The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.council.regular.20060626 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA June 26, 2006 5:00 P.M. I. Call to Order II. Roll 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) Councilmembers' Comments c) City Manager's Comments d) Board Reports VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion) a) Resolution #50, 2006 - Consignment Water Service Agreement Bar/X Ranch b) Resolution #51,2006 - Contract Aerial Boom Truck c) Minutes - June 12, 2006 VII. First Reading of Ordinances a) Ordinance #26,2006 - Boomerang Lodge PUD P.H. 7/10 b) Ordinance #27,2006 - Code Amendments - TDRs P.H. 7/24 c) Ordinance #28,2006 - Lift One Condominium Consolidated PUD P.H. d) Ordinance #29,2006 - Ajax Mountain Building P.H. VIII. Public Hearings a) Ordinance #16,2006 - Hannah Dustin Subdivision 300 S. Spring b) Ordinance #22,2006 - Recycle Center COWOP c) Ordinance #23, 2006 - Exemptions from the Moratorium IX. Action Items a) 434 East Cooper - Call up of HPC Decision X. Information Items Xi. Adjournment Next Regular Meeting Julv 10, 2006 COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M. \j , a.. . lVIe:D1o~dllllYn. JllellllYel.,.. lllIY 1lIumey'l8lllce TO: Mayor and Members of Council FROM: John P. Worcester DATE: June 26, 2005 RE: Resolution No.~, Series of 2006, Authorizing Assignment of Bar/X Water Service Agreement and Pre-Annexation Agreement Attached for your consideration and review is a resolution that, if approved, would authorize the execution of an Assignment ofthe Water Service Agreement and Pre-Annexation Agreement relating to the Bar/X Ranch. It also authorizes the assignment of shares in the Willow Creek Ditch and Herrick Ditch, a well permit and the provisions of the settlement agreement between the City, Pearce Equities Group, LLC. The Agreements with the Zoline family include a provision that allowed them to assign the Water Service and Pre-Annexation Agreements with the City's consent (which may not be unreasonably withheld.) The new owners of the Bar/X Ranch, Two Stage Road, LLC, have asked that the above referenced agreements be assigned to them. REQUESTED ACTION: This item has been placed on your Consent Calendar. Approval of the Consent Calendar will constitute approval of the appended resolution. cc: City Manager RESOLUTION NO. 5Z) (Series of 2006) WHEREAS, the CITY OF ASPEN and BAR/X RANCH, LLC have executed the Restated and Amended Water Service Agreement dated October 22, 2003 ("Agreement"); and WHEREAS, paragraph 32 of the Agreement provides that no party can assign said Agreement without the other party's written consent; and WHEREAS, Bar/X Ranch, LLC seeks to assign said Agreement to Two Stage Road, LLC who is under contract to purchase the property encumbered by said Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen has reviewed Bar/X Ranch, LLC's proposed Assignment to Two Stage Road, LLC and consents to the Assignment by executing a Consent to Assignment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, That the City of Aspen hereby authorizes the execution of the Consent to Assignment attached hereto as Exhibit "1" and consents to the Assignment attached to the Consent to Assignment as Exhibit "A." RESOLVED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this by the City of Aspen, Colorado. day of ,2006, CITY OF ASPEN Mayor, City of Aspen I, , duly appointed and acting as City Clerk, certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held , 2006. City Clerk, City of Aspen W:\Zofine -x1/02 F1DocumentslAspen Resolution re Consent to Assignment.doc CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT CITY OF ASPEN, a Colorado home rule municipal corporation, ("Aspen") and BAR/X RANCH, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, ("Bar/X") wish to set forth Aspen's consent and agreement to the assignment of certain agreements to Two Stage Road, LLC as follows: Aspen hereby consents to the Assignment attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference. In consideration of the foregoing and the mutual covenants of the parties, Aspen executes this Consent to Assignment as set forth herein this _ day of 2006. CITY OF ASPEN By: , as of the City of Aspen. ATTEST: By: , as of the City of Aspen. STATEOFCOLORADO ) ) COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged , 2006, by by Colorado. , as before me this _ day of ,as ,and , for the City of Aspen, Witness my hand and official seal My commission expires Notary Public EXHIBIT W\ZQlillc -~\I02 F\Doc\lmcnl5lA5pen Consent to Assignment 6-5_06 doc J 1 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: Holland & Hart LLP 600 E. Main Street Suite 104 Aspen, CO 81611 Attn: Thomas J. Todd, Esq. SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE ASSIGNMENT TillS ASSIGNMENT made this IST~ day of June, 2006, between BARIX RANCH, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, JOSEPH T. ZOLINE ADMINISTRATIVE TRUST, PATRICIA ZOLINE GST EXEMPT TRUST, PAMELA LIFTON-ZOLINE GST EXEMPT TRUST, and THOMAS A. ZOLINE, an individual, whose street address is c/o Gumbiner Savett Inc., 1723 Cloverfield Blvd., Santa Monica, CA 90404, Attn; Gary Finkel ("Assignors") and TWO STAGE ROAD, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, whose address is 532 E. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 ("Assignee"); WITNESS, that Assignors for and in considerationof TEN DOLLARS and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, grant, assign and confirm unto Assignee, and do hereby assign all right, title and interest which Assignors now have in and to the following personal property: I. 482.2 shares of 534.0 shares in the Willow Creek Ditch and Herrick Ditch Company, represented in part by Stock Certificate No.3; 2. Exempt Well Permit No.2310l7 issued on January 11, 2001 for fire protection, ordinary household purposes inside not more than 3 single family dwellings, irrigation of not more than 1 acre of home gardens and lawns and watering domestic animals; 3. Fourth Amended and Restated Pre-Annexation Agreement between the City of Aspen and BariX Ranch, LLC dated December 6, 2004; 4. Restated and Amended Water Service Agreement between the City of Aspen and BariX Ranch, LLC dated October 22,2003; and 5. Settlement Agreement between Pearce Equities Group II, LLC and Joseph Zoline dated March 25, 1999 and recorded at the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder at Reception No. 429230 on March 26, 1999. i I i 6ll9mi'.2 I EXHIBIT A Assignors make such Assignment to the Assignee without any representations or warranties of any kind. This Assigrnnent represents the entire agreement and understandings between the parties and shall only be amended or modified by written agreement between the parties. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said personal property above assigned along with the appurtenances thereto belonging, unto the Assignee, its successors and assigns forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Assignors have executed this Assignment on the date set forth above. ASSIGNORS: BARlX RANCH, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company PATRICIA ZOLINE GST EXEMPT TRUST By: Joseph T. 20line Administrative Trust, Manager ~ By: A~l.... kO Name: Gary Finkel Title: Trustee By: /Sa..-, '1- Name: Gary Finkel Title: Trustee JOSEPH T. ZOLINE ADMINISTRATIVE TRUST By: / ., ~. LD Name: Gary Finkel Title: Trustee PAMELALIFfON-ZOLINE GST EXEMPT TRUST By: .---&",-<--- ")~ L-D Name: Gary Fink'el Title: Trustee ~9027.2 2 STATEOF Ca.ld'ovYlI"-. ) L ) ss. COUNTY OF c>S ft.'je...ltr ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this R day of June, 2006, by Gary Finkel, as Trustee of Joseph T. Zoline Administrative Trust, Manager of Bar/X Ranch, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company. Witness my hand and official seal. -J~l<-[ I (1..-008 . N lLbl.h@ R~.__ ,;;..,.....t1;,;.H~- - r otary P~I:; ~mJmJn;; 1500103 r ~ .t-~ ~ Notary PubUc . Colllomlc t ~ . Los Angeles Counly [ J _ _ _ ~:o:m:..Ex~~~17.:.2~t My commission expires: STATE OF Cfl.11~(I'1(z... ) I ~ I.)ss. COUNTY OF L-o':, q.tI-L)) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 12. by Gary Finkel, as Trustee of Patricia Zoline GST Exempt Trust. day of June, 2006, Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: -:J 1,,0 17 'UJoE; ~ Notary Public ~ ANALETICIABRAN _ -: Commission;; 1500103 ~ . ~.' ," Notary Pubnc - CaUfomkJ j .~ Los Angeles CoonIy - _ _' _ ~:~m:..~J~17.:.2~t STATE OF ~ ) I ~)ss. COUNTY OF .-6S S) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 11.. day of June. 2006, by Gary Finkel, as Trustee of Joseph T. ZoHne Administrative Trust. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: SJ'-j /, 2..bOg- )t-<1-d3~ Notary Public @.-.ANALETICIABRAN _ ~ Comm_n #1500103 ! :~ Notary PubfJc - California '?~ ~S~_SC~~ MvComrn. Explr4NJ~ 17~2008 AA90H-2 3 STATE OF Cedi rorV\!;Z ) I. f\ I,) SS. COUNTY OF L.-G~ fVlcreUf) ../ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 12. day of June, 2006, by Gary Finkel, as Trustee of Pamela Lifton-Zoline GST Exempt Trust. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Jv ly I 7 2-e:o 6' ~~ Notary Public l~' - - - - z,.,.-LEOC,A BAAlt & r , ~. _ Commission # '500103 r ~ ..... <',' - - Notary PubIlc - California ~ ~ :-1', Los Angeles Counly [ J _ _ _ ~:o:m:.~~J~17.:.2~t STATE OF ('1a/r'fcl'/11 iCt'-- ) 1 ~ L )ss COUNTY OF U> ') J.J'J ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ! 2- by Thomas A. Zoline. day of June, 2006, Witness my hand md official seal. My commission expires: J U{'1 f7 UlDS' ~~ Notary Public J @- :O~~~CflB::~ - ~ i ~'i..,_ Notary Public . CoUfornlo i ~' Los Angeles Coonly [ J _ _ _ ~:o~m:..Expft~J~17:2~t f\ll9O:!72 4 By signing below, TWO STAGE ROAD, LLC is confirming that it accepts this Assignment as of this ...L'i-day of June, 2006. ASSIGNEE: TWO STAGE ROAD, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By: Austin Lawrence Partners, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, Manager /' STATE OF Lo (0 (", cfo ::P r t 1<-,,;.. ) ) ss: ) COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this L:!day of June, 2006, by Gregory Hills as the Manager of Austin Lawrence Partners, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, as Manager of Two Stage Road, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Witness my hand and official seal. My conunission expires:.-.Ll / I I 0 7 . C '1 IAAJ~UP Notary Public ....'v " _~.;{:<\~f~Z\~ i}.) >';'! [..,... ..~"~<<;<~7 ~..l?~[';::) ij, . ~'-f ~.;"" . :---'i '( . I; ~ If .:. 0 'i t : (" ~ : \',c.~o" ~ O",eo OJ.. ....;,...COCd'::'J~""CP.,<:-'S-/' . ",' ~ "og~O 000<:>. :':X'./ ~"'~~ 07 1"'o(J'fjJ:'. - ~:~ \.; ~,<.:'"'- -..:>.:- l.',}c._... .. 3 l\311O!7.2 5 Vlb MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jerry Nye, Superintendent of Streets THRU: Phil Overeynder, Public Works Director THRU: Randy Ready, Asst. City Manager DATE: June 14,2006 RE: Contract approval: .Aerial Bucket Truck SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of the contract 2006-6FM for the purchase of one Aerial Bucket truck for the Electric Department. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council approved this purchase as part of the 2005 Fleet Replacement Program in the Asset Management Plan. The purchase was delayed until this year. BACKGROUND: This purchase is the result of competitive bid process in which the lowest responsive bidder was awarded the bid. DISCUSSION: This new aerial bucket truck purchase is part of the 2006 fleet replacement program for the Electric Department. The 2005 Asset Management Plan contained the approved funding for this purchase. The funds for the replacement in 2005 were carried over into 2006. Staff evaluated this purchase during the past several months and the Electric Department staff recommended trading in both of the older bucket trucks and purchasing only one new aerial truck to replace the existing 1985 50-foot reach truck. The Electric Department will be downsizing its fleet by one vehicle as a result of this purchase. This truck will be used primarily by the paint crew, painting the street light poles and will also be used for any other projects that require equipment to safely lift staff up to a working height of 10 to 50 feet so they can perform their duties. The 2 trucks that are being traded in are older trucks, one is a model year 1987 with a 35-foot reach and the other truck is a model year 1985 with a 50- foot capability. Both of these older trucks must pass an annual aerial safety inspection done by the State, and staff feels that it is time to replace these two older trucks before they have to have costly repairs done to them to pass this annual safety inspection. O.J Watson Equipment Company was awarded the bid for this new aerial bucket truck purchase. The City of Aspen has worked with this vendor on other equipment purchases and we have been satisfied with its products and support. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The 2005 Asset Management Plan contained the approved funding for this purchase. The funds for the replacement in 2005 were carried over into 2006. The estimated budget amount was $100,000 for the purchase of a larger truck that would be equivalent to the 1985 50-foot bucket truck. This bid came in at $44,040 and the vendor is offering a total trade-in amount of$12,500 for the two older trucks, making the net purchase price of $31 ,540. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the approval for the purchase of the one bucket truck outlined above. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution # 51 on the consent calendar of Monday, June 26, 2006 of 2006 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RESOLUTION NO. 5 L Series of2006 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND OJ Watson Equipment Companv AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID DOCUMENT(S) ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a CONTRACT between the City of Aspen, Colorado and O.J. Watson Equipment Companv a copy of which contract 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 CONTRACT between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and OJ. Watson Equipment Companv 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: ,2006. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held ,2006. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk SUPPLY PROCUREMENT AGREEMENT CITY OF ASPEN BID NO. 2006 - 6FM THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into, this 31st dav of Mav between the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereinafter referred to as O.J Watson Eauipment Companv. . hereinafter referred to as the 'Vendor." of 2006, by and the "City" and WITNESSETH, that whereas the City wishes to purchase, One (1) 35 foot aerial bucket truck Hereinafter called the UNIT(S), in accordance with the terms and conditions outlined in the Contract Documents and any associated Specifications, and Vendor wishes to sell said UNIT to the City as specified in its Bid. NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the Vendor, for the considerations hereinafter set forth, agree as follows: 1. Purchase. Vendor agrees to sell and City agrees to purchase the UNIT(S) as described in the Contract Documents and more specifically in Vendor's Bid for the sum of Thirty One Thousand. Five Hundred Fortv and no cents dollars ($ 31.540.00 ). 7TZveM' ;r.~fJ.DD 2. Deliverv. (FOB 1080 POWER PLANT RD. ASPEN, CO.) "I""',/T" - :JI.lI;rliJr. tn.! ~nv. - ~"It7 ;(0. DO 7Z.AN /H 3. Contract Documents. This Agreement shall include all Contract Documents as the same IZ.S"~. DO are listed in the Invitation to Bid and said Contract Documents are hereby made a part of this Agreement as if fully set out at length herein. 4. Warranties. A full description of all warranties associated with this purchase shall accompany this contract document. 5. Successors and Assians. This Agreement and all of the covenants hereof shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the City and the Vendor respectively and their agents, representatives, employee, successors, assigns and legal representatives. Neither the City nor the Vendor shall have the right to assign, transfer or sublet its interest or obligations hereunder without the written consent of the other party. 6. Third Parties. This Agreement does not and shall not be deemed or construed to confer upon or grant to any third party or parties, except to parties to whom Vendor or City may assign this Agreement in accordance with the specifiC written permission, any rights to claim damages or to bring any suit, action or other proceeding against either the City or Vendor because of any breach hereof or because of any of the terms, covenants, agreements or conditions herein contained. 7. Waivers. No waiver of default by either party of any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof to be performed, kept and observed by the other party shall be construed, or operate as, a waiver of any subsequent default of any of the terms, covenants or conditions herein contained, to be performed, kept and observed by the other party. 7-PURCH.DOC 8. AQreement Made in Colorado. The parties agree that this Agreement was made in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and shall be so construed. Venue is agreed to be exclusively in the courts of Pitkin County, Colorado. 9. Attornev's Fees. In the event that legal action is necessary to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its costs and reasonable attorney's fees. 10. Waiver of Presumption. This Agreement was negotiated and reviewed through the mutual efforts of the parties hereto and the parties agree that no construction shall be made or presumption shall arise for or against either party based on any alleged unequal status of the parties in the negotiation, review or drafting of the Agreement. 11. Certification Regarding Debarment. Suspension. Ineligibilitv. and Voluntarv Exclusion. Vendor certifies, by acceptance of this Agreement, that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from participation in any transaction with a Federal or State department or agency. It further certifies that prior to submitting its Bid that it did include this clause without modification in all lower tier transactions, solicitations, proposals, contracts and subcontracts. In the event that vendor or any lower tier participant was unable to certify to this statement, an explanation was attached to the Bid and was determined by the City to be satisfactory to the City. 12. Warranties Against Contingent Fees. Gratuities. Kickbacks and Conflicts of Interest. Vendor warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to solicit or secure this Contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Vendor for the purpose of securing business. Vendor agrees not to give any employee 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. Vendor represents that no official, officer, employee or representative of the City during the term of this Agreement has or one (1) year thereafter shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof, except those that may have been disclosed at the time City Council approved the execution of this Agreement. 7-PURCH.DOC . . .. 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: 1. Cancel this Purchase Agreement without any liability by the City; 2. Debar or suspend the offending parties from being a vendor, contractor 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 Vendor; and 4. Recover such value from the offending parties. 13. Termination for Default or for Convenience of City. The sale contemplated by this Agreement may be cancelled by the City prior to acceptance by the City whenever for any reason and in its sole discretion the City shall determine that such cancellation is in its best interests and convenience. 14. Fund Availabilitv. Financial obligations of the City payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise made available. If this Agreement contemplates the City utilizing state or federal funds to meet its obligations herein, this Agreement shall be contingent upon the availability of of those funds for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 15. Citv Council Approval. If this Agreement requires the City to pay an amount of money in excess of $10,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid until it has been approved by the City Council of the City of Aspen. 16. 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 under this Agreement. Vendor agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, section 13-98, pertaining to non- discrimination in employment. Vendor further agrees to comply with the letter and the spirit of the Colorado Antidiscrimination ACt of 1957, as amended, and other applicable state and federal laws respecting discrimination and unfair employment practices. 17. Intearation and Modification. This written Agreement along with all Contract Documents shall constitute the contract between the parties and supersedes or incorporates any prior written and oral agreements of the parties. In addition, vendor understands that no City official or employee, other than the Mayor and City Council acting as a body at a council meeting, has authority to enter into an Agreement or to modify the terms of the Agreement on behalf of the City. Any such Agreement or modification to this Agreement must be in writing and be executed by the parties hereto. 18. Authorized Representative. The undersigned representative of Vendor, as an inducement to the City to execute this Agreement, represents that he/she is an authorized representative of Vendor for the purposes of executing this Agreement and that he/she has full and complete authority to enter into this Agreement for the terms and conditions specified herein. 7-PURCH.DOC . . . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The City and the Vendor, respectively have caused this Agreement to be duly executed the day and year first herein written in three (3) copies, all of which, to all intents and purposes, shall be considered as the original. FOR THE CITY OF ASPEN: By: City Manager ATTEST: City Clerk VENDOR: o. V. WAr$o.N' (117. J /N&. By: If ~"'~f W'AHA&t!" Title. .f"A~P3"M~ 7-PURCH.DOC .... SUPPLY PROCUREMENT AGREEMENT CITY OF ASPEN BID NO. 2006 - 6FM THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into, this 31st dav of Mav between the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereinafter referred to as O.J Watson Equipment Companv. . hereinafter referred to as the 'Vendor." of 2006, by and the "City" and WITNESSETH, that whereas the City wishes to purchase, One (1) 35 foot aerial bucket truck Hereinafter called the UNIT(S), in accordance with the terms and conditions outlined in the Contract Documents and any associated Specifications, and Vendor wishes to sell said UNIT to the City as specified in its Bid. NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the Vendor, for the considerations hereinafter set forth, agree as follows: 1. Purchase. Vendor agrees to sell and City agrees to purchase the UNIT(S) as described in the Contract Documents and more specifically in Vendor's Bid for the sum of _ Thirty One Thousand. Five Hundred Fortv and no cents dollars ($ 31.540.00 ). nz~ . ZD?'1S.Dt:,/ 2. Deliverv. (FOB 1080 POWER PLANT RD. ASPEN, CO.) (/;11'.17" - U I.'f/IJ .tfIt:) TtI.".~ ~"''''''D. - 1'7&1114 "IN 3. Contract Documents. This Agreement shall include all Contract Documents as the same /Z$"OO.<<) are listed in the Invitation to Bid and said Contract Documents are hereby made a part of this Agreement as if fully set out at length herein. 4. Warranties. A full description of all warranties associated with this purchase shall accompany this contract document. 5. Successors and AssiQns. This Agreement and all of the covenants hereof shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the City and the Vendor respectively and their agents, representatives, employee, successors, assigns and legal representatives. Neither the City nor the Vendor shall have the right to assign, transfer or sublet its interest or obligations hereunder without the written consent of the other party. 6. Third Parties. This Agreement does not and shall not be deemed or construed to confer upon or grant to any third party or parties, except to parties to whom Vendor or City may assign this Agreement in accordance with the specifiC written permission, any rights to claim damages or to bring any suit, action or other proceeding against either the City or Vendor because of any breach hereof or because of any of the terms, covenants, agreements or conditions herein contained. 7. Waivers. No waiver of default by either party of any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof to be performed, kept and observed by the other party shall be construed, or operate as, a waiver of any subsequent default of any of the terms, covenants or conditions herein contained, to be performed, kept and observed by the other party. 7-PURCH.DOC ... ~ 8. AQreement Made in Colorado. The parties agree that this Agreement was made in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and shall be so construed. Venue is agreed to be exclusively in the courts of Pitkin County, Colorado. 9. Attornev's Fees. In the event that legal action is necessary to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its costs and reasonable attorney's fees. 10. Waiver of Presumption. This Agreement was negotiated and reviewed through the mutual efforts of the parties hereto and the parties agree that no' construction shall be made or presumption shall arise for or against either party based on any alleged unequal status of the parties in the negotiation, review or drafting of the Agreement. 