonetheless!
J. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in
harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
There is no evidence that upzoning this location is in the public interest.
It is clear that the driving force behind this application is the vastly increased square footage allowed
under MU zoning.
R-15 Mixed Use
k\llowable height 25' 32"*
Maximum square footage 3600/4500 18 000
*Note - The immediately adjacent Bavarian Inn units (RMF/PUD) were limited to 25' flat roofs to
ensure neighborhood compatibility!
Such development is totally out of scale with the existing neighborhood, and is one of the most
egregious examples of "spot zoning" I have ever seen on my many thousands of years on P&Z.
Community Development Staff seems determined to turn this section of town into Neighborhood
Commercial- without any overall plan to handle the impacts. Another example of "infill" run amok?
Thanks for your attention.
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low rC-Jfr:-Phone call rates.
5/16/2006
Chris Bendon
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Helen Klanderud
Monday, May 08, 2006 2:22 PM
Chris Bendon
FW: 802 West Main
Chris,
Here's another e-mail from P&Z.
Helen
-----Original Message-----
From: Ruth Kruger [mailto:ruth@krugerandcompany.com]
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 2:12 PM
To: Helen Klanderud; Rachel Richards; Jack Johnson; Torre; J.E. DeVilbiss
Subject: 802 West Main
May 8, 2006
City Council
130 S Galena,
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Madam Mayor and Council,
I respectfully submit to you that changing the zoning at 802 West Main would be extremely
detrimental to the neighborhood. Should there be any parking on the corner of that lot
the hazards of crossing that intersection will be exacerbated. Due to the current detour,
it is impossible to go straight into the neighborhood across 7th Street and in normal
times it is difficult.
You must hover in the far left lane in front of the Christian Science building and wait
for a break. Once given the break you must rush across through the occasional break in
traffic. The other alternative is to drive down Hopkins through the "pedestrian walkway"
and turn left at the corner of 7th and Main. An unfriendly choice and one that is not
currently an option either. How is one that lives in that neighborhood supposed to enter
if all access coming from town is blocked? I would ask that you attempt the negotiation
of the intersection at morning rush hour and see if you would not agree that any increase
in zoning at this sensitive location would be unwise.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.
Sincerely,
Ruth Kruger
Ruth Kruger, CCIM,CIPS
Kruger and Company
400 East Hyman Avenue Mall
Aspen, CO 81611
970-920-4001 970-920-4007 fax
888-920-4001 970-404-4000 cell
ruth@krugerandcompany.com
1
,
Villas of Aspen Townhouse Association
100 North 8th Street #2
Aspen, Colorado 81611
970.925.7614 FAX 970.925.9403
;
y~
May 17, 2006
Hon. Helen K. Klanderud, Mayor
And Council Members
City of Aspen
City Hall
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Zoning Change Request for 802 West Main Street, Long Family Investments
Dear Mayor Klanderud and Members of the City Council:
I write on behalf of the ViI1as of Aspen Townhouse Association to provide comments regarding
the requested change in zoning from R-IS to a mixed use (MU) for the subject property. Our
properties are neighbors in this area and we are concerned with a number of issues relating to the
pending application. The ViI1as comprises thirty six units which will be directly impacted by the
zoning change, if approved. Residents and members of our Board will be present at the public
hearing scheduled for May 22, 2006 to present additional comments, if deemed necessary.
We ask that as you review the requested zoning change, you consider the following points:
(1] Administrative Due Process
The approval for this change by the Planning and Zoning Commission followed a contorted path
that the Chair publicly lamented. Indeed during the process of multiple continuances, for the
transparent reason of delay until a favorable panel would be present, a vote was taken in which
the application was actually rejected, only to resurrected but a resubmission in slightly altered
form. The lack of continuity of members of the Commission to consider the issues coupled with
shifting of position left both the public and Commission chair Tygre justifiably frustrated in the
lack of administrative due process.
Nevertheless, approval was eventually given for a precedent setting zoning change that clearly is
not in the best interests of the either the city or the citizens. It is however in the best interests of
Long Family Investments as providing the maximum zoning value to the property for sale and
development.