11. Certification ReQardinQ Debarment. Suspension. IneliQibilitv. and Voluntarv Exclusion. Vendor certifies, by acceptance of this Agreement, that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from participation in any transaction with a Federal or State department or agency. It further certifies that prior to submitting its Bid that it did include this clause without modification in all lower tier transactions, solicitations, proposals, contracts and subcontracts. In the event that vendor or any lower tier participant was unable to certify to this statement, an explanation was attached to the Bid and was determined by the City to be satisfactory to the City. 12. Warranties AQainst ContinQent Fees. Gratuities. Kickbacks and Conflicts of Interest. Vendor warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to solicit or secure this Contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Vendor for the purpose of securing business. Vendor agrees not to give any employee or former employee of the City a gratuity or any offe( 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. Vendor represents that no official, officer, employee or representative of the City during the term of this Agreement has or one (1) year thereafter shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof, except those that may have been disclosed at the time City Council approved the execution of this Agreement. 7-PURCH.DOC . 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: 1. Cancel this Purchase Agreement without any liability by the City; 2. Debar or suspend the offending parties from being a vendor, contractor 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 Vendor; and 4. Recover such value from the offending parties. 13. Termination for Default or for Convenience of Citv. The sale contemplated by this Agreement may be cancelled by the City prior to acceptance by the City whenever for any reason and in its sole discretion the City shall determine that such cancellation is in its best interests and convenience. 14. Fund Availabilitv. Financial obligations of the City payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise made available. If this Agreement contemplates the City utilizing state or federal funds to meet its obligations herein, this Agreement shall be contingent upon the availability of of those funds for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 15. Citv Council Approval. If this Agreement requires the City to pay an amount of money in excess of $10,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid until it has been approved by the City Council of the City of Aspen. 16. 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 under this Agreement. Vendor agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, section 13-98, pertaining to non- discrimination in employment. Vendor further agrees to comply with the letter find the spirit of the Colorado Antidiscrimination ACt of 195 j, as amended, and other applicable state and federal laws respecting discrimination and unfair employment practices. 17. InteQration and Modification. This written Agreement along with all Contract Documents shall constitute the contract between the parties and supersedes or incorporates any prior written and oral agreements of the parties. In addition, vendor understands that no City official or employee, other than the Mayor and City Council acting as a body at a council meeting, has authority to enter into an Agreement or to modify the terms of the Agreement on behalf of the City. Any such Agreement or modification to this Agreement must be in writing and be executed by the parties hereto. 18. Authorized Representative. The undersigned representative of Vendor, as an inducement to the City to execute this Agreement, represents that he/she is an authorized representative of Vendor for the purposes of executing this Agreement and that he/she has full and complete authority to enter into this Agreement for the terms and conditions specified herein. 7-PURCH.DOC .. . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The City and the Vendor, respectively have caused this Agreement to be duly executed the day and year first herein written in three (3) copies, all of which, to all intents and purposes, shall be considered as the original. FOR THE CITY OF ASPEN: By: City Manager ATTEST: City Clerk By: (1)..1. WAT.ft7N 1'0.) 1#&. ~f ~.#H HA~~r VENDOR: Title. .f,,4..tJF.sn;fM,/ 7-PURCH.DOC .. SUPPLY PROCUREMENT AGREEMENT CITY OF ASPEN BID NO. 2006 - 6FM THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into, this 31st dav of Mav between the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereinafter referred to as O.J Watson Equipment Companv. . hereinafter referred to as the 'Vendor." of 2006, by and the "City" and WITNESSETH, that whereas the City wishes to purchase, One (1) 35 foot aerial bucket truck Hereinafter called the UNIT{S), in accordance with the terms and conditions outlined in the Contract Documents and any associated Specifications, and Vendor wishes to sell said UNIT to the City as specified in its Bid. NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the Vendor, for the considerations hereinafter set forth, agree as follows: 1. Purchase. Vendor agrees to sell and City agrees to purchase the UNIT(S) as described in the Contract Documents and more specifically in Vendor's Bid for the sum of Thirty One Thousand. Five Hundred Forty and no cents dollars ($ 31.540.00 ). 71Zve-K. . ;lP7'19.DO 2. Deliverv. (FOB 1080 POWER PLANT RD. ASPEN, CO.) VI"'''' - ~'30'fl'Z. DO Tt.I7;It/. "I"It7"1tb t:.ID ~N /H 3. Contract Documents. This Agreement shall include all Contract Documents as the same IMtJt:J ~O are listed in the Invitation to Bid and said Contract Documents are hereby made a part of this . Agreement as if fully set out at length herein. 4. Warranties. A full description of all warranties associated with this purchase shall accompany this contract document. 5. Successors and AssiQns. This Agreement and all of the covenants hereof shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the City and the Vendor respectively and their agents, representatives, employee, successors, assigns and legal representatives. Neither the City nor the Vendor shall have the right to assign, transfer or sublet its interest or obligations hereunder without the written consent of the other party. 6. Third Parties. This Agreement does not and shall not be deemed or construed to confer upon or grant to any third party or parties, except to parties to whom Vendor or City may assign this Agreement in accordance with the specific written permission, any rights to claim damages or to bring any suit, action or other proceeding against either the City or Vendor because of any breach hereof or because of any of the terms, covenants, agreements or conditions herein contained. 7. Waivers. No waiver of default by either party of any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof to be performed, kept and observed by the other party shall be construed, or operate as, a waiver of any subsequent default of any of the terms, covenants or conditions herein contained, to be performed, kept and observed by the other party. 7-PURCH.DOC .. 8. AQreement Made in Colorado. The parties agree that this Agreement was made in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and shall be so construed. Venue is agreed to be exclusively in the courts of Pitkin County, Colorado. 9. Attornev's Fees. In the event that legal action is necessary to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its costs and reasonable attorney's fees. 10. Waiver of Presumption. This Agreement was negotiated and reviewed through the mutual efforts of the parties hereto and the parties agree that no construction shall be made or presumption shall arise for or against either party based on any alleged unequal status of the parties in the negotiation, review or drafting of the Agreement. 11. Certification ReQardinQ Debarment. Suspension. IneliQibilitv. and Voluntarv Exclusion. Vendor certifies, by acceptance of this Agreement, that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from participation in any transaction with a Federal or State department or agency. It further certifies that prior to submitting its Bid that it did include this clause without modification in all lower tier transactions, solicitations, proposals, contracts and subcontracts. In the event that vendor or any lower tier participant was unable to certify to this statement, an explanation was attached to the Bid and was determined by the City to be satisfactory to the City. 12. Warranties AQainst ContinQent Fees. Gratuities. Kickbacks and Conflicts of Interest. Vendor warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to solicit or secure this Contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Vendor for the purpose of securing business. Vendor agrees not to give any employee 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. Vendor represents that no official, officer, employee or representative of the City during the term of this Agreement has or one (1) year thereafter shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof, except those that may have been disclosed at the time City Council approved the execution of this Agreement. 7-PURCH.DOC 4 ,,' 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: 1. Cancel this Purchase Agreement without any liability by the City; 2. Debar or suspend the offending parties from being a vendor, contractor 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 Vendor; and 4. Recover such value from the offending parties. 13. Termination for Default or for Convenience of Citv. The sale contemplated by this Agreement may be cancelled by the City prior to acceptance by the City whenever for any reason and in its sole discretion the City shall determine that such cancellation is in its best interests and convenience. 14. Fund Availabilitv. Financial obligations of the City payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise made available. If this Agreement contemplates the City utilizing state or federal funds to meet its obligations herein, this Agreement shall be contingent upon the availability of of those funds for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 15. Citv Council Approval. If this Agreement requires the City to pay an amount of money in excess of $10,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid until it has been approved by the City Council of the City of Aspen. 16. 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 under this Agreement. Vendor agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, section 13-98, pertaining to non- discrimination in employment. Vendor further agrees to comply with the letter and the spirit of the Colorado Antidiscrimination ACt of 1957, as amended, and other applicable state and federal laws respecting discrimination and unfair employment practices. 17. InteQration and Modification. This written Agreement along with all Contract Documents shall constitute the contract between the parties and supersedes or incorporates any prior written and oral agreements of the parties. In addition, vendor understands that no City official or employee, other than the Mayor and City Council acting as a body at a council meeting, has authority to enter into an Agreement or to modify the terms of the Agreement on behalf of the City. Any such Agreement or modification to this Agreement must be in writing and be executed by the parties hereto. 18. Authorized Representative. The undersigned representative of Vendor, as an inducement to the City to execute this Agreement, represents that he/she is an authorized representative of Vendor for the purposes of executing this Agreement and that he/she has full and complete authority to enter into this Agreement for the terms and conditions specified herein. 7-PURCH.DOC .. '" . ~ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The City and the Vendor, respectively have caused this Agreement to be duly executed the day and year first herein written in three (3) copies, all of which, to all intents and purposes, shall be considered as the original. FOR THE CITY OF ASPEN: By: City Manager ATTEST: City Clerk VENDOR: CJ III. WA ~O# ~tJ. /N~. .J By: dfff IAN' WA~CG , Title. J"ANF.f'MAN 7-PURCH.DOC lndex.html Page I of2 EQUIPMENT "A legacy for QUALITY Equipment and Service since 1912" Crane Trucks Platfonn Trucks Specialized Trucks Dump Trucks Service Bodies Product Line Demo Ul7lts for Sale "iI" rI1JI96fm EQUIPMENT Links to Suppliers Contact OJ Watson DnvlI7g Directions O.J. Watson Equipment has been building custom _.- trucks from pickups to large work horses since 1912 you can be sure you're getting the finest equipment . C" backed up by OEM parts and superior service. Auto Crane: Cranes and Crane Bodies Boss: Plows and Sanders - Crysteel: Dump Bodies and Hoists - J&J: Dump Bodies - Monroe: Plows, Snow & Ice Control Systems - Oshkosh: Trucks and Airport Equipment - Reading: Service Bodies, Platforms, and Pickup Ca, - Schwartz: Sweeper and Vacuum Trucks - Trackless: Municipal Tractors - Weather Guard: Boxes, Ladder Racks, and Van Inti O.J. Watson Equipment has a huge variety of accessory items and custom fabrication. Whatever: truck equipment need, from large to small, O.J. Wat~ Equipment is prepared to handle it. httn:/ /www.oiwat~on.com/ Ofi/OR/Ofi MEMORANDUM \/1 , 8.- TO: Mayor Klanderud and City Council J\A Joyce A. Allgaier, Deputy Director FROM: THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director C>>VV7 RE: Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment - 500 West Hopkins Avenue l't Reading of Ordinance N o.~ Series of 2006, Planned Unit Development, Rezoning for PUD Overlay, Subdivision, Condominiumizaton and Vested Rights DATE: June 26, 2006 REQUEST SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking approval to redevelop the Boomerang Lodge. The existing Boomerang consists of: . 34 hotel units and a total Floor Area of approximately 23,000 square feet. . 31 parking spaces, all but one of which are partially within the city right-of-way The proposed Boomerang Lodge includes: . 52 hotel units and a total Floor Area of approximately 51,000 square feet. . 6 free-market residential units. . 2 affordable housing units. . 48 parking spaces - 31 underground and 17 surface. ApPLICANT: Aspen FSP-ABR, LLC. Represented by Sunny Vann, AICP. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports the project, but has concern about two significant items. Staff recommends discussion of these issues and either resolution of these or continuation. P&Z RECOMMENDATION: The Commission recommended that the City Council approve of the lodge redevelopment proposal by a vote of four to two (4-2). The two dissenting votes supported the redevelopment concept in terms of bringing new lodge rooms and keeping the "old" Boomerang Lodge component in the site plan. Their dominant reason for dissenting had to do with the height along Hopkins Ave. and neighborhood compatibility. SUMMARY: The applicant, Aspen FSP-ABR, LLC. Represented by Sunny Vann, AlCP, is proposing to redevelopment the Boomerang Lodge. The hotel is zoned R-6 LP - Medium-Density Residential with a Lodge Preservation Overlay. The property is a half- block - 27,000 square feet - and is located at 500 West Hopkins. The property is legally known as Lots K through S of Block 31. The R-6 Zone District is a single-family and duplex zone district. (The "west-end" is zoned R-6.) The Lodge Preservation Overlay permits lodging and effectively "legalizes" the lodge use. Many of the city's older lodges are within residential neighborhoods and are permitted through a LP overlay. The LP overlay also enables a PUD review to allow BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 1 for the expansion of lodging in a manner appropriate for the neighborhood in which the lodge exists. The proposed development consists of 52 hotel units, 6 free-market residential units, 2 affordable housing units, 31 underground parking spaces, and 17 surface parking spaces to remain partially within the street rights-of-way. The total FAR of the site would increase from roughly 23,000 square feet to approximately 51,000 square feet. DIMENSIONAL REOIDREMENTS: Dimension R-6 District Existing Proposed Requirement Development Development Minimum Lot Size 6,000 s.f. 27,000 s.f. 27,000 s.f. Minimum Lot 60 ft 270 ft. 270 ft. Width Minimum Front 5 ft. 10-70 ft.' 0-5 ft. Yard Setback Minimum.Side 5 ft. 6 ft. on west' 0-5 ft. on west Yard Setback 1-5 ft. on east' 1-5 ft. on east Minimum Rear 5 ft. 0-2 ft.* 0-5 ft. Yard Setback Maximum Height 25 ft. pitched roofs 30 ft. on alley.* 42 ft. for a flat roof. (set in PUD for 20-25 ft on east' Approximately 30- Lodging) 35 ft. on east side. Pedestrian 0% (lot not within 40-50%' 19% Amenity Space PA required area) Floor Area Ratio: Total Set in PUD .85 = 23,000 s.f.* 1.86:1 = 50,470 s.f. Lodging Set in PUD .85 = 23,000 s.f.* .97: 1 = 26,210 s.f. Non-unit space** Set in PUD Included in lodge .351 = 9,536 space Commercial Set in PUD N/A N/A Free-Market 25% of total project N/A .48:1 = 12,822 = Residential Floor Area 25% of total project Affordable No FAR limit N/A .05:1 = 1,452 s.f. Residential * These are estimates by staff and are not measured dimensions. To be finalized for 2nd reading. BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 2 . NECESSARY LAND USE ApPROVALS: The following land use approvals are requested and necessary for approval of this project: I. GROWIH MANAGEMENT OUOTA SYSTEM - INCENTIVE LODGE DEVELOPMENT: This review acommodates new lodge allotments (there are 18 requested in this application) and associated new free-market residential allotments (6 are requested). Final Review Authority: Planning and Zoning Commission. NOTE: The replacement of existing lodge development is exempt from the City's Growth Management System. No review is required. 2. GROWIH MANAGEMENT OUOTA SYSTEM - AFFORDABLE HOUSING: This review addresses the development of affordable housing units of which 2 units are proposed. Final Review Authority: Planning and Zoning Commission. 3. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: This review is required for lodge development in the LP overlay to determine the appropriate dimensions of a project. Final Review Authority: City Council after a recommendation from P&z. 4. REzONING FOR PUD OVERLAY: This review is required to affect a change in the zoning map to indicate a Planned Unit Development Overlay. Final Review Authority: City Council after a recommendation from P&z. 5. SUBDMSION; Subdivision review is required for the 8 residential units being created. There are no lot lines being altered through his application. Final Review Authority: City Council after a recommendation from P&z. 6. CONDOMINIUMIZATION; Condominiumization approval is required in order to sell separate interests in the lodge and commercial units. The applicant is requesting condominiumization approval for the project concurrent with this application. The Code requires a condo plat to be submitted for review by the Community Development Director as a subdivision, however, a plat cannot be prepared until construction is substantially complete. Including the condo request now will permit the condo plat to be approved administratively after construction. Final Review Authority: City Council 7. VESTED RiGHTS: Project approvals are "vested" automatically for a 3-year period upon final approval. After this time period, a projects approvals remain valid, but are subject to changes in the Land Use Code. The applicant has requested the standard 3-year vested right. Final Review Authority: City Council. STAFF COMMENTS: Height. The neighborhood is a mix of single-family, duplex, multi-family, lodging, and mixed-use buildings. There is an affordable housing project (Little Ajax) under construction across the street (Hopkins) and a pending redevelopment of the Jewish Community Center (the L'Augberge cabins). The existing development is a mix of two and three story elements with a majority of the project massing located along the alleyway. Structure heights in the neighborhood range from 20 feet to the low 30s. The most-recent approvals have been in the low 30-foot range. The Christiania Lodge was approved at 32 feet, measured at a midpoint (ridge heights are well above 32 feet). BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 3 The proposed four floors and 42-foot height is potentially out of character with the neighborhood. Staff understands the need for redeveloped lodging facilities and this proposal represents a significant gain in the type of lodge development desired by the City - small units and the regeneration of a small lodge. This goal does need to be balanced with the general character of the neighborhood. The Council should discuss this balance and how it should be struck for this site. While the application was in proceedings with the P&Z and at their urging, the applicants amended the plan by removing 2 lodge units and reducing the height of the building in the northwest comer from 42 feet to 39 feet. The applicant does have a neighborhood model and the heights of this project in relation to surrounding development is best understood with this model. Lodge Unit Density. In an effort to reduce height and massing (points of concern during the P&Z hearings), the applicant reduced the number of units to 52 lodge units, instead of the originally proposed 54 lodge units. This puts the average lodge unit size around 506 square feet instead of the 500 square feet and the density at 1 per 520 square feet of lot size pursuant to the Lodge Incentive program. Provisions of the Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) district allow for an adjustment to the "density standard" and "average unit- size standard" after consideration is given to the following: . The average unit-size standard may be amended by a maximum of 20% to permit an average units size of 600 square feet. (The proposal meets this standard.) . The project includes a generous amount of non-unit space, amenities, and services for guests of the lodging operation. This can be both internal and external. (The proposal keeps the unique original pool, original meeting/brealifast room upstairs in the old east wing to be named the "Patterson Room". The project includes a lounge/library, multi-purpose room and concierge area and services.). . The project provides a range of unit sizes and configurations to be attractive to a broad segment of potential gnests. Flexible units are encouraged. (Units range in size from 370 to 900 square feet, and include multi-room suites for families.) . There exists a system or strategy for the project to maximize short-term occupancies. (The lodge will be traditional in nature providing a walk-in opportunity for traveling guests. The lodge is not fractionalized, and rooms can not be occupied for more than 30 consecutive days.) Staff is satisfied that the redevelopment of the Boomerang Lodge meets both the specific standards and the overall intent of the Lodge Preservation and Incentive goals. "Historic" East Wing. The City's Historic Preservation Officer and Historic Preservation Commission does believe the existing development has some historic merit. The project is not a designated Historic Landmark and there exists no HPC jurisdiction over the site. The east "wing" of the property has the greatest historic qualities and the applicant has agreed, in principal, to maintain the basic structure and qualities of this east wing through redevelopment and consider Landmark designation of the east wing after BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 4 redevelopment is accomplished. The entire property would not be landmarked. (Please see Exhibit #1 of the application.) The HPC was allowed an opportunity to review the proposed changes to the east wing. (HPC did not review the entire proposal.) Generally, the HPC does not prefer the addition of a third floor on the east wing and would like to see this portion of the project remain more true to its original (current) form and receive only minor alterations. If the east wing did incorporate an addition, the HPC suggested it be recessed and of a clearly different architectural character (not mimicking the original wing) so that old and new components could be easily identified. The HPC encouraged the applicant, staff and the P&Z to provide flexibility on the remainder of the development such that this east wing could remain unaltered. The applicants have agreed to addressing the concerns of the HPC relating to a different type of material for the 3m floor. Staff does want to preserve the quality of this portion of the development to the extent possible. Obviously, this needs to be balanced with the general height concerns staff raised above. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff strongly supports the basic concept of the application. The proposal implements both replacement and an increase in the bed base in an area that has historically included lodging within the mix of land uses. This is important to the long-term viability of the resort aspect of the community. Also, the interspersed lodging experience inside the community is unique and an important part of Aspen's lodging offerings. The design substantially mitigates the project's parking impacts on the neighborhood and, with some very minor changes, will substantially improve pedestrian infrastructure of the area. Staff believes the two issues identified above need discussion. Staff believes the reduction in the height (from four floors to three floors in some portions) helped the proposal achieve consistency with the neighborhood. The east wing deserves discussion in relation to HPC's desire for this portion of the huilding to retain it's current character and massing, although the applicants have agreed to make the architectural materials different from those of the lower floors, pursuant to HPC recommendations. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve upon first reading, Ordinance No&, Series of 2006, approving with conditions the Subdivision, PUD, Vested Rights, Condominiumization and Rezoning reviews for the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Exhibit D: Staff Findings on Review Standards Application Letters received by staff Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 18,2006 & Minutes (available for 2nd reading) BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 5 ATTENTION CONTRACTORS Pitkin County and the Colorado Division of Wildlife would like to make you aware of County Ordinance 31-2005, the Wildlife Protection Ordinance. This ordinance requires "all construction sites must have a designated container that receives refuse edible by wildlife" (food and drink products). "This container shall be either a Wildlife Proof Refuse Container, or a container that is emptied at the end of each workday and then securely stored inside a trailer or building." This ordinance is an effort to minimize human-wildlife conflicts (emphasizing bears). Once a bear finds a human food source such as trash in an open dumpster it can become food conditioned and habituated resulting in increased conflicts such as breaking into homes, cars in search of human food as well as increased human safety concerns. This ordinance was adopted to enhance public safety and protect the health and welfare of bears and other wildlife. Noncompliance may result in a violation notice and fines up to $1,000. Thank you for your cooperation. Ordinance No.20 (SERIES OF 2006) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, VESTED RIGHTS, CONDOMINIUMIZA TION, AND REZONING FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE BOOMERANG LODGE, 500 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. ParcellD:2735.124.49.002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Aspen FSP-ABR, LLC, (Applicant), c/o Steve Stunda; 11921 Freedom Drive #950; Reston , VA 20190; represented by Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, requesting approval of six (6) free-market residential growth management allotments, two (2) affordable housing growth management allotments, eighteen (18) lodge growth management allotments, Subdivision approval, Rezoning for a Planned Unit Development Overlay, Planned Unit Development approval, Condominiurnization approval, and vested rights for the redevelopment of the Boomerang Lodge located at 500 West Hopkins A venue and known legally as Lots K through S of Block 31, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, the site currently contains 34 hotel units in a structure of approximately 23,000 square feet of Floor Area and surface parking located primarily within the public rights-of-way. The proposed development includes 52 hotel units, 6 free- market residential units, 2 affordable housing units, a 31-space underground parking facility, and 17 surface parking spaces in a structure of approximately 51,000 square feet of Floor Area as defined by the City of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire, Streets, Housing, Environmental Health, Parks and Water Departments as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the application according to the standards of review for each of the requested land use approvals and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.040 of the Land Use Code, Growth Management Review approvals may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies and such Growth Management approvals were granted by the Commission on June 13, 2006; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.480 of the Land Use Code, Subdivision' Review approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission Community, Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.304 of the Aspen Land Use Code and during a regular meeting on April 11, 2006, continued to May 2, 2006, continued to May 16, 2006, and continued to June 13, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a City Council Ordinance No._, Series of2006 - 1- -....~--"-'^.._..,,.._._~.~'""--_._,-..-_.,,~._- duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and where the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard and approved the request for six (6) free-market residential growth management allotments, two (2) affordable housing growth management allotments, eighteen (18) lodge growth management allotments, and recommended City Council Subdivision, Rezoning for a Planned Unit Development Overlay, and Planned Unit Development approval by a four to two (4-2) vote, with the findings contained in Exhibit A of the May 16, 2006, staff m~orandum and the conditions of approval listed hereinafter. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Growth Manal!:ement Allotments The Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.470 - Growth Management - approved the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment project six (6) free- market residential allotments and two (2) affordable housing allotments, and eighteen (18) lodge growth management allotments, subject to the requirements listed hereinafter. Section 2: Approval for Subdivision. Rezoninl!: for PUD Overlav. and PUD Final Development Plan Pursuant to Chapter 26.480,26.310, and 26.445 - Subdivision, Rezoning, and Planned Unit Development, respectively - the City Council grants Subdivision approval, rezoning for a Planned Unit Development Overlay, and Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan approval to the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment project, subject to the requirements listed hereinafter. ro' ect shall be reflected in the Final PUD Plans: Pedestrian Amenity Space 27,000 s.f. 270 ft. 0-5 ft. 0-5 ft. on west 1-5 ft. on east 0-5 ft. 42 ft. for a flat roof. Approximately 30- 35 ft. on east side. <<This needs to be more specific 19% Minimum Lot Size Minimum Lot Width Minimum Front Yard Setback Minimum Side Yard Setback Minimum Rear Yard Setback Maximum Height Floor Area: Total 1.86:1 = 50,470 s.f. Lodging .97: 1 = 26,210 s.f. Non-unit space .35:1 = 9,536 s.f. City Council Ordinance No._, Series of2006 -2 - Commercial N/A Free-Market Residential .475:1 = 12,845 = 25% of total project Affordable Residential .05: 1 = 1,452 s.f. Section 4: Trash/Recvclinl! Area The applicant shall ensure that the trash storage area has adequate wildlife protection and to make sure recycling containers are present wherever trash compactors or dumpsters are located due to the City's new recycling ordinance requiring haulers to provide recycling in the cost of trash pick-up. Section 5: Affordable Housinl! The applicant shall provide two Category 2 affordable housing units as depicted in the application dated December 30, 2005. These units shall be considered full mitigation for the development proposed in said application. A Certificate of Occupancy for the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment project shall not be issued until such time as Certificates of Occupancy for the deed restricted affordable housing units, which are required for mitigation, have been issued. The employees to be housed in the deed-restricted units shall meet the qualification criteria contained within the APCHA Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time. The applicant shall structure and record a deed restriction for the affordable housing units such that an undivided 1/IOth 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. The affordable housing units shall 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. At such time if the units become ownership units, these units will establish an independent homeowners association. Section 6: Additional Trip Generation and PMI0 Mitil!ation Plan In order to reduce the impacts of additional trip generation and PMIO generated by the project, the project shall provide either: I) a shuttle service for use by the owners/gnests of the residences/hotel, 2) an electric vehicle for use by owners/gusts of the project, 3) secure and covered bicycle storage, or 4) the hotel and homeowners associations(s) shall join the Transportation Options Program. The Subdivision Agreement shall specifY which of these options shall be implemented. A fleet of five (5) bicycles shall be provided for use by the lodging guests. The project shall be subject to any transportation related impact fees adopted prior to application for a building permit and any of the above options shall be credited towards any fee requirement. Section 7: Subdivision Plat and PUD Plans Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for a Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision Plat and Final PUD Plans. The City Council Ordinance No._, Series of2006 - 3. Subdivision Plat shall comply with current requirements of the City Community Development Engineer and, in addition to the standard requirements, shall include: I. The final property boundaries and disposition oflands. 2. The location of Revocable Encroachments for physical improvements within public rights-of-way, including parking to be designated to the Lodge, with reference to agreements and licenses for such improvements. 3. The location of utility pedestals with access easements for the utility provider. Transformers and pedestals shall be located outside of the public right-of-way unless licensed. 4. The applicant shall provide the final approved Subdivision line data or survey description data describing the revised building, street, and parcel boundaries to the Geographic Information Systems Department prior to applying for a building permit. The final building location data, including any amendments, shall be provided to the GIS Department prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. In addition to the standard requirement of Section 26.445.070.B, the Final PUD Plans shall include: 1. An illustrative site plan with adequate snow storage areas and/or snow melted areas depicted. Approved project dimensions shall be printed on the final illustrative plan. 2. A landscape plan showing location, amount, and species oflandscape improvements with an irrigation plan with a signature line for the City Parks Department. 3. A sidewalk and curb improvements plan depicting a detached sidewalk with planting buffer along both West Hopkins Avenue and North 5'" Street. The sidewalk shall be five feet in width and be located adjacent to the property boundaries, or as close as possible given existing vegetation as determined by the City Engineer and the Community Development Director. The surface parking along West Hopkins Avenue shall be eliminated. The sidewalk shall incorporate accessible ramps according to the current standards. 4. Design specifications and profiles for public right-of-way improvements. 5. An architectural character plan demonstrating the general architectural character and depicting materials, fenestration, and projections. 6. Scaled floor plans of each level of the building depicting unit divisions. 7. A utility plan meeting the standards of the City Engineer and City utility agencies. 8. A grading/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 2-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. Off-site improvement shall be done in coordination with the City Engineer. 9. An exterior lighting plan meeting the requirements of Section 26.575.150. City Council Ordinance No._, Series 0[2006 -4- Section 8: Subdivision and PUD Aereement Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision and PUD Agreement binding this property to this development approval. The Agreement shall include the necessary items detailed in Section 26.480.070 and 26.445.070.C, in addition to the following: 1. Revocable Encroachment agreements and licenses for physical improvements within public rights-of-way with reference to their locations depicted on the Subdivision Plat. 2. In order to secure the performance of the construction and installation of improvements in the public rights-of-way, the landscape plan, and public facilities performance security shall include and secure the estimated costs of proposed right-of-way improvements. 3. A revocable license agreement to use portions of the Fourth Street right-of-way for dedicated parking. 4. A license agreement to use any public rights-of-way, or portions thereof, adjacent to the project site for construction staging including a fee to use the land at a rate of $1.25 per square foot per month for the time period in which the land is to be occupied for construction staging. Section 9: Impact Fees Park Impact Fees of $42,834 shall be assessed. Amendments to the Project or to the fee schedule adopted prior to issuance of a building permit shall require a new calculation. The following fee total is based on the current proposal and fee schedule: Park Fees - Fees for Proposed Development: 52 Lodge Units (studio units) @$1,520perunit 2 one-bedroom residential units @ $2,120 per unit 3 two-bedroom residential units @ $2,725 per unit 3 three-bedroom residential units @ $3,634 per unit Total =$79,040 = $4,240 = $8,175 = $10,902 = $102,357 Park Fees - Credit for Existing Development: 34 Lodge Units 29-studio units @ $1,520 per unit 3 two-bedroom units @ $2725 per unit 2 three-bedroom units @ $3,634 per unit =$44,080 =$8,175 =$7,268 Total Credit = ($59,523) Total Park Impact Fee Due = $42,834 School Land Dedication Fees are assessed based on one-third the value of the unimproved land divided by the proposed number of residential units on a per acre basis. The applicant shall provide and the City of Aspen shall verify the unimproved land value of the lands underlying the Project and determine the applicable dedication fee. The subject subdivision is not conducive to locating a school facility and a cash-in-lieu payment shall be accepted. Amendments to the Project or to the fee schedule adopted prior to issuance of a building permit shall require a new calculation. City Council Ordinance No._, Series of2006 - 5- Other Impacts Fees. The project shall be subject to amendments and additions to the Impact Fee Chapter of the Land Use Code adopted prior to the application for a building permit. Section 10: Water Department The applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with applicable standards of Municipal Code Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Soil nails will not be allowed in the City ROW. Section 11: Sanitation District StandardsIReauirements The applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations, including the following: 1. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office at the time of construction. 2. Applicant's engineer will be required to give the district an estimate of anticipated daily average and peak flows from the project. 3. A wastewater flow study may be required for this project to be funded by the applicant. 4. All clear water connections are prohibited (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains), including entrances to underground parking garages. 5. On-site drainage and landscaping plans require approval by the district, must accommodate ACSD service requirements and comply with rules, regnlations and specifications. 6. On-site sanitary sewer utility plans require approval by ACSD. 7. Oil and Sand separators are required for public vehicle parking garages and vehicle maintenance facilities. 8. Glycol snowmelt and heating systems must have containment provisions and must preclude discharge to the public sanitary sewer system. 9. Plans for interceptors, separators and containment facilities require submittal by the applicant and approval prior to building permit. 10. When new service lines are required for existing development the old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. II. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. 12. Generally one tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. 13. Permanent improvements are prohibited in areas covered by sewer easements or right of ways to the lot line of each development. 14. All ACSD total connection fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. 15. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional City Council Ordinance No._, Series of2006 - 6- proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. Section 12: Pre-Construction Meetin2 Prior to Building Permit Submission, a meeting between the following parties shall be conducted: Developer/Applicant, Project Architect, Prime Contractor, City Staff Planner, Community Development Engineer, City Engineer, Building Official/Plans Examiner. The purpose of the meeting is to identifY the approving ordinance and any amendments, identifY conditions of approval, discuss the Construction Management Plan, identifY the timeline for plat and PUD/SIA agreement recordation, identifY the types of building permits necessary and the development activities that can be conducted prior to receiving a building permit, review any critical timeline issues, review the steps and timing of the building permit process, discuss responsibilities of all parties in getting permits, changes, etc., and review the Building Department checklist. . Section 13: Construction Mana2ement Plan Prior to application for any Building Permit, Foundation Permit, Access Infrastructure permit, Demolition permit, etc., the applicant and the City shall agree upon a Construction Management Plan for the project. For the City, the plan shall be reviewed by the Community Development Engineer. The Plan shall include: 1. A construction management and parking plan meeting the specifications of the City Building Department. 2. An estimated construction schedule with estimated schedules for construction phases affecting city streets and infrastructure and provisions for noticing emergency service providers, neighbors, the City Streets Department, the Transportation Department, City Parking Department, and the City Engineering Department. Street closures concurrent with significant public events shall be avoided to the. greatest extent possible. 3. A notice to be sent to neighboring property owners describing the general schedule of the project and the contact information of the general contractor. The City encourages open communication between project representatives and the neighbors such that day-to-day issues can be resolved without involving the City. 4. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan which includes, but is not limited to fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out, speed limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line or causing a nuisance. For projects greater than one acre in size a fugitive dust control plan must be submitted to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Air Quality Control Division. 5. Recycling facilities, in addition to trash facilities, for the period of construction. Section 14: Buildin2 Permit Requirements The building permit application shall include/depict: 1. A signed copy of the final P&Z Resolution and Council Ordinance granting land use approval. City Council Ordinance No._, Series of 2006 - 7 - 2. A letter from the primary contractor stating that the approvrng Resolution and Ordinance have been read and understood. 3. The conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover page of the building permit set. 4. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. 5. A right-of-way improvement plan depicting physical improvements to the right-of-way including design specifications and profiles. All improvements shall comply with the City's requirements for accessibility. 6. A landscape plan showing location, amount, and species of landscape improvements with an irrigation plan for approval by the City Parks Department. 7. A utility plan meeting the standards of the City Engineer and City utility agencies. 8. A grading/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 2-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. Off-site improvement shall be done in coordination with the City Engineer. 9. A fireplace/woodstove permit. In the City of Aspen, buildings may have only two gas log fireplaces or two certified woodstoves (or I of each) and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building. New buildings may NOT have wood burning fireplaces, nor may any heating device use coal as fuel. 10. An asbestos inspection report. Prior to remodel, expansion or demolition of any public or commercial building, including removal of drywall, carpet, tile, etc., the CDPHE Air Quality Control Division must be notified and a person licensed by the state of Colorado to do asbestos inspections must do an inspection. The Building Department cannot sign any building permits until they get this report. If there is no asbestos, the demolition can proceed. If asbestos is present, a licensed asbestos removal contractor must remove it. 11. A tree removal permit, as applicable. 12. A fugitive dust control plan approved by the Environmental Health Department which addresses watering of disturbed areas including haul roads, perimeter silt fencing, as- needed cleaning of adjacent rights-of-way, speed limits within and accessing the site, and the ability to request additional measures to prevent a nuisance during construction. The applicant shall wash tracked mud and debris from the street as necessary, and as requested by the City, during construction. Submission of a fugitive dust control plan to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Quality Control Division may also be necessary. 13. A study performed by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer demonstrating how the required excavation of the site may be performed without damaging adjacent structures and/or streets. The City will not approve of soil nails into public right-of- way or utility easements. 14. A construction site management and parking plan meeting the specifications of the City Building Department. Prior to issuance of a building permit: City Council Ordinance No._, Series of 2006 - 8 - 1. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. 2. The location and design of standpipes, fire sprinklers, and alarms shall be acceptable to the Fire Marshall. Section 15: Noise Durin!!: Construction During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and construction cannot be done except between the hours of 7 am and 7 pm, Monday thru Saturday. Construction is not allowed on Sundays. It is very likely that noise generated during the construction phase of this project will have some negative impact on the neighborhood. The applicant should be aware of this and take measures to minimize the predicted high noise levels. Section 16: Condominiumization Condominiurnization of the Project to define separate ownership interests of the Project is hereby approved by the City of Aspen, subject to recordation of a condominiurnization plat in compliance with the current (at the time of condo plat submission) plat requirements of the City Community Development Engineer. Section 17: 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 Planning and Zoning Commission 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 18: TIlls 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 19: 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 20: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, byt the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 26th day of June, 2006. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor City Council Ordinance No._, Series of 2006 - 9- FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _day of ,2006. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin K1anderud. Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk C:\home\Current Planning\CASESlBoomerang LodgeIReso.doc City Council Ordinance No,_, Series of2006 -10- EXHIBIT A STAFF FINDINGS STAFF FINDINGS: GROWTH MANAGEMENT 26.470. 040.A. 7 - Remodeling or replacement of existing commercial or lodge development. Remodeling or replacement after demolition of existing commercial or hotel/lodge buildings and portions thereof shall be exernpt from the provisions of growth management, provided that no additional net leasable square footage or lodge units are created and there is no change-in-use. If redevelopment involves an expansion of net leasable square footage or lodge units, only the replacement of existing development shall be exempt and the expansion shall be subject to Section 26.470.040.C.2 or 3. Existing, prior to demolition, net leasable square footage and lodge units shall be documented by the City of Aspen Zoning Officer prior to demolition. Also see Reconstruction Limitations, Section 26.470.070, and defmition of Net Leasable Commercial and Office Space, Section 26.104.100. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The proposed redevelopment partially uses existing lodge allotments. These 34 replacement lodge units are exempt from growth management. The remaining 18 lodge allotments needed are addressed below. 26.470.040.B.3. Incentive Lodge Development. The expansion of an existing lodge or the development of a new lodge shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the expansion, pursuant to Section 26.470.030(D), Annual Development Allotments. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Thirty-seven allotments for free-market residential were available for the 2005 GMQS year. The application is a 2005 application and is requesting 6 free-market allotments. 36 allotments were applied for (including these 6). 16 have been approved so far with the remaining 18 pending in some form. There are sufficient free-market GMQS allotments available for this project. The Lodging allotment is based on a development ceiling and there is no annual limit on development allotments. The development ceiling for lodging allows for approximately 2,500 additional lodge pillows and this proposal (considered to be 36 pillows - 18 units x 2 pillows per unit = 36) is well within the development ceiling. The affordable housing allotment is also based on a development ceiling and there is no annual limit on affordable housing units. The ceilin" provides for an additional Exhibit A - Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 1 686 units and this proposal for 2 units is well within the growth ceiling. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. c) STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES This property is located in the R -6 zone district with a Lodge Preservation overlay and is described as "residential" in the Future Land Use Map of the 2000 AACP. The property has functioned as lodging for the past 50 years (+ or -). The purpose of the Lodge Preservation zone district is "to provide for a protect small lodges on properties historically used for lodging accommodations, to permit redevelopment of these properties to accommodate lodging and affordable housing uses, . . . and to provide an incentive for upgrading existing lodges on-site or onto adjacent properties." The property is within walking distance of Main Street, downtown, mass transit, and other common tourist destinations and attractions. The neighborhood is a mix of land uses from single-family and duplex development, to multi-family, civic, lodging, commercial, and mixed-use buildings. Staff believes the redevelopment of this property as lodging accommodations is consistent with the historic use of the property and with the character of the neighborhood. The 2000 AACP Economic Sustainability section describes what is necessary for Aspen's economic base: "Essential to the long-term viability is the unique, varied, high-quality, and welcoming experience Aspen offers to both residents and a diverse visitor population. They demand a lively, small-scale downtown with diverse and unique shops and varied choices of accommodations, including small lodges." Staff believes this proposal is consistent with this philosophy statement. The Action Plan of the 2000 AACP called for a task force to identify ways to sustain and improve the local economy. The number one recommendation of this task force was to support the redevelopment of existing lodging facilities and the development of new lodging facilities. The proposal is consistent with this recommendation. The City amended much of its Land Use Code after the 2000 AACP and the Economic Sustainability Report suggested loosening the regulations to allow to reinvestment within the lodging sector. Staff believes this project is consistent with the purposes of the Land Use Code revisions. Staff also believes the redevelopment of this property as lodging accommodations is compatible with the character of the neighborhood and with the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan. d) The project contains a minimum of one lodge unit per five hundred (500) square feet of Lot Area and these lodge units average five hundred (500) Exhibit A - Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 2 square feet or less per unit. These two standards (the density standard and the unit-size standard) may be varied in some cases according to the limitations of the zone district in which the project is developed and still meet this criterion. (See zone district requirements.) Units developed in excess of those necessary to meet the Lot Area standard shall not be required to meet the average-size standard. For the expansion of a lodge which is not being demolished/redeveloped and which does not currently meet the Lot Area standard, only the average unit-size standard of the new units shall be required in order to meet this criterion. Projects not meeting the density or unit-size standard shall be reviewed pursuant to 26.470.040.C2 - ExpansionlNew Commercial, Lodge, or Mixed Use Development. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The project meets these two qualifiers. Minimum unit density needed is 54 lodging units and the project provides just under this number. The average unit size is around 506 square feet, not quite meeting the second qualifier, however this size can be set through the PUD and LP provisions. e) Associated free-market residential development, as permitted pursuant to the zone district in which the lodge is developed, shall be allocated on a unit basis and attributed to the annual development allotment. Each unit shall require the provision of affordable housing mitigation by one of the following methods: i) Providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) or a Carriage House for each residential unit pursuant to Section 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses. The unit need not be detached or entirely above grade to meet this criterion. ii) Providing on-site or off-site Affordable Housing Units equal to 30% of the free-market residential units (on a unit basis). The affordable housing units shall be one-bedroom or larger and be provided as actual units (not as a cash-in-lieu payment). Affordable housing units provided shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C 7, Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. Provision of affordable housing mitigation via units outside of the City of Aspen shall require approval from City Council, pursuant to Section 26.470.040.D.2. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. iii) Paying an affordable housing cash-in-lieu fee normally associated with exempt single-family and duplex development, pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. Notes: The City encourages the affordable housing units required for the free-market residential development to be associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge. An Exhibit A - Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 3 efficiency or reduction in the number of employees required for a lodge component of a Incentive Lodge project may be approved as a credit towards the mitigation requirement for the free-market component of the project, pursuant to Section 26.470.050.A.l- Employee Generation. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The application proposes 2 affordable housing units. This complies with option ii, above. The proposal is to limit these units to the Category 2 level, which is more affordable than the r uired Cate 0 4 level. f) Thirty (30) percent of the employees generated by the additional lodge, timeshare lodge, exempt timeshare units, and associated commercial development, according Section 26.470.050.A, Employee Generation Rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash-in-lieu thereof. On-site affordable housing units shall be one-bedroom or larger units. Employee mitigation shall only be required for additional development and shall not be required for replacement development. The Planning and Zoning Commission may consider unique characteristics or efficiencies of the proposed operation and lower the mitigation requirements pursuant to Section 26.470.050.A.l - Employee Generation. Affordable housing units provided shall be approved pursuant to Section 26. 470. 040. C 7, Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. Provision of affordable housing mitigation via units outside of the City of Aspen shall require approval from City Council, pursuant to Section 26.470.040.D.2. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The project's 18 generate approximately 6 new employees according to the land use code's generation tables. (18 units x .3 employees per unit = 5.4 employees). The 30% mitigation requirement results in a requirements for the project to house 1.62 employees. When accomplished on-site, this mitigation can also provide the mitigation for the free-market development noted above. (This is a significant incentive for on-site affordable housing mitigation.) The 2 units proposed provides housing for approximately 3.5 employees, according to the Land Use Code, and sufficiently meets this requirement. Staff believes the proposal is in compliance with this standard. g) The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services. Exhibit A - Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 4 STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The project has been reviewed by the City Engineer, Community Development Engineer, and various utility agencies. With certain conditions of approval recommended b these a encies, the ro' ect meets this standard. 26.470.040.B.7. Affordable Housing. The development of affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the new units, pursuant to Section 26.470. 030. C, Development Ceiling Levels. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Approximately 686 affordable housing allotments are available and this proposal's two units are accommodated within the Develonment Ceiling. b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY?] YES Staff believes the project is consistent with the AACP (see staff commentary on page 3 of this exhibit). The affordable housing units are above grade and appear to be well- designed. One-bedroom rental units are preferred by the Housing Authority when associated with proiects of this nature. c) The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The project was reviewed by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority staff and Board. APCHA staff reports (verbally) that the project's affordable housing units comply with the Housing Guidelines. A written referral memo was not provided. Staff believes this criterion is met, subject to a condition of approval regarding the continual affordabilitv of the rental units. d) Affordable Housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or buy-down units. Off-site units shall be provided Exhibit A - Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 5 within the City of Aspen city limits. Units outside the city limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to 26.470.040.D.2. Provision of affordable housing through a cash-in-lieu payment shall be at the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The Affordable housin is re uired for miti ation and is in the form of on-site units. e) The proposed units shall be deed restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the AspenIPitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. In the alternative, rental units may be provided if a legal instrument, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, ensures permanent affordability of the units. STAFF FINDING: T DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The Units are proposed as rental units. The application proposes to transfer a nominal interest to the APCHA to ensure the permanent affordability of the units. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Exhibit A - Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 6 SUBDIVISION: STAFF FINDINGS The Definitions section (26.104.100) of the Land Use Code explains that subdivision approval is required whenever leasehold interests will be transferred. Section 26.480.050 states that a development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and requirements: A. General Requirements. a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan (AACP). STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The proposed development is consistent with the AACP. The subdivision action is necessary to permit multiple residences on one parcel. There is no alteration of the existing lot lines of the property. Also see staff comments on page 3 of this exhibit. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes that the subdivision is consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area which operate in a similar manner - lodging, residential, and commercial in various mixed-use confi ations. c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Because the subdivision proposed here is all internal to the structure, staff does not find that the subdivision will adversely impact future development of the surroundin area. All surroundin ro erties have ade uate access. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Assuming the project is granted the other related approvals, the proposed subdivision is in compliance with all applicable requirements of the zone district and other chapters and sections of the Land Use Code. 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, Exhibit A - Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 7 mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snow slide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff finds that the parcel is generally suitable for development considering all of the above dan ers. No known hazards of the ro have been r orted. b. Spatial Pattern Efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff finds that the proposed subdivision will not create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities or unnecess ublic costs. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and/or the goals of the community. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES No variations to the subdivision standards are ro osed. 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: DOES IT COMPLY? YES No variations to the subdivision standards are re uested. D. Affordable Housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The standards of Chapter 26.470 - Growth Management - are applicable and have been addressed in the application. Staff finds the affordable housing requirement to be met with the ro osed two affordable housin units. Exhibit A - Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 8 E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. Applicability. School land dedication standards shall be assessed upon all new subdivisions within the City of Aspen which contain residential units. An applicant may make a cash payment in-lieu of dedicating land to the City, or may make a cash payment in combination with a land dedication, to comply with the standards of this Section. This section of the subdivision regulations requires the dedication of land or the payment of an in-lieu fee for each new residential unit in a subdivision. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards is required for the residential dwelling units proposed. The applicant will pay cash in lieu of a land dedication, which will be re uired at time of build in ermit. Exhibit A - Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 9 STAFF FINDINGS: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Section 26.445.050, Review Standards: Final PUD Section 26.445.050 of the Regulations provides that development applications for Final PUD must comply with the following standards and requirements. A. General Requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposal is consistent with many objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Please see staff's response to this standard on page 3 of this section. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding The immediate vicinity is comprised of lodging, civic, commercial, mixed use, single- family, and multi-family residential buildings. Staff believes that the proposed use is consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. Staff does question whether the proposed height of the building - 42 feet - meets this standard. This would be significantly larger than any other building in the area. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Finding Staff does not believe that the proposed development would adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Staff Finding The Applicant has applied for the requisite allotments and there is sufficient allotment available to accommodate the project. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD ...The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. Exhibit A - Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 10 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following. influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural and man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed use is appropriate given the character of the neighborhood and the fact that lodging has operated on this property for the last 50 years. The proposed height is of some concern to staff. At 42 feet high, this structure would be significantly taller than surrounding structures which are typically in the 25 to 32 foot range (as measured by code at the midpoint). Staff believes this proposed height needs discussion prior to making a finding on this standard. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Staff Finding Staff believes that the a majority of the proposed dimensional requirements for the new lodge are compatible with the surrounding properties. Again, height is a concern as well as the proposed third floor on the east wing. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. Staff Finding The Applicant has proposed an underground parking garage to handle the parking needs of the project as well as to officially permit the parking spaces along Fourth Street. Staff prefers that the parking along Hopkins A venue be removed and the sidewalk continued along this street. Exhibit A - Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 11 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. Staff Finding The infrastructure capabilities are sufficient to accommodate this proposal. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mudflow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. Staff Finding No natural hazards or other conditions exist that would dictate such a reduction in allowable density. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AA CP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. Exhibit A - Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 12 Staff finding Staff believes the proposed density is appropriate for the site and for the character of the immediate vicinity. The resulting height to accommodate the density is of concern. There are not "density" requirements of the zone district, but the number of units are established through adoption of a PUD. B. Site Design: The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding The pool area is being preserved through the redevelopment. This area provides some relief tot eh massing and a benefit to the project. Staff considers the criterion to be met. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. Staff Finding Other than the pool area, there is no significant open space in the proposal. However, this is an infill development site and using the site for lodging development is appropriate. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. Staff Finding The east wing is proposed to be preserved. This element has an important relationship to Fourth Street a the primary entrance. The sidewalk along Hopkins and Fifth Street needs improvement. These sidewalks should, ideally, be redeveloped adjacent to the property line. Some conflicts with existing vegetation may arise by doing this. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. Staff Finding Proper emergency access will be maintained with this proposal. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. Exhibit A - Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 13 Staff Finding This criterion has been met. Compliance with accessibility regulations will be required and will be reviewed at the time of building permit. The Building Department has requested the project Architect meet with the department as soon as possible in the design development process. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Staff Finding The City Engineer and the applicant have reviewed drainage requirements and believe this criterion is satisfied. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately de-signed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Staff Finding The pool area falls within this category and staff believes this area provides benefit to the lodge and its guests as well as the aesthetics of the project. C. Landscape Plan: The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designed treatment of exterior spaces, preserving existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. Staff Finding The proposed landscape improvements will significantly improve this site. The existing surface parking along Hopkins Avenue detracts from the streetscape and provides no pedestrian accommodation. Staff is recommending this be removed. The same could be said about the parking along Fourth Street, but staff believes this parking does serve the needs of the lodge. It may be possible to rearrange this Fourth Street parking as parallel parking. The sidewalk along Hopkins is in poor condition. It may be possible to redevelop this sidewalk adjacent to the property line. A traditional street tree pattern would improve the pedestrian experience. Similarly, the sidewalk along Fifth Street could be moved to be adjacent to the property line with a traditional street tree program. The proposed landscape treatment along Fifth Street may be over planted. Exhibit A - Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 14 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staff Finding The pool area is being preserved and staff believes this is important to the site. The applicant has agreed to work with the Parks Department on preserving vegetation in the construction phase. D. Architectural Character: It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the 'building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes, which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan and architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 1. be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. Staff Finding The architectural character of this proposal is appropriate for the proposed use and for the immediate vicinity. The proposal is similar to the east wing and minimizes the effects of height to the extent practical. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. Staff Finding The proposal does not include any special systems. The site has limited solar access during winter months due to the proximity of the property to Shadow Mountain. The vegetation along the south property line will provide shape in summer months. 3. Accommodate the storage and shielding of snow, ice, and water in a safe an appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Staff Finding The flat roofs essentially mitigate this concern. Exhibit A - Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 15 E. Lighting: The purpose of this standard is to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any king to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Staff Finding The applicant has indicated full compliance with the City's lighting code will be achieved. F. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area: If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. Staff Finding The pools area could be considered such a common amenity. Because the project does not include separate lots with individual structures and because the pool amenity is primarily for the lodging guests, staff does not believe that a common undivided interest in the pool is necessary. G. Utilities and Public Facilities: The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose any undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed Exhibit A - Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 16 utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Staff Finding There exists adequate infrastructure to accommodate this proposal. The applicant will be required to provide service upgrades as necessary. No City or other utility agencies have requested oversizing. H. Access and Circulation (Only standards 1 & 2 apply to Minor PUD applications): The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through and approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. Staff Finding Proper access is maintained to the parcel and the and structure with this proposal. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. Staff Finding Staff does not foresee this proposal creating undue congestion on the existing road network. The underground parking is access from the alley, which is the most preferred method. No upgrades to the road system are necessary although some curb/gutter improvements may be required by the City Engineer. This can be handled as part of the platting and/or building permit review. Exhibit A - Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 17 I. Phasing of Development Plan. The purpose of these criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in- lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. Staff Finding No phasing has been proposed. Exhibit A - Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 18 STAFF COMMENTS: REZONING Note: Requiredfor PUD Overlay. No change to underlying R-6 Zone is proposed. Section 26.310.040, Standards Applicable to Rezoning In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. Staff Finding: The proposed PUD Overlay is consistent with the Land Use Code and does not represent any potential conflicts. The Lodge Preservation Overlay requires that lodging redevelopment proceed through a PUD and the additional of a PUD overlay enables the dimensions of the project to sustain a greater scrutiny. Staff believes the PUD Overlay is appropriate and desired and is recommending approval. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: Please refer to comments related to the AACP on page 3. In summary, staff believes this application is in compliance 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: No change to the underlying zoning is being proposed, only a PUD overlay. The Overlay provides for a greater discussion and involvement of neighboring property owners as to the compatibility of the proposed development. Staff believes the proposal meets this standard. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Finding: The PUD criteria include traffic and road safety as review standards. The addition of a PUD overlay itself does not have any impact on road safety. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and 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: The utility and infrastructure needs for the project have been addressed in the PUD application. Because of the location of the development and existing capacities, no significant up-grades are required to accommodate this development. To the extent that Exhibit A - Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 19 upgrades to the existing systems are necessary, these will be paid for by the applicant and not by the general public. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding; Staff believes the proposed zoning overlay and the proposed development do not represent adverse impacts upon the natural environment. Sufficient criteria to evaluate potential impacts on the natural environment are included as PUD criteria and the overlay actually ensures the community a greater degree of scrutiny. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Finding: The overlay requires a greater degree of review than would otherwise be required and compatibility issues regarding proposed heights, FAR, setbacks, etc. use can be more thoroughly evaluated with the PUD overlay. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding: A change in conditions is not a prerequisite to rezoning. This criterion only requires that any changed conditions be considered upon requests for rezoning. There is no particular change other than that the existing development is in significant need of refurbishment. The LP overlay requires that the dimensions be established through the PUD process. The addition of a PUD overlay would enable the appropriate dimensions to be determined for the redevelopment. Staff believes this criterion has been met and supports the zoning of the property to include a PUD Overlay. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. . Staff Finding: Staff does not believe the additional review and involvement of the community required by the PUD Overlay is in conflict with the public interest. The overlay enables the project to withstand greater public scrutiny and a more-involved community decision process. Exhibit A - Boomerang Lodge Staff Findings Page 20 r~ib//:; C- ELIZABETH "HAILEY" RODWELL DART 633 West Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611, USA Tel: 970 920 3874 - Fax: 970 920 2829 RC r. r: il1E'" 0 Email: hailey@rof.netl.[=.V I",~ ~ '!J . 1. , ~ i f f. t l. ~. , \ . I'. APR 0 6 Z006 Chris Bendon Director of Community Planning 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT I , \ , ! ! I I i I , i I l , , ~ ) t: h r,;: ~i I L ,. t.,! f r, i 5 April 2006 Dear Chris, I live at the South East corner of Sixth and Main and, though not directly impacted by it, I feel that the proposed new Boomerang project will be an important addition to the neighborhood while providing the city with its desired increased bed base. I have followed its plan developments over the past few months with great interest and have talked with Steve Stunda on a number of occasions. He recently showed me the latest proposed plans and model which I fmd to be most acceptable for this neighborhood. Setting the building back off the alley towards the south and against the existing natural tree buffer on Hopkins is an excellent and inspired solution to limiting the impact of the building mass as well as continuing the feeling of space along the alley (similar to that which we have in the 600 block between Fifth and Sixth streets). In addition, the developer should be applauded for solving its own parking requirements with its underground (out of sight) parking garage otIthis alley. Indeed the larger size of the new building with its increased bed base will, I think, seem smaller than the existing old Boomerang building with its smaller size right on the alley and lower bed base. . Given the above, I can't imagine anybody in the area seriously considering criticizing this project. This letter is to share with you my wholehearted support of the project as it stands now. Respectfully submitted, (1.~ Hailey Dart I Fred Fine ~..+, ~ January 11, 2006 FREDRIC N FINE 1- ,. Il..... ".:. ',: ,~ ~~ :: r. ~'" , I H Ii::: ! I I I u !' I. I. 412 Mariner Dr Jupiter, Fl 33477 5615752728 fax 5615759196 allfines@aol.com .IAN 1 7 2006 ,J Joyce Allgaier City of Aspen Community Deve lopment Dept. 130 S Galena St. ,Aspen, Co 81611 Dear Ms.Allgaier, Recently there was a newspaper article in the Aspen Times about the Boomerang Lodge. The article referred to the new owners wanting to replace the existing 34 room lodge with 54 rooms,6 condos & 2 affordable housing units , in a 4- story building ,plus a roof deck. As an owner of a condo in the Christiana Lodge,! strongly object to the increase in the number of rooms,as well as the height of the proposed 4- story building. The size is out of place for the neighborhood. There are no 4- story buildings in this area. In addition, one of the reasons we bought in the Christiana Lodge is for the view of the mountains. A 4 story structure will obliterate our beautiful views. Hopefully if and when this proposal comes to fi-uition,you will take my letter Wider consideration. Very truly yours, Ii t I t ! I ~l.::1 .; 1 'j ~i/te , Page 1 of 1 Chris Bendon .._...._-~---,--~.~_._,.,".__._._--~._--"~.-~- From: Joyce Allgaier Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 4:20 PM To: 'allfines@aol.com' Cc: Chris Bendon Subject: Boomerang development Dear Mr. Fines, Thank you for your letter regarding the Boomerang Redevelopment proposal. The Boomerang Redevelopment proposal that is discussed in your letter is different from the "Boomerang vacant parcel proposal" which is a lot split and rezoning. The hearing set for tonight, 3/13 before the City Council, but beina continued to 3/27, has to do with the vacant parcel of land associated with the Boomerang that is located across Hopkins on the south side of the street. Chris Bendon is the planner on the more major redevelopment proposal so I have forwarded your letter to him. He will introduce it into the record at the public hearing of the Planning and Zoning Commission and provide them with a copy prior to the hearing, The hearing on the Boomerang Redevelopment is currently scheduled for the P&Z on 4/11/06, If you are located within 300 feet of the Boomerang property you will be sent a legal notice when the hearing comes up, As noted, we will make sure that your letter is submitted for consideration. Chris' phone number is 429-2765. Please let me know if I can assist in any way or provide additional information, Joyce Allgaier Joyce A. Allgaier, AICP Deputy Director! Community Development Dept. City of Aspen 1130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81615 970.429.2754 I www.aspenpitkin.com 3/13/2006 :t:- Ca~ /01 ~ ~ ~ f{~ /c>< y c/lLZ- . CthJ~ ~ et- A (e Co a.. I 'tf...r. I r ~'- IV'-'- 7 . t::hJ, ()- --"", VLU"""- ~ Y;;/v--( ~, . . f11j u#tl- 4>1 14 V!/-K"L-S- ;4L~>c- ..-C-O M-Y\ &L- >21ff c--- / / J , -N '--f/M ~;-~ s, (f)d/ rfVf:;I:;:/:':~J \. t!-().r'V\ c0J. (>/ ~ (( MAY 01 Z006 \. , I-'.S icE !'J ]).M.1- C(fR/~BUiY}1nr:~J::5;ENT , /~' I ;rI'{..1r <;;; rL v...e S if) rv b ~ f , ~ (M j2#l a{.>\~~ I / ' E tL-,J tf-M--( , ' ; {)j(l/r~ \. Ort- 1- - ~ () f (Ju.h) dL/ Ujl/t~ j}./ /8 y- cl+B/-s:r,-a~ I a~ //1/ PA-r/U}-. :. MV\ ~ - ' &1 <fie fj~~0Bt":ntl I)I,J. .P ~/ t/N~ f/u-j; I / (,1.. n " t-L-C-1i-T' I ' !> 'It jJl(f~"-- .... > /11 (JZ..~ /Je-o ('- tit<- l C'-'<J B f()- A/rC ( A/ /l7 ()7-C '~I/IU"~ {h<^--Io.l~- ~r7l I , ~~ f.- ct1M J,-1. {',"A- {9 /YJ( .PfViJ/ ~i?l ()f'{AJ~R.<6 ~ 1 ~t?-1 ~ r- f~/) April 6, 2006 Chris Bendon Director of Community Development 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr. Bendon, My name is John Staton and I live at 431 W. Hopkins, diagonal from the Boomerang Lodge. I have reviewed the dra~ings,~!l,*e architectural model with the Owner and the Architect for the Boomerang project. After review of the project I find no objection to the project as proposed. I feel that the project as proposed will fit in nicely with the neighborhood and in my opinion is in no way out of scale within this context. The retention of the trees goes a long way to mitigating th~ height and mass of the structure, I am particularly pleased to see that there will be no' additional traffic on Hopkins Ave. due to the underground parking garage. I also appreciate the developer's effort to retain a significant component of the old lodge. I strongly recommend the approval ofthe project as proposed. Very Sincerely Yours, 4 970- ,s1ctf - O"G'&8 ~- ". ';'~;'j~,n' ;.;' ,....(. ~\.""""'~ ~ 'f ~~,: ~~~J# APR 1 7 2006 ASPEN BUILO!NG DEPARTMENT blfll)e'r )1(oLLEL F;j"L:e]VED tJ()..)!Vi:12.: jO 1 I/-}, /11 A IV S~) Cf.-!J2)S17/J,VA rffSPE;U I BUIl::~~i;::", ~ ~ t!iil'fJ ']; W~ I U-/~JS BEVJ:XJJ jJHI,q:?-O-3172- F J:JJv'11,~/2I~iJ : 13' l1/k i , 0 .i<), >.Jl'-- .tta../ i' S3d E ;1,,/:///5 AII,/'1ShiJ I lU/tiU ~~I - r · d t~'l/ h~ Of tit(/ ~~/.uf~ ar t/L0 ~ ~ I, ~ ~/UL ~;A, it,,-,~/J=:-~~ /if;t>>j)~. t1C.-J!tM' UC; ,4tu,,&fiu~ ~ . ~ ;J1tflU}V /t~ ;!i!.d-ItV L~ ~,~ . -t~~~/i.~ttf.ltU/F~ I ~A~~~dd~tft~ !it~d ~a.AtCL<,l j~~/M-~ t~c:(,.- 4P~ -t/Lec/(uJ:/Lru).dd0~~tP~~,M '. ,,'" vL #.d~-,/J-41L/~ tW1L.~ /' HL-~- ~~' ~. (; tj~c I {ll!~ 1?le.- /~[~h2~~c(---/LUc;/lc1-~/ ~'~ ~0j .~&M~ ' tlLL-~~vt&'7td:tuc~"He'L ~~ i ~ d' ,~ tki2rtdL, ffij ":1~;/ . cJ0, -U~~~~~ ", " Ih~~) cd.~C#-:H I dx4<M --1./J-{~ @ aLjz~ . '. ~,{!/'11YfJf I d.. tl 0 f-1-1.-~ie- bhN!~ ~~:t':: a J-#~J~ e::::;:~ti~f1;~d:~~ A"J ,. "J 1', ".---I/,,/d...-- AU?PJL/--AtA.tf-W'crf"~ 7k.L-?i?:,/<Ur,lCC!.j)/L Lj. "/i';)' ,. ,/;7,7', I 0' "JJ - ;;<- &-k:c(/)~ '/la,," jJtH-li(~ k&bJ& / ",:,"',,/' A<~ i A~~ 4!.-/ ~11ft'~z!; c:Z ,,:it~--L~~ --t1Cc-- /Uuu-~~ ffi/'yLe>t-~! rJ - r ' f<~1 Mid; ~L_-Lj ~J ;/2tl~() ! r~I-!HX-d-// ~L~-tdtiL- ~;t& ;;u'<ot<V vaM-/L-- 0ut~I1~c/ ~- ~ /J-tu-V'- 4: dM~ / cJZ Mf;1.'..O~~ ~HL ~J-&U2-- /)Zt~ v!j1#7ffl "~{r ~ a . +twwf;r . m~ 'J/{dlLu April I 0, 2006 f-' '." , APR 1 7 2000 Mr. Chris Bendon Director of Community Development City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 A';" ,-., Et/o rv ; t..:ic .. . ~JfLl..l,h,G Li..,.. "";'.iEN7" ~ if, " , ~i ,I ~ H ~ .. ;] il ~ RE: Boomerang Lodge Proposed Development Dear Mr. Bendon: I own one of the condominiums at 605 W. Main Street and am very interested in the proposed development for the lodge. My condominium is located diagonally across the alley from the lodge. I have met with the Owner, Steve Stunda, and have reviewed the plans and the model of the development. I am very much in support of the project as proposed. The number of units, the parking, the building height and the architecture is well thought out and will be a huge improvement to this neighborhood. I also am very pleased with the proposal to retain a large majority of the existing trees located on the property. As an Aspen resident for 27 years I have observed that the neighborhood has pretty much been the Boomerang Lodge; with development occurring around the property for the last 20 years. Aspen is so lucky to have the redevelopment of lodges which in my opinion, is necessary for the survival of Aspen. I fully support the proposed Boomerang Lodge proposal. Sincerely Yours, ~ Kimberly A, Reno ',f') / ;1 'JUVUJ.I,;;J.a.Ul:) L..IVUl:)C H..t<U'I;;V 1;;1Vj-'lU'I;;UL rage 1 or 1 ! / : Reminder: AOL will never ask you to send us your paSSWOrd or cred~ card number In an emall.Thls message has been scanned for known viruses, I From: Steve Goldenberg To: Chris Bendon (chrisb@ci,aspen,co,us) Subject: Boomerang Lodge Redeveiopment Dale: Tue, 11 Apr 200623:00:42 -0600 Dear Chris: We are neighbors just to the east of the Boomerang Lodge. Steve Stunda has been very attentive to the neighbors on all sides of the proposed project. While it is a very big project, the underground parking makes a huge positive difference to us. That should go a long way toward deaning up the parked cars that have been all ov~r the neighborhood lately. The rezoning and iot split across the street will also reduce congestion and traffic on the "Pedestrian Walkway". The biggest concern I have has to do with the demolition, excavation and construction traffic and noise which I would like to see addressed. I'm sure Steve Stunda will address this issue With you and with the all the neighbors. We are pleased to be able to support the project and hope it gets approved by the Oty CoundJ next Monday. Steve - Steve Goldenberg stevetlliooidenbero.com 430 W. Hopkins Ave. phone & fax 970-92S-1294 Aspen, CO 81611 cell phone 970- 379-9n8 http://r03.webmail.aol.COmlI7325/aOl/en-Uslmail/disPlay_message.aspx I I 4/1 )/700F. Mr. Chris Bendon Community Development City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 April 4, 2006 Dear Chris, My name is Rabbi Mendel Mintz and I am the owner of L'Auberge and the house on Main and Fourth Street. My property is-located catacorner from the Boomerang Lodge. I am a near neighbor. I am writing you in support of the proposed Lodge Expansion. I am quite excited about the plans for the expansion and feel it will bring new life to the neighborhood. Many of our members and visitors who attend our selVices and programs will be very happy to have a new, modern facility for their use In this area. I feel that this project will be a good addition to the neighborhood and highly recommend it. Sincerely yours RabbiMendel11intz MEMORANDUM Vllb TO: Mayor K1anderud and Aspen City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director QlwvJ FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Senior Long Range Planner~ RE: Code Amendment: Land Use Code Section 26.710.090 (lO)(a) and (b), Residential Multi-Family (R/MF) Zone District - First Reading, Ordinance No.q-series 2006 DATE: June 26, 2006 SUMMARY: Dan Coleman (Applicant), represented by Eric Cohen, has requested a code amendment to Land Use Code Section 26.710.090, Residential Multi-Family (RIMP) zone district. The code amendment has been sponsored by the Community Development Staff because Staff feels the request merits a full discussion ("Sponsoring" allows a private party to apply for an amendment to the Land Use Code). The code amendment being requested would allow a non-historic detached residential or duplex dwelling on a non-conforming lot of 5,000 sq. ft. or less land one Historic Transferable Development Right (TDR) of 250 sq. ft of allowable floor area. As proposed, the landing of a TDR would not be available to a nonconforming use or structure. The Applicant is requesting the proposed amendment because he contends that these smaller lots are not conducive for the development of multi-family housing. REVIEW PROCESS: The Planning and Zoning Commission is the recommending body to City Council on the proposed code amendment pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map. City Council shall then consider the code amendment and be the final decision making body. At a public hearing on June 6, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the application by a four to one (4 to 1) vote. STAFF COMMENTS: The existing language that is proposed to be amended reads as follows: Land Use Code Section 26.710.090(D)(10)(a) and (b), Floor Area Ratio (FAR) a. Detached residential and Duplex dwellings established prior to the adoption of Ordinance 27, Series of 2004: 100% of the allowable floor area of an 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. Replacement 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. b. Detached residential and Duplex dwellings established after the adoption of Ordinance 27, Series of 2004: 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 Rights shall not be extinguished in this zone district and shall not permit additional floor area. The Applicant's proposed language is as follows: Land Use Code Section 26.710.090(D)(a) and (b), Floor Area Ratio (FAR) a. Detached residential and Duplex dwellings established prior to the adoption of Ordinance 27, Series of 2004: 100% of the allowable floor area of an 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. Replacement 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 except in the case of a lot of less than 5,000 square feet. In this circumstance an Aspen Historic Transferable Development Right certificate may be extinguished pursuant to Section 26.535, Transferable Development Rights, and shall allow an additional 250 square feet of Floor Area. No more than one Floor Area increase shall be allowed per property. Properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area increase. Non-conforming uses and structures shall not be eligible for this floor area increase. b. Detached residential and Duplex dwellings established after the adoption of Ordinance 27, Series of 2004: 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 Rights shall not be extinguished in this zone district and shall not permit additional floor area except in the case of a lot of less than 5,000 square feet. In this circumstance an Aspen Historic Transferable Development Right certificate may be extinguished pursuant to Section 26.535, Transferable Development Rights, and shall allow an additional 250 square feet of Floor Area. No more than one Floor Area increase shall be allowed per property. Properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area increase. Non-conforming uses and structures shall not be eligible for this floor area increase. The Applicant has expressed that there are some lots in the R/MF zone district that are less than 5,000 square feet that are not suitable for multi-family residential development. Additionally, the Applicant purports that creating more lots that would allow for the landing of a TDR would provide a community benefit by creating an additional avenue to aid in the success of the TDR program. After working with the GIS Department, staff has identified, to the best of its ability, a total of nine (9) lots in the R/MF zone district that would be able to land a TDR (Exhibit B). As proposed, only non-historic detached residential and duplex dwellings on a lot ofless than 5,000 square feet would be allowed to land one TDR. The last sentence of the proposed code amendment disallows a non-conforming use or structure from landing a TDR. Stafffee\s that 2 this last sentence should be considered for omission. The sub-section that the proposed amendment is added to is specific to only a detached residential or duplex dwelling so the language with regard to nonconforming uses is not necessary. Additionally, the prohibition of a nonconforming structure from landing a TDR would prohibit a non-historic detached residential or duplex dwelling on a lot of less than 5,000 sq. ft. from landing a TDR if, for example, the existing structure did not meet the underlying minimum yard setbacks. The Land Use Code's Nonconformities chapter would appropriately handle any new development by allowing a nonconforming structure to be enlarged or expanded only in a manner that does not increase the nonconformity. The Applicant states that, "a nonconforming, smaller lot, is unfairly penalized with a 20% reduction in FAR for a single family home, compared to that in the R-6 zone district." As a point of clarification, a reduction in allowable floor area, at 80% rather than 100% of the Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district, is only assessed on detached residential or duplex dwellings when the use is established subsequent to the passage of Ordinance 27, Series 2004. Any detached residential or duplex use of a lot that existed prior to October 27, 2004 is allowed to 100% of the allowable floor area of an equivalent sized lot located in the R-6 zone district. Only newlv established detached residential or duplex uses are permitted at a reduced allowable floor area. . Staff agrees with the Applicant's suggestion that allowing these nonconforming lots to land a TDR could potentially aid in the success of the program. However, allowing additional square footage on a nonconforming lot of record contradicts one of the underlying premises of how nonconformities are regnlated. A non conformity can be a use (for example a triplex that is in a zone district that only allows single-family uses), a structure (that does not meet required minimum yard setbacks), or lot (that does not meet the minimum required size) that was lawfully established but are in violation of the current terms and requirements of the Land Use Code. The purpose of the Nonconformities chapter is to, "permit nonconformities to continue, but not allow nonconformities to be enlarged or expanded." Additionally, the chapter is designed to, "curtail substantial investment in nonconformities in order to preserve the integrity of the zone districts and the other provisions of this Title (the Land Use Code)." The ability to land additional floor area for a duplex or detached residential dwelling would create additional, new investment in the nonconformity which conflicts with the intent of the nonconformity regulations. Another point to consider is the purpose of the Residential Multi-Family (RlMP) zone district. As noted on the zone district standards, the purpose is to provide land, "for intensive long-term residential purposes." The standards provide for larger floor areas when multi- family residential development is proposed at higher densities and a reduction in allowable floor area when new single family and duplex development is proposed. The Land Use Code as written provides disincentives when development of new single family and duplex development is proposed in the RlMF zone district and the potential for additional floor area, by the landing of a TDR, conflicts with the intent of the zone district regulations. Staff believes that although there is merit in expanding receiving sites for the landing of TDRs, the proposed code amendment conflicts with the intent of both the Nonconformities chapter and Residential Multi-Family (RlMF) zone district chapter. This also addresses a very specific segment of properties in the RlMF zone district, which is typically not the goal 3 of regnlations. Additionally, the amendment does not satisfy all of the review standards for approving a code amendment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council not approve the code amendment as the effect of the proposed language would conflict with the purpose of the nonconformities chapter of the Land Use Code. The proposed motion is worded in the affirmative, reflecting a scenario where the Applicant's request is granted. Ifthe Council were to deny any the Applicant's request, the ordinance, if seconded, would not receive a majority vote in the affirmative. If City Council prefers to recommend approval of the code amendment, Staff would recommend on amending the proposal so that the TDR landing can only be landed on those lots that had a detached residential or duplex use established prior to the effective date of Ordinance No. 27, Series 2004 (only allowing the amendment for Section 26.710.090 (I0)(a)) and removing the last sentence of the proposed amendment with regard to nonconforming uses and structures. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No. ~eries of 2006, approving the proposed land use code amendments to Land Use Code Section 26.710.090(lO)(a) and (b), Residential Multi- Family (R/MF) Zone District: Floor Area Ratio (FAR), allowing for TDRs to be landed on a non-historic nonconforming lot of 5,000 sq. ft. or less with a single-family or duplex structure upon it in the R/MF zone district." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Lots in the R/MF zone district that area available to land a TDR Exhibit C -- Application Exhibit D -- P&Z Resolution of June 6, 2006 Exhibit E -- P&Z Minutes of June 6, 2006 (to be included at second reading) 4 ORDINANCE NO. ~ 1- (SERIES OF 2006) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING CODE AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS 26.710.090(10)(a) AND (b), FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE. WHEREAS, Dan Coleman represented by Eric Cohen has submitted an application for an amendment to Title 26, the City of Aspen Land Use Code to amend Section 26.71O.090(lO)(a) and (b), Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the Residential Multi- Family (R/MF) zone district, to allow a non-historic detached residential or duplex dwelling on a non-conforming lot of 5,000 sq. ft. or less land one Historic Transferable Development Right (TDR); and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has sponsored the proposed code amendment to be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.310.040, the Planning and Zoning Commission, in accordance with the procedures, standards, and limitations of this Chapter, shall by resolution recommend that City Council approve, approve with conditions, or deny a Code Amendment application, after considering a recommendation by the Community Development Department and taking and considering public comments; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing, considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director and public testimony on the proposed Code Amendment; and, WHEREAS, during a public hearing on June 6, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission did not approve Resolution No. 22, Series of 2006, by a four to one (4-1) vote, and recommends that that the City Council deny the land code amendment to amend Sections 26.71O.090(lO)(a) and (b), Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the Residential Multi-Family (R/MF) zone district to allow a non-historic detached residential or duplex dwelling on a non-conforming lot of 5,000 sq. ft. or less land one Historic Transferable Development Right (TDR); and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the code amendments under the applicable provisions ofthe Municipal Code as identified herein, has taken public testimony, and heard the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission and Community Development Director on ,2006; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Code Amendment proposal meets or exceeds all applicable amendment standards and that the approval of the Code Amendment, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, Page I of3 WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1: Section 26.710.090 (I0)(a) of the Municipal Code, which section set forth the allowable floor area for detached residential and duplex dwellings when the use was established prior to the effective date of Ordinance No. 27, Series 2004, in the Residential Multi- Family zone district be amended to read as follows: Land Use Code Section 26.710.090(D)(a) and (b), Floor Area Ratio (FAR) a. Detached residential and Duplex dwellings established prior to the adoption of Ordinance 27, Series of 2004: 100% of the allowable floor area of an 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. Replacement 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 except in the case of a lot of less than 5,000 square feet. In this circumstance an Aspen Historic Transferable Development Right certificate may be extinguished pursuant to Section 26.535, Transferable Development Rights, and shall allow an additional 250 square feet of Floor Area. No more than one Floor Area increase shall be allowed per property. Properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area increase. Non-conforming uses and structures shall not be eligible for this floor area mcrease. Section 2: Section 26.710.090 (IO)(b) of the Municipal Code, which section set forth the allowable floor area for detached residential and duplex dwellings when the use was established after the effective of Ordinance No. 27, Series 2004, in the Residential Multi-Family zone district be amended to read as follows: b. Detached residential and Duplex dwellings established after the adoption of Ordinance 27, Series of 2004: 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 Rights shall not be extinguished in this zone district and shall not permit additional floor area except in the case of a lot of less than 5,000 square feet. In this circumstance an Aspen Historic Transferable Development Right certificate may be extinguished pursuant to Section 26.535, Transferable Development Rights, and shall allow an additional 250 square feet of Floor Area. No more than one Floor Area increase shall be allowed per property. Properties listed on the Page 2 of3 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area increase. Non-conforming uses and structures shall not be eligible for this floor area increase. 