(2 Consideration of the zoning change in the absence of any plan
Given that the applicant has not provided any plan or application for the use of the property as a
Mixed Use, the Council must consider the change from the perspective of the "worst case" of
development. We believe that there was agreement the P & Z that this is the appropriate criteria.
,
City Council: page 2
May 17,2006
Our view is that unless tied to a specific plan, the Commission should have been extremely
conservative in its approach to such a re-zoning. It was not, in the end allowing unfettered
development in the face of clear errors in the staff report.
Once effectuated, the re-zoned property simply becomes open for all manner of unforeseen
development that may be consistent with a MU zoning but inconsistent with the overall zoning
map for the city.
Potential worst cases include commercial uses such as convenience stores, cleaners, pizza
deliveries and the like all of which require trucks to deliver supplies and stock and have frequent
egress and departure by private vehicles. This is in addition to any residential development on
the property.
We understand that as much as 18,000 ft2 may be accomplished under a MU. This is in stark
contrast to the existing building, - 1747 ft2, approximately a ten-fold increase in land use in the
worst case.
(3] The overall zoning map - "spot zoning"
The property in question sits in an R-IS district. Route 82 acts as a buffer to commercial
development from 7th street along the "S-curve". There is no commercial development west of
7th street at all with the exception of Pop pie's which again is on the North side of Hallam, i.e. on
the other side of82. Thus, the entirety of the properties to the West of 7th street and South of
Hallam are residential.
Thus, ifMU zoning is appropriate at all in this area, to provide a transition, such should occur on
the opposite side of Route 82 where mixed use already exists. To allow this zoning change inside
the R-IS zone is not a transition but more properly an encroachment into a completely residential
zone and the immediately contiguous area. States differently, MU may be appropriate to the
East and North of the "S curves" but not on the other side.
The applicant has said that the property is not suitable for residential development. This is
incorrect. The immediate corner to the south was redeveloped as exclusively residential. Three
of the opposite corners on the "S" curve at Hallam and 7th are residential, the remaining one
being the Forest service property. The fact that the property sits at a corner of the liS" curve is
not a detriment to residential use and is no reason why the property in question cannot be rebuilt
consistent with the existing R-l S zone into a substantially larger dwelling or group of residences.
When the community, the city and the developer reached agreement on the plan for development
of the Bavarian Inn property, issues of density were considered in the context of traffic, more
children in the area and height limitations on buildings. A successful development plan resulted
that in practice has been true to the planning. That process never considered that a zoning
change would occur within the R-l S district which could materially change the make-up of the
area. The residents relied on the city to uphold the zoning map and worked within its
constraints. The proposed change violates that trust and materially upsets the careful balance that
was achieved.
City Council: page 3
May 17, 2006
(4] Adverse Traffic Impacts
As emphasized by the public comment, but ignored by the P & Z, this is a critical issue. The
Staff Findings in Sections D and H of the Memorandum are at odds with the facts concerning
traffic flow and congestion as already exists. Turning left from Bleeker on to 7th is now very
difficult. This is an existing problem for all the residents living to the West and South of Route
82, i.e., getting out into traffic from Bleeker.
The intersection of~ and Main is agreed by all as an extremely dangerous situation. The traffic
flow around the "S curve" presents a challenge to merging for cars coming from the West of
Main as well as the South of~. The same exists for the "easy" case of simply goinl straight,
i.e., West on Main beyond 7th with incoming traffic on the curve turning left from 7 onto Main
in the East going direction.
Considered then from a "worst case" condition imagine vehicles attempting the same moves with
delivery trucks in the vicinity ( the same trucks could also be circulating in the residential area
along Bleeker and 8th Street). Consider also the traffic impacts on ~ street with vehicles pulling
into and leaving temporary parking in the rezoned property, potentially backing out into traffic.
These issues are not so far fetched and alone mandate either denying the application or
specifically coupling it to a definite development plan.
The applicant apparently relies on the alley as providing access and easing traffic concerns.
However, that alley was specifically configured to preclude through traffic. It divides the
employee housing development to provide access to parking and allowing children to move
freely within that property with the small park area therein. That was the plan, not to allow
delivery trucks access to a commercial development on the Long property.
(S] Building height and proximately to the street
We also believe that potential other problems may emerge, such as building height. As noted
the employee housing to the immediate west of the subject property was subject to a lowering of
overall height. If built to the maximum height the building could block views to the East and
South. Ifbuilt to the sidewalk it could block views to the North from the residents on the South.
Just as important is the unsightly visual aspect of a residential zone being fronted almost
continuously on its East side by large multiple story buildings. If that sets the predicate for
residential development in the future how then can future commercial use be constrained to the
reasonable height limitations that presently exist. The domino effect will clearly occur.
We appreciate consideration by the City Council of these points.
7JY~
Warren ~IUgr I~
President, ViI1as Association Board of Directors
Resident of the ViI1as Townhomes
"
l{tO~!-,)
. s\v"Z-/
Pl
'.. '. .~ -- '.' ~
": t ~
, " .... ,.:, f_,
-f-'..
.' ;,' ,r ! .-.-.. f~
.. .- ,0 . ,-' '~_' ~. '.,
-...' .~ ~. ....
, . " ' .:.~ . -, .,
.. :-", .---:.-' 9'-'-'
~;. . . ..[ ,
..~" .-";," ,~~;; S''-=; g;:" t.~,;,:~'>':_..,.::r;..:.;.:..::. C~ .'.,,'~. :;:..-;..~!",",:!::;,:;;
,'.;~,. L..;~"i!:~l::'.i':~ ~;:"'.t_~. ,:;,~,) ~':; ~.. _~......., < . .,'.,.'~,~.~..,J ;,.~,'~'~,.','.~:,'_l',".?".,r..~~:~".;.',':-~..~_~~~.'.., :;,:..?.... ~~-~ii.~~;~l H .:".h;~ r_o'';:~j;. >~~
;..' .~l;t.';.;t /-"." -' :/.i.'. '.' "_ ~~ ,'J_ .. . ~ ,!r::~(P;".1.:I\'.:'::~:; p::.:."-.
j,J.'.::.j ...;;:., ~- ":'-',;.!';-' :I~, :'. .:~:,,:'3 Ma~~1-~ l€JQe:.j :....:-~J~~..~U.:fOi.i ~; b-':;1c;.;,'.iifHf q.;~iJ;)8
.~).:..: '~
>j~~"', '. "(',1' ~:;i "";:.'
Hon. Helen K. Klanderud
Mayor
City of Aspen
City Hall
130 S. Galena
Aspen CO 81611
...'. :-
;'(
:. >:.:,'
'. ~ \.- .,
Re: Zoning Change Request for 802 West Main
Street, Long Family Investments
Dear Mayor Kfanderud:
r write as a resident of the Vm!s;8f !~~i!n concerning a potential change
in zoning from R.15 to a mixed use (MU) for the, Long property, I testified twice before
the Planning and Zoning Commission on the issue. At the first meeting ii was ciear that
the applicant could not muster a majority. and asked for a continuance of the application.
At the second meeting the proposal was actually voted down but again the applicant
requested a continuance and the opportunity to submit a revised application for
consideration (one that included a baseline PUD),
The approval process before the Planning and Zoning Commission was thus at
best circuitous and more properly one of waiting out the P & Z until a favorable panel
could be mustered. There is a fundamental isswe of due process where the
administrative panel shifts in membership from meeting to meeting and no decision is
"final" '-'n!i! the app!k:ar;t achieves its finCiI goal in ~hort, the existing procedure is b<'dly
flawed. , " '.
This application is an overt example of patchwork spot zoning since it would
represent a first MU property in what W<lS alwafs a residential zone. There IS no reasotl
for this zoning change other than maximizing the value of the property. The applicant
has more than adequate opportunity to develop the property consistent with the existing
R-15 zoning as Ihl; contiguous propertyovmers havs done.
History also supports retaining the existing ?oning. SpecifieaHy. when the
community (I workS(! on that plan for the Villas;, the city .and the developer agreed on
the plan for deveiopment of the Bavarian Inn property thena was an u>1deriying
assumption that the entire area would remain r~identia.l. For example, issues of density.
more children, were considered in the context of traffic IlVithin th$ stnJt;iure of a
residential zone. The proposed changeunderc..rts that agreement and will destroy the
balance that was achieved.