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. 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 5: A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the _ day of , 2006, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 26th day of June, 2006. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen K. Klanderud, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of ---.J 2006. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen K. Klanderud, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Page 3 of3 EXHIBIT A AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE CODE REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS Section 26.310.040, Text Amendment Standards of Review In reviewing an amendment to the text of the Land Use Code or an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. Staff Finding: Staff believes that the proposed amendment conflicts with the purpose of the nonconformities chapter of the Land Use Code. The purpose of the nonconformities chapter is to, "permit nonconformities to continue, but not allow nonconformities to be enlarged or expanded." Additionally, the chapter is designed to, "curtail substantial investment in nonconformities in order to preserve the integrity of the zone districts and the other provisions of this Title (the Land Use Code)". The ability to land additional floor area for a duplex or detached residential dwelling would create additional, new investment in the nonconformity. Staff finds that this criterion is not met. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: Staff does not believe that the proposed amendments are in conflict with the Aspen Area Community Plan and would provide additional sites to land a Transferable Development Right. The AACP section on historic preservation encourages the use of innovative ways (such as the TDR program) to make preservation work in Aspen. Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Finding: These two criteria apply to rezoning applications and do not apply to this text amendment. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and 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. 5 Staff Finding: This criterion applies to rezoning applications and does not apply to this text amendment. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: Staff does not feel that the proposed code amendments will result in adverse impacts on the natural 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: As was described in Staffs response to review Standard A above, the code amendment pertains to only nonconforming lots of less than 5,000 square feet containing either a detached residential dwelling or a duplex. Staff would question whether adding additional floor area to a substandard lot is consistent with community character of Aspen. Staff does not find 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: This criterion applies to rezoning applications and does not apply to this text amendment. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. Staff Finding: Staff feels that the proposed code amendment, although providing for additional TDR landing sites, will conflict with the intent of the Land Use Code with regard to nonconformities. Staff finds that this criterion is not met. 6 \ ~~F3rrL To: City of Aspen Community Development Department RE: Proposed Code Amendment for landing of Historical TDR's Planning and Zoning Commission and Staff, This letter is a request for a Code Amendment Change. Specifically, we would like to amend the restriction on the landing of historical TDR's in the R/MF Zone district for single family homes on lots ofless than 5,000 square feet. Currently the landing of Historical TDR's is prohibited in the RMF Zone district. The intent being that the additional FAR is to be landed on single family homes or duplexes; and that those types of uses are (rightly) discouraged in the RMF Zone. This is of course based on a conforming lot size of at least 9,000 ft. in RMF. However, there are a few lots in the RMF district that are significantly undersized, and not suitable for multifamily development. In this case the owner of a nonconforming, smaller lot, is unfairly penalized with a 20% reduction in FAR for a single family home, compared to that in the R-6 Zone District. We would like an amendment to the Historical TDR program that would allow for the landing of a Historical TDR on a lot of less than 5,000 square feet in the RMF Zone District. We feel that this would more accurately portray the intent of the program, and provide a community benefit by creating another avenue to help in the success ofthe TDR program. The additional 250 ft. of FAR, is less than half of what is taken away with the RMF zoning, and arguably less objectionable than adding that 250 ft. to the full FAR ofa home in the R-6 or R-15 Zone Districts. Rather than strike or eliminate current language in the code we propose adding the following language to the end of paragraphs lO.a. and lO.b. of Section 26.710.090 The R/MF Zone District: "; except in the case ofa lot of less than 5,000 square feet. In this circumstance an Aspen Historic Transferable Development Right certificate may be extinguished pursuant to Section 26.535, Transferable Development Rights, and shall allow an additional 250 square feet oj Floor Area. No more than one Floor Area increase shall be allowed per property. Properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures shall not be eligible Jar this Floor Area increase. Non-conforming uses and structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area increase". Thank you for your consideration of this issue, Dan Coleman 1016 East Hopkins Ave. ATTACHMENT 2 -LAND USE APPLICATION ApPLICANT: Name: Location: Th" Go\ Parcel ill # tion where a REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Address: Phone #: PROJECT: IN- Address: Phone #: TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): t-r-o. ~ c.o~ ~~T D Conditional Use D Conceptual PUD D Conceptual Historic Devt. D Special Review D Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) D Final Historic Development D Design Review Appeal D Conceptual SPA D Minor Historic Devt. D GMQS Allotment D Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) D Historic Demolition D GMQS Exemption D Subdivision D Historic Designation D ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream D Subdivision Exemption (includes D Small Lodge Conversion! Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion Mountain View Plane D Lot Split D Temporary Use D Other: D Lot Line Ad;ustment I'XI Text/Mao Amendment EXISTING CONDITIONS: ('\ Ie;, , PROPOSAL: ~ ~~c.re..J \e..~ 'lZ.e.{?~ Co&'e.. ~/'o\.e.:!\- Have you attached the following? \ . D Pre-Application Conference Summary f'\IJ- Ii2I' Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement \ , D Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form (\~ I1J Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards All plans that are larger than 8.5" x II" must be folded and a floppy disk with an electronic copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part ofthe application. FEES DUE: $ \ 1'050, ..0/"""" EXHIBIT A REVIEW CRITERIA REWNING REVIEW CRITERIA In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the Plarming and Zoning Commission and City Council shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. We do not feel this minor Code Amendment is in conflict with the underlying zoning. Single Family home is an allowed use in this Zone district. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. We believe that this code change will allow for a better and less onerous distribution of the 250 ft. of FAR, onto a property that has had it's FAR reduced by roughly 500 ft. (depending on the actual lot size); which is consistent with the design objectives in the AACP. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. There are numerous uses currently in the RMF; including Multi family, duplex and single family home. Because of the diminutive size ofa less than 5,000 ft. lot, multi-family development is not practical. The FAR, and subsequent massing, will still be less than a multi-family development in the neighborhood. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. The additional square feet should have no negative impact on traffic or road safety. 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. There will not be an increase in the demand for public facilities as a result of the proposed request. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. We do not believe that the proposed minor code amendment application would result in significant adverse impacts on the environment. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Again, these lots are penalized for being nonconforming (too small) in size, to adequately support a multi-family project; and a single family home with FAR that is sti1lless than what is allowed in the R-6 or R-15 zone districts is totally compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Yes, the recent reduction in FAR for a single family home in the RMF (to promote multi-family development) has negatively affected these smaller, non-conforming lots. In addition the City of Aspen Histoprical TDR program has provided an avenue to "buy back" a portion of that FAR, and in turn help[ support the TDR program. 1. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. We do not believe this would be in conflict with any public interest. In fact, by helping to support the Historical TDR program, this amendment proposal would further the stated values ofthe Community. ~~fS\T D RESOLUTION NO. (SERIES OF 2006) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL DENY TEXT AMENDMENTS THAT AMEND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 26.710.090(10)(a) AND (b), FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR), TO ALLOW A NON-IDSTORIC DETACHED RESIDENTIAL OR DUPLEX DWELLING ON A NONCONFORMING LOT OF LESS THAN 5,000 SQ. FT. OR LESS LAND ONE IDSTORIC TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT IN THE RESIDENTIAL MUL TI-FAML Y (RIMF) ZONE DISTRICT, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. WHEREAS, Dan Coleman represented by Eric Cohen has submitted an application for an amendment to Title 26, the City of Aspen Land Use Code to amend Section 26.71O.090(10)(a) and (b), Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the Residential Multi- Family (RlMF) zone district, to allow a non-historic detached residential or duplex dwelling on a non-conforming lot of 5,000 sq. ft. or less land one Historic Transferable Development Right (TDR); and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has sponsored the proposed code amendment to be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.310.040, the Planning and Zoning Commission, in accordance with the procedures, standards, and limitations of this Chapter, shall by resolution recommend that City Council approve, approve with conditions, or deny a Code Amendment application, after considering a recommendation by the Community Development Department and taking and considering public comments; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing, considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director and public testimony on the proposed Code Amendment; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the Code Amendment proposal does not meet or exceed all applicable amendment standards; and, WHEREAS, during a public hearing on June 6, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of Resolution No. _' Series of2006, by a four to one (4-1) vote, that the City Council deny the land use code amendment to amend Section 26.710.090(10)(a) and (b), Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the Residential Multi-Family (RlMF) zone district to allow a non-historic detached residential or duplex dwelling on a non-conforming lot of 5,000 sq. ft. or less land one Historic Transferable Development Right (TDR); and, WHEREAS, the Aspen 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 Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that City Council denv the following requested text code amendment to the Land Use Code Section 26.710.090(10)(a) and (b), Floor Area Ratio (FAR), for the Multi-Family Residential (RlMF) zone district to a allow a non-historic detached residential or duplex dwelling on a non-conforming lot of 5,000 sq. ft. or less land one Historic Transferable Development Right (TDR) of250 sq.ft., as noted in the following section: Section 2: Sections 26.71O.090(10)(a) and (b), Floor Area Ratio(FAR), of the Aspen Municipal Code shall be amended to read as follows: Land Use Code Section 26.710.090(D)(a) and (b), Floor Area Ratio (FAR) a. Detached residential and Duplex dwellings established prior to the adoption of Ordinance 27, Series of 2004: 100% of the allowable floor area of an 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. Replacement 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 except in the case of a lot of less than 5,000 square feet. In this circumstance an Aspen Historic Transferable Development Right certificate may be extinguished pursuant to Section 26.535, Transferable Development Rights, and shall allow an additional 250 square feet of Floor Area. No more than one Floor Area increase shall be allowed per property. Properties listed on the Inventorv of Historic Sites and Structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area increase. Non-conforming uses and structures shall not be eligible for this floor area Increase. b. Detached residential and Duplex dwellings established after the adoption of Ordinance 27, Series of 2004: 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 Rights shall not be extinguished in this zone district and shall not permit additional floor area except in the case of a lot of less than 5,000 square feet. In this circumstance an Aspen Historic Transferable Development Right certificate mav be extinguished pursuant to Section 26.535, Transferable Development Rights, and shall allow an additional 250 square feet of Floor Area. No more than one Floor Area increase shall be allowed per propertv. Properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area increase. Non-conforming uses and structures shall not be eligible for this floor area increase. Section 3: This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 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 Commission at its regular meeting on June 6, 2006. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk MEMORANDUM " \\ r - TO: Mayor K1anderud and City Council (I, l'll/\ THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director l}l. r I FROM: James Lindt, Senior Planner :S:L RE: First Reading of Ordinance No~ Series of 2006, Lift One Condominiums Consolidated ConceptuallFinal PUD- Public Hearing will be held on July 24th DATE: June 26, 2006 ApPLICANT /OWNER: Lift One Condominium Association, Inc. REPRESENTATIVE: Law Offices of Paul Taddune LOCATION: 131 E. Durant Avenue CURRENT ZONING: Lodge Zone District. PROPOSED LAND USE REQUESTS: A consolidated conceptual/final PUD has been requested for the construction of parapet walls and pitched roof elements. SUMMARY: The Applicant requests the ability to construct new architectural roof features and parapet walls to improve the aesthetics ofthe building. Photo Above: Lift One Condominium Building, STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff was somewhat split on our recommendation related to the consolidated conceptual/final PUD request. Several members of the planning staff support the Applicant's efforts to improve the aesthetics of the aging building while other members of the staff question the appropriateness of allowing a PUD to further vary the allowable dimensional requirements of an already non-conforming building to rolon its existence. REVIEW PROCEDURE: City Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a consolidated conceptual/final PUD application after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445, Planned Unit Development. LAND USE REQUESTS: The Applicant has requested the following land use action to construct parapet and pitched roof elements on the existing Lift One Condominium Building: . Consolidated ConceptuallFina1 PUD. PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant, Lift One Condominium Association Inc, has requested a consolidated conceptual/final PUD to construct gable and parapet roof improvements on certain flat roof elements that exist on the Lift One Condominiums. The existing building exceeds the height limit for multi-family residential buildings of twenty-eight (28) feet in the underlying Lodge (L) Zone District. Therefore, a PUD is required because portions of the proposed gable roof elements will exceed the already non-conforming height of the existing building. STAFF COMMENTS: Consolidated Concevtual/Final PUD: The Applicant has requested a consolidated conceptual/final PUD to add some gable roof elements to areas of the existing flat roof and for the addition of height to the existing chimneys. As was briefly discussed above, a PUD is necessary to construct these roof elements because the existing building is over the height limit and the proposed roof elements would increase the already non-conforming height of the building. The Applicant has indicated that the gable roof elements and chimneys are being proposed to modernize the structure and improve the aesthetics of the design. Overall, the proposed changes to the roof line of the building would increase the overall height as measured by the City Land Use Code's height methodology by approximately four and a half feet to an overall height of about 44 feet 6 inches (existing elevations are attached as Exhibit "C"). Staff was somewhat split on our opinions as to whether there is a public benefit to improving the aesthetics of a condominium building that is already non-conforming related to its dimensional requirements. Some members of Staff feel that there is public benefit to allowing for a condominium building to be retrofitted with an updated, modernized look to provide a more visually interesting building. Others on Staff believe that there is no public benefit in allowing for an already non-conforming free-market residential building to modernize and prolong its lifespan as a non-conforming building. That said, the majority of the planning staff members do not believe that the proposed roof improvements, with the exception of the chimney elements, will push the building out of scale with the buildings in the immediate neighborhood, which are some of the largest buildings within the community. However, there was a consensus amongst Staff that the chimney elements are somewhat overbearing and should be reduced in height and scale from the drawings provided in City Council's packets. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved a condition in their resolution requiring that the chimneys not exceed the existing chimney heights by more than three (3) feet. Staff has included this condition in the proposed ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As was discussed throughout this memorandum, there was not a consensus amongst Staff but a majority of the members feel the height increase is appropriate in order to improve the aesthetics of the building. There is consensus amongst Staff that the larger chimney elements are somewhat overbearing and should be reduced in scale. 2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that City Council approve the requested consolidated conceptual/final PUD with the conditions contained in the proposed ordinance. The majority of the Commissioners indicated that they feel the aesthetic improvements proposed are a community benefit and that they will not have a significant impact on the scale of the building. The Commissioner that cast the lone dissenting vote expressed that he did so because he was concerned that allowing for the height increase of the already non-conforming building might serve as a precedent for other development applications and that there may be ways to improve the aesthetics without requiring an increase in the height as measured by the land use code. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE MADE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "1 move to approve upon first reading, Ordinance No. ~ , Series of 2006, approving with conditions, a consolidated conceptual/final PUD to construct gable roof and chimney improvements on the Lift One Condominiums, 131 E. Durant Avenue, City and Townsite of Aspen." A TT ACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Application Exhibit C -- Existing Elevations 3 ORDINANCE NO.:<25 (SERIES OF 2006) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A CONSOLIDATED CONCEPTUAL/FINAL PUD TO ALLOW FOR THE LIFT ONE CONDOMINIUMS TO CONSTRUCT GABLE AND CHIMNEY ROOF IMPROVEMENTS, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Lift One Condominium Association, owners, represented by Paul Taddune, requesting approval of a consolidated conceptual/final PUD application to construct gable roof and chimney improvements to the Lift One Condominiums, City and Townsite of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requested that the Community Development Director consolidate the conceptual and final PUD reviews pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26. 445.030(B)(2), Consolidated Conceptual and Final Review; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director granted consent for the Applicant to consolidate the review of the conceptual and final PUD requests pursuant Land Use Code Section 26. 445.030(B)(2), Consolidated Conceptual and Final Review, finding that the application has a limited scope of issues; and, WHEREAS, a consolidated conceptual/final PUD requires review by City Council after considering a recommendation from the Community Development Director and the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445, Planned Unit Development; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 6, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 21, Series of 2006, by a four to one (4- 1) vote, recommending that City Council approve a consolidated conceptual/final PUD to construct gable roof and chimney improvements to the Lift One Condominiums, City and Townsite of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, during a continued public hearing on July 24, 2006, the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. _, Series of 2006, by a _ to _ L---.J vote, approving with conditions, a consolidated conceptual/final PUD to construct gable roof and chimney improvements to the Lift One Condominiums, City and Townsite of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council hereby approves a consolidated conceptual/final PUD to construct gable roof and chimney improvements to the Lift One Condominiums, subject to the conditions contained herein. Section 2: Final PUD Plans A final PUD Plan shall be recorded in the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office within 180 days of the final approval and shall include the following: A. A drawing representing the project's architectural character. Section 3: PUD Approvals The approvals granted herein are explicitly to allow for the roof and chimney improvements proposed in the elevation drawings provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission in preparation for the July 24, 2006 meeting. The building height as shown on the above referenced elevation drawings is legalized through this PUD, but all other non-conforming dimensional requirements shall remain non-conforming and are not legalized through the approval of this PUD. The chimneys shall only be permitted to extend up to three (3) feet above the height of the existing chimneys. Section 3: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5: A public hearing on this ordinance was held on the 24th day of July, 2006, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 26th day of June, 2006. Helen Kalin K1anderud, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved by a vote of _ to _L---.J, this 24th day of July, 2006. Helen Kalin K1anderud, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: John P. Worcester, City Attorney EXHIBIT" A" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FiNDINGS In accordance with Section 26.445.050 of the Land Use Code, an application requesting conceptual PUD approval requires that the following review standards be met. A. General Requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding Staff feels that the proposal to add gable roof elements to the Lift One Condominiums is consistent with several of the goals and objectives of the AACP. First, the proposed gable roof elements improve the complex's design quality as is encourage in the "design quality" section of the AACP. Second, Staff feels that the plan to modernize the existing building is consistent with the AACP's action plan objective of supporting the restoration of existing buildings. However, there were some on Staff that feel that there is no public benefit to modernizing and prolonging the lifespan of a building that is non-conforming. Staff could not reach a consensus on finding this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding The proposed PUD request does not alter the use of the existing building and the existing use of residential units, many of which are rented on a short-term basis, is consistent with the land uses in the immediate vicinity. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Finding Staff does not believe that the proposed request will adversely affect the future development of the surrounding properties. Therefore, Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Staff Finding The proposed PUD request to provide the roofline changes do not increase the free-market residential FAR of the structure or number of free-market residential units and is exempt from GMQS. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this PUD request. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the 4 PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural and man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. Staff Finding The only dimensional requirement that is being altered by the proposed PUD is the allowable height of the building. The building is already over the permitted height limit in the zone district and the roofline changes to the proposed building only cause a minor change in the height of the building as is measured by the City Land Use Code's building height methodology. Some members of the Planning Staff believe that the proposed gable roof elements are a positive change to the design of the building and the new height limit is consistent with many of the multi-family and lodging structures at the base of Aspen Mountain in the immediate neighborhood. Once again, there is also a contingent on the Staff that feels that it is not appropriate to allow for a non-conforming building to prolong it's lifespan through modernizing the exterior look if the modernization increases the extent to which it is not consistent with the dimensional requirements of the zone district in which it is located. That said, the Staff feels that the chimney structures are somewhat overbearing and are not consistent with the character of structures in the immediate vicinity. Staff could not reach a consensus on finding this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Staff Finding The only dimensional requirement that is being altered by the proposed PUD is the allowable height of the building. The building is already over the permitted height limit in the zone district and the roofline changes to the proposed building only cause a minor change in the height of the building as is measured by the City Land Use Code's building height methodology. Some members of the Planning Staff believe that the proposed gable roof elements are a positive change to the design of the building and the new height limit is consistent with many of the multi-family and lodging structures at the base of Aspen Mountain in the immediate neighborhood. Once again, there is also a contingent on the Staff that feels that it is not appropriate to allow for a non-conforming building to prolong it's lifespan through modernizing the exterior look if the modernization increases the extent to which it is not consistent with the dimensional 5 requirements of the zone district in which it is located. That said, the Staff feels that the chimney structures are somewhat overbearing and are not consistent with the character of structures in the immediate vicinity. Staff could not reach a consensus on finding this criterion to be met. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. Staff Finding The proposed PUD request does not alter the number of off-street parking spaces. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this request. 4, The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b). There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. Staff Finding The Applicant is not requesting to reduce the density of the project. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this request. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rockfalls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical naturalfeatures of the site. 6 Staff Finding The Applicant is not requesting to reduce the density of the project. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this request. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. Staff Finding The Applicants are not requesting to increase the allowable density through the proposed PUD. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this request. B. Site Design: The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding The proposed PUD request does not alter natural features on the site. Staff does believe that the proposed roof elements, with the exception of the chimney elements, will increase the visual interest of the building, which is the primary man-made feature on the site. Staff finds this criterion to be met if the chimney elements are reduced in size or removed. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. Staff Finding There is only one building on the parcel and it is an existing building. The siting of the building is not being altered by the proposed PUD request. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this request. 7 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. Staff Finding The proposal is not altering the orientation of the building. However, Staff does believe that the proposed roof alterations with improve the visual interest of the structure. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. Staff Finding The proposed PUD does not alter the emergency access ways to the building. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to the request. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. Staff Finding The proposed PUD does not alter the handicapped access to the building. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to the request. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposal does not provide an increase in the amount of impervious land on the development parcels. That said, the Applicant is required to submit a site drainage plan that has been designed in a manner that ensures that historic drainage rates will not be increased as a result of the proposed PUD. A professionally licensed engineer shall design this drainage plan and will be required prior to submittal for a building permit. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately de- signed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Staff Finding The proposed PUD does not alter the programmatic spaces between the existing buildings. Therefore, Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this request. C. Landscape Plan: The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designed treatment of exterior spaces, preserving existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 8 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staff Finding The proposed PUD does not alter any landscaping on the site. Staff finds these criteria not to be applicable to this PUD request. D. Architectural Character: It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan and architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 1. be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. Staff Finding Please see Staffs comments related to the proposed massing in the response to PUD Review Standard B(2) above. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. Staff Finding The proposed PUD does not alter the building's ability to use natural heating and cooling systems. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this request. 3. Accommodate the storage and shielding of snow, ice, and water in a safe an appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Staff Finding The Applicants have proposed appropriate shielding of snow, ice, and water from the entrances by providing canopies with snow guards over the entranceways. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. Lighting: The purpose of this standard is to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 9 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any king to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding The Applicant is required to, and has consented to meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code for any exterior lighting that is proposed. Therefore, the proposed development will be lighted in a manner that will not provide direct glare on adjoining streets or property. The Applicant will be required to submit a detailed exterior lighting plan to the City Zoning Officer prior to building permit issuance. Staff believes that the Applicant's required compliance with the , City Lighting Code ensures that the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Staff Finding The Applicant has committed to meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code on the building. Staff finds this criterion to be met. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area: If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. Staff Finding The Applicant is not proposing to alter any common park or open space on the site. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this request. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. Staff Finding The Applicant is not proposing to alter any common park or open space on the site. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this request. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. Staff Finding The Applicant is not proposing to alter any common park or open space on the site. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this request. 10 H. Utilities and Public Facilities: The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose any undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed PUD request does not impose undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this PUD request. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. StaffPinding Staff believes that the proposed PUD request does not impose undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this PUD request. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Staff Finding The Applicant is not proposing to install oversized utilities or public facilities and it is not anticipated that the Applicant will be required by the City to provide oversized utilities. Staff does not find this criterion to be applicable to this application. I. Access and Circulation (Only standards 1 & 2 apply to Minor PUD applications): The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through and approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. Staff Finding The Applicant has not proposed to alter the existing access to a public street. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. Staff Finding Please see Staff's response to PUD Review Standard 1(2) above. 11 J. Phasing of Development Plan. The purpose of these criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: I. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. StaffPinding The Applicants are not proposing to phase the construction. Therefore, Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable. 12 e"" ~s .", ~~ ;Ii '" ~ ., 11 e~ e,., , 8 . - , '" , '" , " , " ~ ~ l$ ~ 0 :il ;;! ~ :1l ~ - " !O !O ~'" Bht'k\;+ \'C~ ! I . r :J> ~I LIFT ONE CONDOMINIUMS , . ". ~~ ......., ,,~ ~I "~ RENOVATION h .. ~- . .- ~2 j!!~ I C) f ASPEN, COLORADO ;- I ~~ ~~ - '" '" '" ~ "'..... "''' TO: Mayor Klanderud and City Council MEMORANDUM \I\\c:l 01~ THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director FROM: James Lindt, Senior Planner crL-- RE: First Reading of Ordinance No.:t\, Series of 2006- Ajax Mountain Building (520 E. Durant Avenue) Subdivision, Public Hearin!! will be held on Julv 24th DATE: June 26, 2006 ApPLICANT IOWNER: Ajax Mountain Associates, LLC. REPRESENTATIVE: Jeffrey Halferty LOCATION: 520 E. Durant Avenue Lots N-S, Block 96, of the City and Townsite. CURRENT ZONING: Commercial Core (CC) Zone District EXISTING LAND USE: Mixed Use Building. PROPOSED LAND USE: Addition of one free-market residential unit and one deed restricted employee housing unit to existing mixed use building. SUMMARY: The Applicant requests subdivision and associated land use approvals to construct one free-market dwelling unit and one affordable housing unit on the existing building. PHOTO: Existing structure. PLANNING AND ZONING RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Conditions. COMMISSION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Conditions. LAND USE REQUESTS: The Applicant has requested the following land use approvals to redevelop the site: . Subdivision for the construction of multiple dwelling units in a mixed use building pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision (Citv Council is final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). . A growth management review for the development of free-market residential units in a mixed-use building pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.040(C)(6), Free~Market Residential Units within a Mixed-Use Project (Planning and Zoning Commission approved with conditions pursuant to Resolution No. 20. Series of 2006). . A growth management review for the development of affordable housing pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.040(C)(7), Affordable Housing. (Planning and Zoning Commission approved with conditions pursuant to Resolution No. 20. Series of 2006). . Condominiumization is a subdivision exemption that requires approval of the Community Development Director pursuant to the Land Use Code Section 26.480.090, Condominiumization. However, the proposed ordinance acknowledges this approval for a future date (condominium plats are reviewed and approved bv the Communitv Development Director upon substantial completion of construction). . A certificate of appropriateness for major HPC development was applied for and granted by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) pursuant to HPC Resolution No.1, Series of 2006 (attached as Exhibit "C"). A certificate of appropriateness for major HPC development was necessary because the building subject to the application is located within the Commercial Core Historic District. . A mountain view plane exemption was applied for and granted by the HPC pursuant to HPC Resolution No. I, Series of 2006. The HPC found that the designated view plane that originates from Cooper Street and is oriented towards Aspen Mountain is already blocked by the Aspen Grove Fine Arts building to the north and the North of Nell building that is located directly south of the property subject to this application and that the proposed addition will not further inmnge upon the designated view plane. REVIEW PROCEDURE: A development application for subdivision shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by City Council after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Community Development Director pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480.040, Subdivision. PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant has requested approval to add a free-market residential dwelling unit of approximately 3,314 square feet and a two (2) bedroom affordable housing unit of approximately 1,110 square feet on the top of the existing Ajax Mountain Building. The Applicant has already obtained approval of conceptual HPC review, final HPC review, and a 2 mountain view plane exemption for the proposed addition from the Historic Preservation Commission, pursuant to HPC Resolution No. 47, Series of 2005 and HPC Resolution No.1, Series of 2006 (attached as Exhibit "C"). Additionally, the Applicant received approval of a growth management review for the development of free-market residential units in a mixed use project and a growth management review for the development of affordable housing from the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to P & Z Resolution No. 20, Series of 2006 (attached as Exhibit "D"). The following chart compares the proposed development dimensions with the dimensional requirements of the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District: Minimum Lot Size Minimum Lot Width Minimum Lot Area/Dwellin South Front Yard Setback East Front Yard Setback Minimum Side Yard Setback Minimum Rear Yard Setback Maximum Height Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Minimum Off- Street Parkin 18,000 SF 100 Feet 6,000 SF 56 Feet for roof addition 64 Feet for roof addition o Feet for roof addition o Feet for roof addition 35 Feet Overall Proposed FAR=1.56:1 Commercial/Office= 1.22: 1 Free Market Residential=.18:1 Affordable Housing= .06:1 o Parking Spaces proposed for the additional residential units No Requirement No Requirement No Requirement o Feet o Feet o Feet o Feet 42 Feet for all areas of the property, 46 Feet for areas setback 15 or more feet from lot lines adjoining a Street right-of- wa. Overall Allowable FAR = 3: I Commercial/Office= 2:1 Free Market Residential= I: I Affordable Housing= No Limit o Parking Spaces required for the additional residential units STAFF COMMENTS: SUBDIVISION: The Applicant is requesting subdivision approval, including condominiumization, because the development of a multi-family dwelling unit in a mixed used development requires approval of subdivision pursuant to the definition of subdivision in the City's land use code. In reviewing the subdivision portion of the application, Staff believes that the proposal meets the applicable subdivision review standards established in Land Use Code Section 26.480.050, 3 Review Standards. Staff feels that the proposal is consistent with the infill development goals established in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan and is being developed in conformance with the underlying Commercial Core Zone District's allowable dimensional requirements and permitted uses. Staff further believes that the site subject to the proposal is suitable for development and contains no known geologic hazards. Furthermore, adequate utilities exist for the proposed development on the roof of the existing building. FREE-MARKET RESIDENTIAL UNIT SIZE: The proposed free-market residential unit is to be 3,314 square feet. A code amendment enacting a maximum size of 2,000 square feet on free-market residential units in the Commercial Core Zone District was adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 12, Series of 2006 on March 28, 2006. However, the proposed application was submitted for review in December of2005, and is not subject to the provisions of Ordinance No. 12, Series of2006. GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW: FREE-MARKET UNITS WITHIN A MIXED-USE PROJECT In order to develop new free market residential floor area in a mixed use building, the Applicant is required to mitigate by providing affordable housing equal to 30% of the free-market residential floor area being added to the property. As was discussed above, the Applicant has proposed 3,314 square feet of free-market residential floor area and an affordable housing unit of 1,110 square feet that equals about 33% of the amount of free-market residential floor area. The affordable housing unit being proposed is to be deed-restricted as a Category 4 affordable housing unit. Additionally, the application was applied for in the 2005 growth management year and there were two (2) free-market residential allotments available at the time the application was submitted. Therefore, Staff believes that the application satisfies the review standards for granting a growth management review for the development of a free-market residential unit in a mixed-use project. The Planning and Zoning Commission granted approval of the requested Growth Management Review for Free-Market Residential Units within a Mixed-Use Project, finding that the applicable review standards are satisfied by the application. GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW: AFFORDABLE HOUSING The Applicant requires growth management review for the development of affordable housing to construct the one affordable housing unit being proposed. 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 has reviewed the proposal and finds that the proposed affordable housing units meet the Affordable Housing Guideline requirements. Staff has included a condition of approval in the proposed ordinance outlining the conditions that the Housing Board requested. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved a Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing finding that the applicable review standards are satisfied by the application. OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS: The Applicant has not proposed any off-street parking spaces for the proposed addition. The proposed addition is to contain residential units that are not required to have off-street parking spaces in the Commercial Core Zone District pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.515.030, Required number of off-street parking spaces. 4 SCHOOL LANDS DEDICATIONS FEE: Given that the proposed development constitutes a full subdivision review, Land Use Code Section 26.630, School Lands Dedications, requires that the Applicant either dedicate lands for school function or pay a cash-in-lieu fee. The Applicant has proposed to pay a cash-in-lieu fee pursuant to the fee schedule established in Land Use Code Section 26.630. Staff has included a condition of approval in the proposed ordinance requiring that the Applicant pay the School Lands Dedications fee prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed development. PARK DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE: The Applicant is required to pay a Park Development Impact Fee for additional bedrooms added to the site pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fee. The Park Development Impact Fee for this project shall be assessed based on the following calculation: I New Unit multiplied by $3,634 (three-bedroom or larger fee) =$3,634.00 1 New Unit multiplied bv $2,725 (two-bedroom fee) = $2.725.00 Park Development Impact Fee= $6,359.00 Staff has included a condition of approval in the proposed ordinance requiring that a Park Development Impact Fee of $6,359.00 be paid at prior to building permit issuance. If the fee schedule changes by the time the Applicant submits an application for a building permit, the fee schedule in place at the time of building permit is ready for issuance shall apply. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: The Community Development 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. Referral comments are attached as Exhibit "En. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommends that City Council approve the proposed subdivision with the conditions contained in the attached ordinance, finding that the proposed subdivision satisfies the applicable review standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that City Council approve the attached ordinance, approving with conditions, the requested subdivision application. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION <ALL MOTIONS ARE MADE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve upon first reading, Ordinance No.~, Series of 2006, approving with conditions, the Ajax Mountain Building Subdivision to develop a free-market residential unit and a two-bedroom affordable housing unit on the roof of the existing Ajax Mountain Building at 520 E. Durant Avenue." 