.
.
P2
The P & Z also ignored the adverse traffic impacts to the community of such a
zoning change and the development that will follow. j need not detail the difficulties that
currently exist to negotiate the 7th and Main portion of the "S curve" for those wishing to
turn into the curve from either Main or'7'h .street or.go straight West on Main.
Commercial development on the Long property will onlyexacer~.ate a difficult traffic
problem. The Applicant has no acceptable answer. It erroneously relies on the alley as
providing a conduit for traffic but that passageway was set up specifically not to a
throughway,
In sum, there is no sound reason to change the zoning on the property. Poing so
would only encourage other developers to turn residential properties into mixed use
spaces thus gerrymandering the zoning map of the city to the determent of established
neighborhood$.
Very truly yours,
&z-7~-v<-
Neil B Siegel
100 N. 8th Street
#8
Aspen, CO 81611
2
%0..
MEMORANDUM
TO:
MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
THRU:
STEVE BARWICK, CITY MANAGER
JEFF WOODS, MANAGER OF PARKS & RECREATION
FROM:
TIM ANDERSON, RECREATION DIRECTOR
DATE:
MAY 15,2006
RE:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF ASPEN AND THE ASPEN SCHOOL DISTRICT
Summary:
The City of Aspen and the Aspen School District have an existing Intergovemmental
Agreement which will expire May 14th of 2006. This agreement has identified an
understanding for the shared use of certain facilities for the enjoyment of kids and our
community. Please find attached the latest revised version of the Intergovernmental
Agreement by and between the City of Aspen and the Aspen School District. The Aspen
School District Board at this time has approved the agreement and staff is recommending
the same to City Council. The agreement benefits each party in the interest of the
Community and the kids attending Aspen School District classes.
Previous Council Action:
Previous IGA's between the two entities were signed in September of 1997 and February
of 2002. While the agreements have always addressed such facilities as School District
gyms and classrooms, and the City's ballfields, tennis courts and golf course, the
previous agreement took into consideration the Moore Playing Fields, the construction of
the middle school playing field, the track, the Aspen Recreation Center, and shared
parking as well as trail connections which were all coming on line at that time.
Current Changes:
The agreement has continued to work in the past and staff sees no reason why this
agreement won't continue to work effectively for each entity. While the facilities that
were mentioned in the previous agreement remain in the current IGA, changes which are
of note are the following:
. Access to School parking (section II. B.) by Recreation Programs and other events
has been more specifically defined as when school is not in session. In addition
the agreement states that the City will maintain a Web based calendar which all
parties using the Community Campus will participate in so that parking may be
managed effectively.
· Some minor changes in scheduling and maintenance (section II. D.) have been
made to accommodate the multi-purpose playing surface which will be going in
and the lighting which will be available.
· The identification of the ARC Advisory Committee (section III. B.) and their roll
in this agreement.
· An adjustment was made in the language charging the School District for the use
ofthe Moore Pool and the Lewis Ice Arena (section III. B. & C). In the past the
agreement read that the School District would pay 50% ofthe identified rate set
by City Council. Now the agreement reads that the schools will pay only for the
additional cost of personnel necessary to operate the facility. No fee will be
charged for facility use.
This agreement is effective and beneficial in each entity providing for their constituents
and the community.
Recommendation:
Staff is recommending the approval of this agreement as it is a beneficial agreement for
each party as well as the Community.
Alternatives:
Alternatives would be few as each entity has facilities the other needs. It would be costly
to the City, the School District and the Community for the City and the School District
not to work together in this manner.
Manager's Comments: ~ il,""". 9 ~ i ../-.fu) lLQ..vJ ~A"
**************************
RESOLUTION NO.4t
Series of 2006
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ASPEN AND THE ASPEN SCHOOL DISTRICT, FOR THE JOINT MANAGEMENT AD
USE OF CERTAIN RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a Memorandum of
Understanding between the City of Aspen and The Aspen' School District for the joint
management and use of certain recreational facilities owned by he City of Aspen and the Aspen
School District for the period of June I, 2006 through May 31, 2011, a copy of which is annexed
hereto and made a part thereof.
NOW, WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section One
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Memorandum of
Understanding between the City of Aspen and The Aspen School District, a copy which is
annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager of the City
of Aspen to execute said Memorandum of Understanding 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\mou-aspen school district.doc
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
FOR THE JOINT MANAGEMENT AND USE OF CERTAIN
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES OWNED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND THE ASPEN SCHOOL DISTRICT
FOR THE PERIOD OF JUNE 1,2006, THROUGH MAY 31, 2011.
This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into between the City of Aspen, a home rule
municipality of the State of Colorado ("City"), and the Aspen School District, a political
subdivision of the State of Colorado organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the
State of Colorado ("School District").
WHEREAS, the City and the School District entered into that certain Intergovernmental
Agreement dated September 9, 1997, relating to the joint use and management of certain
recreational facilities owned by the parties hereto; and
WHEREAS, said Intergovernmental Agreement contemplated that the parties would annually
enter into a Memorandum of Understanding relating to the joint use and management of said
recreational facilities; and
WHEREAS, the parties hereto acknowledges that there are certain common elements to the
"Community Campus" Facilities and the new addition to the Aspen Middle School that should
be coordinated for the benefit of both parties; and
WHEREAS, the parties hereto have met and agree on the joint use and management of certain
facilities and desire to memorialize their agreement for the above stated period of time.
NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
I. General Provisions of Agreement.
A. The term of this agreement shall be for the period June 1,2006, through May 31,
2007. The term of this agreement shall extend automatically for an additional one year period
commencing on June 1,2007, and on each June 1 thereafter unless either party provides written
notice to the other of its intent to terminate the agreement no later than thirty (30) days prior to
such anniversary date, in which case such agreement shall terminate on the anniversary date. In
no event, however, shall the length of this agreement extend later than May 31, 2011, unless the
parties meet as contemplated by the aforementioned Intergovemmental Agreement and modify
the terms and conditions of this Memorandum of Understanding.
B. City to Indemnify School District. To the full extent permitted by law, the City
shall indemnify and hold harmless the School District, its officers, employees, insurers, and self-
insurance pool, from and against all liability, claims, and demands, on account of injury, loss, or
damage, including without limitation claims arising from bodily injury, personal injury, sickness,
disease, death, property loss or damage, or any other loss of any kind whatsoever, which arise out of
or are in any manner connected with this agreement, if such injury, loss, or damage is caused in
whole or in part by, or is claimed to be caused in whole or in part by, the act, omission, error,
professional error, mistake, negligence, or other fault of the City, any guest or invitee of the City, or
any officer, employee, representative, or agent of the City or of any subcontractor of the City, or
which arises out of any workmen's compensation claim of any employee of the City or of any
employee of any subcontractor of the City. The City agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, and to
provide defense for and defend against, any such liability, claims or demands at the sole expense of
the City, or at the option of the School District, agrees to pay to the School District or reimburse the
School District for the defense costs incurred by the School District in connection with, any such
liability, claims, or demands. The City also agrees to bear all other costs and expenses related
thereto, including court costs and attorney fees, whether or not any such liability, claims, or
demands alleged are groundless, false, or fraudulent. If it is determined by the final judgment of a
court of competent jurisdiction that such injury, loss, or damage was caused in whole or in part by
the act, omission, or other fault of the School District, its officers, or its employees, the School
District shall reimburse the City for the portion of the judgment attributable to such act, omission, or
other fault of the School District, its officers, or employees.
C. School District to Indemnify City. To the full extent permitted by law, the School
District shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, insurers, and self-
insurance pool, from and against all liability, claims, and demands, on account of injury, loss, or
damage, including without limitation claims arising from bodily injury, personal injury, sickness,
disease, death, property loss or damage, or any other loss of any kind whatsoever, which arise out of
or are in any manner connected with this agreement, if such injury, loss, or damage is caused in
whole or in part by, or is claimed to be caused in whole or in part by, the act, omission, error,
professional error, mistake, negligence, or other fault of the School District, any guest or invitee of
the School District, or any officer, employee, representative, or agent of the School District or of
any subcontractor of the School District, or which arises out of any workmen's compensation claim
of any employee of the School District or of any employee of any subcontractor of the School
District. The School District agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, and to provide defense for
and defend against, any such liability, claims or demands at the sole expense of the City, or at the
option of the City, agrees to pay to the City or reimburse the City for the defense costs incurred by
the City in connection with, any such liability, claims, or demands. The School District also agrees
to bear all other costs and expenses related thereto, including court costs and attorney fees, whether
or not any such liability, claims, or demands alleged are groundless, false, or fraudulent. If it is
determined by the final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction that such injury, loss, or
damage was caused in whole or in part by the act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or
its employees, the City shall reimburse the School District for the portion of the judgment
attributable to such act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or employees.
D. Liability and Insurance. During the term of this Agreement, each Party hereto
shall take all steps necessary to extend coverage under its general liability and other insurance
policies to the real property and improvements subject to this Agreement and owned by that
Party, and to that Party's activities on its property or pursuant to this Agreement. Each Party
shall designate the other as an "additional insured" on such policies. The Parties shall exchange
certificates of insurance or other documentation that such policies haye been extended to the
properties and facilities described by this Agreement within ten (10) days following request for
the same from the other Party.
E. No Waiver of Immunity. The parties hereto understand and agree that each party is
relying on, and do not waive or intend to waive by any provision of this agreement, the monetary
limitations (presently $150,000 per person and $600,000 per occurrence) or any other rights,
immunities, and protections provided by the Colorado Govemmental Immunity Act, Section 24-10-
10 I et seq., C.R.S., as from time to time amended, or otherwise available to the parties, their
officers, or their employees.
F. Definitions. The term "City" and "School District" as used in this agreement shall
include their respective employees, agents, guests, invitees, and in the case of the City, its citizens
and residents.
G. Priority of Uses. The parties shall use reasonable care in approving requests by the
other to use facilities; however, in the event that either party requires its own facilities for the
purposes of a legitimate school or city recreational function, that party may cancel the proposed
use of the other's facility and notify the other party's representative as soon as possible. Each
party shall at all times retain first priority for use of the facilities under its ownership, with the
exception of circumstances involving contracted use of the facilities by the other party, provided
the other party has been notified of the contracted use.
II. Elements Relating to Moore Playing Fields and School District Multi-Use Field.
Pursuant to the attached (Exhibit "A-2"), the following site improvements are intended and
agreed upon.
Site elements identified and referred to in (Exhibit "A-2") are as follows:
A. Site (as identified in (Exhibit "A-2")
. The School District shall allow access of Nordic skiers to trails located on School
property subject to such rules and regulations concerning access and use as the
School District deems appropriate. Access to and over the Nordic trails are
shown on Exhibit "A-2" appended hereto.
. The School District and the City hereby grant to each other a license to use and
access the Pedestrian Bridges as identified in drawings.
. The City shall allow the use of retention ponds for the purpose of drainage from
School District property. The drainage and use ofretention ponds are shown on
Exhibit "A-2" appended hereto.
B. Parking & Public Access
. The School District shall allow public access to facilities maintained and shared
by the School District and the City as identified in this document at times when
regular school sessions are not taking place.
. The School District shall allow access to the campus parking by the public when
regular school sessions are not taking place. The Parks & Recreation Department,
as identified in this document, intend this use during the normal operating hours
of the Moore Playing Fields, and School District Multi-Use Field
. The City will create a Web-based Community Campus Calendar for the purpose
of scheduling and communicating information regarding events for the purpose of
managing parking within the Campus. Each party agrees to participate,
communicate and update regularly the Calendar of Events. In the case of
conflicts, each party agrees to do everything in their power to re-schedule such
events as to allow for adequate event parking.
c. Maintenance and Storage
· The School District understands that certain maintenance and grooming will be
necessary for the Nordic system, which will cross the School District Campus.
The School District agrees to allow access to all necessary equipment and
personnel needed to maintain this system. The City agrees to provide all such
maintenance which is necessary and/or appropriate at the City's sole cost.
· The School District understands that certain maintenance will be necessary for the
Moore Playing Fields and School District Multi-Use Field. The School District
agrees to allow access to all maintenance equipment and personnel needed for
such maintenance. The City agrees to perform all such necessary and appropriate
maintenance on those areas with the parties to share the costs of such maintenance
as provided herein.
· The School District agrees to construct maintenance and storage facilities in the
amount of 1,200 square feet within the remodel of the Middle School Field. The
City will pay for the construction of this space with no rent being charged
throughout the length of this agreement. The Parks & Recreation Department
agrees to maintain this maintenance and storage space in a clean and organized
manner. The City understands that these improvements are on School District
property and may be surrendered at some time in the future for School District
additions or improvements.
· The School District agrees to allow the City of Aspen Parks Department to
construct and pay for additional storage space at the School District Multi-Use
Field as identified through a design process. The space may not exceed 200
square feet of storage.
D. Scheduling and Maintenance of School District Multi-Use Field
· The City agrees to maintain the School District Multi-Use Field. The City will
have the ability to schedule the field during the months of June, July, and August.
The City will receive first consideration for use of the field during the months of
September through May when the School District does not have it scheduled for
school functions. The City further agrees to pay its proportionate cost of lights
used for activities.
. Use of the lights on the field may not exceed 10:30 p.m. on any given night.
E. Irrigation systems & water lines
. The School District understands that certain water lines as identified in (Exhibit
"A-2") belong to the City, but cross School District Property. Furthermore, these
lines are needed to serve the irrigation of playing fields identified in this
agreement. Each party understands the necessity of these lines and for the
common good of each party. The School District agrees to allow such crossing of
their property by these lines for the duration of this agreement.
III. School District use of City Facilities. The City hereby agrees to allow the School
District to use the following facilities upon the terms and conditions set forth below. The Aspen
School District will have first consideration in the use of City of Aspen facilities when not in use
by the City of Aspen.
~j. . Aspen Golf & Tennis Club:
Golf
1. Intended Use: Two (2) high school golf tournaments, One (1) cross-
country foot race. A second (2nd) cross-country foot race will be
considered based upon availability.
2. Users: Aspen High School coaches and players
3. Times and Dates: To be scheduled with the golf course superintendent
4. User Fees or other costs attendant to use offacility: NO CHARGE
Tennis
1. Intended Use: Aspen High School Tennis Team practice and matches.
2. Users: Aspen High School coaches and Tennis Team.
3. Times and Dates: Monday through Saturday during regular school year.
Scheduling to be coordinated with the tennis pro.
4. User Fees or other costs attendant to use of facility: NO CHARGE
5. Special Conditions: Courts will not be available until May 15th of any
gIven year.
B. James E. Moore (ARC) Pool Facility: The City of Aspen has a cItIzen
Advisory Committee who determines certain policies regarding the operations of
the ARC. All policies deemed appropriate by the Advisory Committee will be
applicable when scheduling school programs. Prioritization policies regarding
youth as the first priority in scheduling and adults second will be in effect when
scheduling this facility. Youth will be scheduled as youngest to oldest, e.g. 1 0
year olds will receive a higher priority than 15 year olds.
1. Intended Use: Instructional swim and water safety programs in
conjunction with school physical education programs and Aspen High
School Swim Team practice and meets.
2. Users: Elementary through High School P.E. classes and Aspen High
School coaches and swimmers.
3. Times & Dates: Regular school days and hours established by the School
District. Times and days will be pre-arranged with Pool director or duly
appointed representative.
4. Special Conditions: The James E. Moore Pool facility is governed by
state regulations. Personnel certified as lifeguards who are City employees
shall be in attendance at all times. Accordingly, a rate will be charged to
school programs equal to, but not more than the cost of additional
personnel and/or equipment outside the normal operating requirements.
C. Lewis Ice Arena (ARC) and Aspen Ice Garden Facilities:
I. Intended use: Instruction and enjoyment of Aspen School District classes
and Aspen High School Ice Hockey team practice and games.
2. Users: Aspen School District students, teachers, coaches and hockey
players.
3. Times and Dates: Times and Dates must be pre-arranged with the Ice
Garden Manager or a representative during the regular school year.
Saturdays and Sundays are included.
4. Special Conditions: The Aspen Ice Garden is a facility that requires
trained personnel to be on hand who are City Employees. Accordingly, a
rate will be charged to school programs equal to, but not more than the
cost of additional personnel and/or equipment outside the normal
operating requirements.
D. FUN Passes: The City of Aspen will extend a 15% discount to School District
Employees when purchasing a FUN pass of any type. Identification as a School
District Employee shall be presented at the time of purchase in the form of: most
recent pay stub, identification card, or written letter signed by the school
superintendent.
E. Iselin Park/Rotary Park:
I. Intended Use: For use by the School District for Baseball or Softball
practice and games, soccer practice, and football practice (occasional use
only when not scheduled for City Programs)
2. Users: Aspen School District-sponsored teams.
3. Times and Dates: During the appropriate season, spring and fall while
school is in session.
4. User Fees or other costs attendant to use of facility: NO CHARGE
5. Special Conditions: Shall extend to, and include the use of the Iselin Park
batting cage during baseball or softball season for the teams(s) during
regular scheduled practice sessions and when a coach is present.
6. These fields are covered by certain covenants agreed upon by and between
the City of Aspen and the Maroon Creek Caucus and all agreement therein
will apply to school usage of facilities.
F. Moore Playing Fields:
1. Intended Use: Aspen School District Baseball or Softball practice and
games, soccer practice and games, lacrosse practice and games, and
football practice and games.
2. Users: Aspen School District sponsored teams.
3. Times and Dates: During the appropriate season, spring and fall while
school is in session.
4. User Fees or other costs attendant to use of facility: NO CHARGE
5. These fields are covered by certain covenants agreed upon by and between
the City of Aspen and Maroon Creek Caucus Homeowners and
Meadowood Homeowners and all agreement therein will apply to school
usage of facilities.
G. ARC Climbing Wall and Red Brick Gymnasium/Climbing Wall:
1. Intended Use: Instruction and enjoyment of Aspen School District classes.
2. Users: Aspen School District students and teachers.
3. Times and Dates: Times and Dates must be pre-arranged with respective
facility staff. Use will extend to normal school hours while school is in
session.
4. Special Conditions: There will be NO CHARGE for the use of the wall
and the gymnasium, but in the case of the climbing wall, certified
personnel must be on hand to ensure safety and proper use. Personnel
used for instruction must be from the Recreation Department's contracted
business or a waiver of approval from contractor approving the use of
outside instructors. The School District will absorb any costs associated
with instructors. Any instructors not associated with the Recreation
Department's contractor must be approved by the Recreation Department
in writing.
5. Use of the climbing facilities will include all equipment necessary to
ensure safe operations to include shoes at no extra charge.
IV. City Use of School District Facilities. The Aspen School District hereby agrees to
allow the City of Aspen to use the following facilities upon the terms and conditions set
forth below. The City of Aspen will have first consideration in the use of School District
Facilities when not in use by the Aspen School District.
A. ASPEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
ASPEN MIDDLE SCHOOL.
ASPEN HIGH SCHOOL.
1. Intended Use: Youth and Adult programs to include: basketball,
volleyball, day camp, and other after-school recreational programs.
2. Users: Participants registered in City of Aspen Recreation Department
programs.
3. Times and Dates: The City of Aspen Recreation Department programs
will have first consideration in the use of school facilities when not in use
by Aspen School District activities. EXCEPTION: The school district
has a pre-existing contract with the Music Associates of Aspen which will
take priority over the Recreation Department's use of school facilities.
4. User Fees or other costs attendant to use offacility: NO CHARGE
5. Special Conditions: If Recreation Department programs cause excessive
or undue wear on facilities to where the Recreation Department and its
employees are unable to maintain the cleanliness of the facility, then fees
may be charged at a reasonable cost in order for the School District to
recoup their added expenses above and beyond daily maintenance.
6. The City of Aspen operates a Summer Day Camp Program which provides
child care to those school age children attending Aspen School District
classes. The School District will provide access each summer to this
program. (Spring and Christmas Camps to be included.)
MANAGER OF PARKS & RECREATION
,<C ~ ~~ I~
-ij
, ~ ~
-5 ~~
, ~
j;
d- ~ ~\t-
" ~~ ~~~
~ ~~ ~
~~ ~ ~~ ~~~
~'\ \S~~ ~~
~ d
'...\ ~<
~~
~~
~
~
~
<l4