5 ATTACHMENTS: EXHmIT A - Review Criteria and Staff Findings EXHIBIT B - Application EXHIBIT C - HPC Resolutions EXHmIT D - P & Z Resolution EXHmIT E - Referral Comments 6 ORDINANCE NOd~ (SERlES OF 2006) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, THE AJAX MOUNTAIN BUILDING SUBDIVISION AND CONDOMINIUMIZATION TO CONSTRUCT ONE FREE-MARKET RESIDENTIAL UNIT AND ONE DEED-RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 520 EAST DURANT AVENUE, LOTS N-S, BLOCK 96, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO ParcelID: 2737-182-22-006 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Ajax Mountain Associates, represented by Jeffrey Halferty Design and Haas Land Planning, requesting approval of subdivision, growth management review for the development of free-market residential units in a mixed use project, growth management review for the development of affordable housing, and condominiumization to construct one free-market residential unit and one deed-restricted affordable housing unit on the roof of the existing Ajax Mountain Building located at 520 E. Durant Avenue; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned Commercial Core (CC) and contains 18,000 square feet oflot area; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed and granted Conceptual HPC Design approval for the addition pursuant to HPC Resolution No. 47, Series of 2005; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed and granted Final HPC Design approval and an exemption from Mountain View Plane Review for the addition pursuant to HPC Resolution No. I, Series of2006; 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 dilly noticed public hearing on June 6, 2006, the Plarming and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 20, Series of2006, by a five to zero (5-0) vote, approving with conditions, a growth management review for the development of free-market residential units in a mixed use project, a growth management review for the development of affordable housing, and recommending that City Council approve with conditions, the proposed subdivision and condominiurnization to construct one free-market residential unit and one deed-restricted affordable housing unit on the roof of the Ajax Mountain Building, 520 E. Durant Avenue, Lots N-S, Block 96, City and Townsite of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Plarming and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 24, 2006, the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. _, Series of 2006,by a to L---.J vote, approving with conditions, the Ajax Mountain Building Subdivision to construct one free-market residential unit and one deed-restricted affordable housing unit on the roof of the Ajax Mountain Building, 520 E. Durant Avenue, Lots N-S, Block 96, City and Townsite of Aspen; and,; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Aspen City Council hereby approves the Ajax Mountain Building Subdivision to construct one free-market residential unit and one deed-restricted affordable housing unit on the roof of the Ajax Mountain Building, 520 E. Durant Avenue, Lots N-S, Block 96, City and Townsite of Aspen, subject to the conditions contained herein. Section 2: Plat and Al!reement The Applicant shall record a subdivision plat and agreement that meets the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision, within 180 days of approval. The final Condominium Plat may be approved and signed by the Community Development Director upon substantial completion of construction. Section 3: Buildinl! 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 drainage plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer. A 5-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. d. A construction management plan meeting the Building Department's requirements. The construction management plan shall include an identification of construction hauling routes, construction phasing, a construction traffic and parking plan for review and approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent. e. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Department. f. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall meet the building code requirements. Section 4: Dimensional Requirements The addition as presented complies with the dimensional requirements ofthe Commercial Core (CC) Zone District. Compliance with the allowable dimensional requirements will be verified by the City of Aspen Zoning Officer at the time of building permit submittal. Section 5: Affordable Housinl!: The affordable housing unit shall be in compliance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority's Employee Housing Guidelines. The Applicant shall record a deed restriction on the affordable housing unit at the time of recordation of the condominium plat and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of occupancy for the building, classifying the unit as a Category 4 unit (or below) and containing 1,110 square feet (necessary to comprise at least 30% of the floor area in the free-market residential unit to meet AH mitigation requirements). Included in the governing documents shall be language reflecting the potential for the unit to become an ownership unit. If the Applicant chooses to deed restrict the affordable housing unit as a rental unit, the Applicant shall convey a 1110 of a percent, undivided interest in the unit to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy on any portion of the addition. The unit may be deed-restricted as a rental unit, but the unit shall become an ownership unit at such time as the owner would request a change to a "for-sale" unit or at such time as the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority deems the unit to be out of compliance with the rental occupancy requirements in the Affordable Housing Guidelines for a period of more than year. If the affordable housing unit is a "for-sale" unit, the unit's homeowners' association dues shall be a percentage of the free-market residential unit's dues equal to the affordable housing unit's market value compared to that ofthe free-market residential unit's market value in the complex. Section 6: Fire Mitil!:ation The Applicant shall install a fire sprinkler system and alarm system that meets the requirements of the Fire Marshal. Section 7: 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 new units within the building shall have individual water meters. Section 8: Sanitation District Reauirements 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. Shared service line agreements will be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Section 9: 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 10: School Lands Dedication Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School lands dedication, the Applicant shall pay a fee-in-lieu ofland 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 11: Park Development Impact Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fee, the Applicant shall pay a park development impact fee in the amount of $6,359.00 prior to building permit issuance. The fee is assessed based on the following calculation: 1 Unit multiplied by $3,634 (three bedroom or larger fee) = $3,634.00 1 Unit multiplied bv $2,725 (two-bedroom fee) = $2.725.00 Park Development Impact Fee= $6,359.00 If the fee schedule changes by the time the Applicant submits an application for a building permit, the fee schedule in place at the time of building permit is ready for issuance shall apply. Section 12: Impact Fees All impact fees in effect at the time of building permit, as applicable, shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Section 13: Vested Rie:hts The development approvals granted herein shall be vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a vested property right, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: Ajax Mountain Building, City and Townsite of Aspen, by Ordinance No. _, Series of 2006, of the Aspen City Council. Section 14: This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 15: 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 16: A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 24th day of July, 2006, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 26th day of June, 2006. Helen Kalin Kianderud, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 24th day of July, 2006. Helen Kalin K1anderud, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: John P. Worcester, City Attorney 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 is in compliance with the allowable dimensional requirements and permitted uses in the Commercial Core Zone District in which it is proposed. Staff does not believe that this application conflicts with the goals and objectives of the AACP. Furthermore, the Historic Preservation Commission has already granted final HPC design approval and a mountain view plane exemption; and the Planning and Zoning Commission has granted a growth management review for free-market residential units in a mixed use project and a growth management review for the development of affordable housing. 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 residential uses on the roof of an existing building are a permitted use in the Commercial Core Zone District. Additionally, the proposal for constructing residential units on the top of commercial/office buildings in the Commercial Core of town is consistent with the development pattern that is prevalent in the core. 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 Commercial Core Zone District dimensional requirements and meets all other land use regulations that were in effect at the time of application. 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 offlooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition 7 that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. Staff Finding Staff believes that the 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, there is an existing commercial building on the site that is already served by the necessary utilities, thus there shall not be a premature extension of public facilities or utilities. 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 Since the proposal is for development on the roof of an existing commercial building in the commercial core of Aspen, many of the improvements like sidewalks required by Land Use Code Section 26.580 are already in place. 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 proposed to provide a two-bedroom affordable housing unit consisting of 1,110 square feet, which satisfies the employee housing mitigation requirements as set forth in the growth management section of the land use code. The Plarming and Zoning Commission has already granted a growth management review for the development of free-market residential units in a mixed use project and a growth management review for affordable housing. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. 8 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 based on the fee schedule in place at the time of building permit submittal. Staff finds this criterion to be met. F. Growth Management ApprovaL Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 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 Applicant has received approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission for the necessary growth management reviews to develop the proposal. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 9 MEMORANDUM \It,,&.- TO: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council '-.M THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: James Lindt, Senior Planner crt- RE: Hannah-Dustin Building Subdivision, 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2006. Continued Public Hearing (Growth Management Review, Commercial Design Review, Commercial Design Review Variance, and Special Review handled and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission) DATE: June 26, 2006 ApPLICANT /OWNER: Hyman Avenue Holdings, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Stan Clauson Associates, LLC LOCATION: Hannah-Dustin Building, 300 S. Spring Street CURRENT ZONING: Mixed-Use (MU) Zone District PROPOSED LAND USE REQUEST: Subdivision and associated land use requests to expand the Hannah-Dustin Building STAFFIP&Z RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval with conditions. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the subdivision and approved the applicable growth management, design review and special review components of the application. PHOTO ABOVE: Existing Hannah-Dustin Building SUMMARY: The Applicant requested subdivision and associated land use approvals to expand the Hannah-Dustin building to add approximately 2,440 square feet of net leasable space, two (2) free market residential units and three (3) deed-restricted affordable housing units. LAND USE REOUESTS: The Applicant has requested the following land use actions to expand the Hannah-Dustin Building: . Subdivision for the construction of multi-family residential units in a mixed use development pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480 (City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission on this land use request). . Commercial Design Review because the building is a mixed use building that contains commercial/office space (Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority on this land use reQuest). . . Commercial Design Review Variance: A variance from the Commercial Design Review Standards is required because the first floor of the residential portion of the addition is more than two (2) feet above the adjacent sidewalk grade. (Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority on this land use request). . Growth Management Review: Expansion of Mixed Use Development for the addition of 2,440 square feet of net leasable space pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.040(C)(2), Growth Management Review: Expansion of Mixed Use Development (Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority on this land use reouest). . Growth Management Review for the construction of free-market residential units within a Mixed Use project pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.040(C)(6), Growth Management Review: Free-Market Residential Units within a Mixed-Use Project (Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority on this land use request). . Growth Management Review for the construction of affordable housing pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.040(C)(7), Growth Management Review: Affordable Housing (Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority on this land use request). . Special Review to vary the size of the Utility/Trash/Recycling area (Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority on this land use request). . Condominiumization (Condominium plat to be reviewed bv the Community Development Director upon substantial completion of construction). REVIEW PROCEDURE: A development application for subdivision shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by City Council after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Community Development Director pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480.040, Subdivision. The Applicant has also requested various growth management reviews, all of which were reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. And finally, the Applicant requires Commercial Design Review and a variance from the Commercial Design Review Standards, which were also reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412, Commercial Design Review. COUNCIL ISSUES: At the public hearing on June 12th, the majority of the members of City Council expressed concerns about the application's compliance with the goals and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Specifically, there were concerns expressed about several elements of the design. The primary concern that Staff heard from Council was the limited livability of the affordable housing units in that they were proposed entirely below grade and were to be accessed from the alleyway. 2 Another prevalent concern expressed by City Council related to the lack of on-site parking and the assignment of use of the parking spaces that were being proposed. Several Council members suggested that it would be appropriate to provide more on-site parking spaces rather than paying the cash-in-lieu fee for many of the required spaces as was originally proposed. Other members of Council felt that it would be important to at least reconfigure the use of the parking being proposed so that the proposed affordable housing units get use of several of the parking spaces on the site. It was also expressed that the Applicant should look at the amount of snowmelted sidewalk proposed on the property to see if it could be reduced and replaced with grass and plantings for energy efficiency and aesthetic reasons. Finally, it was also suggested that the Applicant study the possibility of importing some of the new commercial/office space proposed into the residential addition to provide a better integration of uses within the building. The Applicant has met with Staff and has indicated that they are working on revising their development proposal to respond to the comments made by City Council at the last hearing, but they were not able to provide revised plans for Council to consider as of the packet deadline. If Staff receives revised plans prior to the meeting date, we will provide Council with the plans. Otherwise, if the revised plans are not ready until the day of the meeting, the Applicant will present the plan changes to Council at the meeting. Staff has attached the proposed ordinance representing the development proposal as it was presented to City Council at the last meeting. Staff will have copies of an updated ordinance at the meeting if the Applicant makes changes to the design that would necessitate changes to the proposed ordinance. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2006, approving with conditions, the requested Hannah Dustin Subdivision for several additions to the building at 300 S. Spring Street, consisting of 2,440 square feet of new net leasable space, two (2) free market residential units, and three (3) affordable housing units. " ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings (Provided in 1 st Reading Packet for Original Design) EXHIBIT B - Application (Provided in I5t Reading Packet) EXHIBIT C -- Referral Comments (Provided in 15t Reading Packet) EXHIBIT D - P&Z Resolution and Minutes (Provided in I5t Reading Packet) 3 ORDINANCE NO. 16 (SERIES OF 2006) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS THE HANNAH DUSTIN BUILDING SUBDIVISION TO ADD 2,440 SQUARE FEET OF NET LEASABLE SPACE, TWO FREE MARKET RESIDENTIAL UNITS, AND THREE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 300 SOUTH SPRING STREET, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. ParcelID: 2737-182-27-001 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Hyman Avenue Holdings, LLC, represented by Stan Clauson Associates, LLC, requesting approval of subdivision, various growth management reviews, commercial design review, and condominiumization to add 2,440 square feet of net leasable space, two (2) free-market residential units, and three (3) affordable housing units to the Hannah-Dusting Building located at 300 S. Spring Street; and, WHEREAS, the subject property contains 12,000 square feet and is zoned MU (Mixed Use); and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval, with conditions, of the proposed subdivision and associated land use requests; and, WHEREAS, during a public hearing on April 4, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 09, Series of 2006, by a six to zero (6-0) vote, approving a growth management review for expansion of mixed use development, a growth management review for free-market residential units within a mixed use development, a growth management review for affordable housing, commercial design review, a commercial design standard variance, special review to vary the utility/trash/recycling area, and recommending that City Council approve with conditions, the proposed Subdivision and condominiumization to add 2,440 square feet of net leasable space, two (2) free- market residential units, and three (3) affordable housing units to the Hannah-Dustin Building located at 300 S. Spring Street; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, (and whereas the Planning and Zoning Commission approved with conditions, a growth management review for expansion of mixed use development, a growth management review for free-market residential units within a mixed use development, a growth management review for affordable housing, commercial design review, a commercial design review variance, and special review to vary the utility/trash/recycling area dimensions), the City Council approves, the proposed Subdivision and condominiumization to add 2,440 square feet of net leasable space, two (2) free-market residential units, and three (3) affordable housing units to the Hannah- Dusting Building located at 300 S. Spring Street, with the conditions contained herein. Section 2: Plat and Al!I"eement The Applicant shall record a subdivision plat and agreement that meets the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision, within 180 days of approval. Section 3: Buildinl! Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final City Council Ordinance and P&Z Resolution. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. d. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 5-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. e. A construction management plan pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. The construction management plan shall include an identification of construction hauling routes for review and approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent. f. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Department. g. A detailed excavation plan that utilizes vertical soil stabilization techniques for review and approval by the City Engineer. Section 4: Dimensional Reauirements The Hannah-Dustin building shall continue to be in compliance with the dimensional requirements of the Mixed Use (MU) Zone District. The City of Aspen Zoning Officer shall verifY compliance with the allowed dimensional requirements at the time of building permit submittal. Section 5: Off-street Parkin!! The project shall provide six (6) off-street parking spaces, four of which shall be designated for the use of the free market residential units, and two (2) of which shall be designated for the use of the commercial space. The Applicant shall also pay cash-in-lieu for six (6) of the required office/commercial parking spaces for a total fee of $180,000.00 ($30,000 per parking space pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.515.050, Cash-in-/ieu for Mobility Enhancements). Additionally, the Applicant shall pay cash-in-lieu of three (3) of the required affordable housing parking spaces for a total fee of $90,000.00 ($30,000 per parking space pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.515.050, Cash-in-/ieu for Mobility Enhancements). The Applicant shall pay the total cash-in-lieu fee of $270,000.00 in full prior to building permit issuance. Section 6: Sidewalk and Landscapin!! Improvements The Applicant shall install a sidewalk detached from the curb with a parkway strip along East Hyman Avenue for the length of the property frontage that meets the City Engineer's standards prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy on any portion of the development. Appropriate street tree plantings shall occur in the parkway strip along the property frontage on both East Hyman Avenue and South Spring Street. The Applicant shall submit a landscaping plan for plantings in the right-of-way for review and approval by the City Parks Department prior to installation of right-of-way plantings. Section 7: Trash/Utilitv Service Area A trash/utility service area with a linear footage of fourteen (14) feet and a depth of ten (10) feet shall be provided between the existing building and the alleyway. A trash compactor shall be installed to justifY the reduction in the trash/utility/recycling area. Section 8: Affordable Housin!! The Applicant shall record a deed restriction on each of the affordable housing units prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy on the building classifYing the units as Category 2 units. If the Applicant chooses to deed restrict the affordable housing units as rental units, the Applicant shall convey a 1/10 of a percent, undivided interest in the units to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy on any portion of the building. The units may be deed-restricted as rental units, but the units shall become ownership units at such time as the owners would request a change to "for-sale" units or at such time as the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority deems the units to be out of compliance with the rental occupancy requirements in the Affordable Housing Guidelines for a period of more than year. Section 9: Fire Mitil~ation The Applicant shall install a fire sprinkler system and alarm system that meets the requirements of the Fire Marshal in the entire building, including existing spaces. Section 10: Water Department Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Each of the units within the building shall have individual water meters. Section 11: Sanitation District Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations. No clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter drains) to ACSD lines shall be allowed. All improvements below grade shall require the use of a pumping station. If more than one unit is to be served by a single service line, the Applicant shall enter into a shared service line agreement. Section 12: Electrical Department Requirements The Applicant shall have an electric connect load summary conducted by a licensed electrician in order to determine if the existing transformer on the neighboring property has sufficient capacity for the Hannah-Dustin Redevelopment. If a new supplemental transformer is required to be installed on the Hannah-Dustin property, the Applicant shall provide for a new transformer and its location shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior to installation. The Applicant shall dedicate an easement to allow for City Utility Personnel to access the supplemental transformer for maintenance purposes, if a supplemental transformer is installed. Section 13: Exterior 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, School lands dedication, the Applicant shall pay a fee-in-lieu ofland dedication prior to building permit issuance. The City of Aspen Zoning Officer shall calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee schedule in affect at the time of building permit submittal. The Applicant shall provide the market value of the land including site improvements, but excluding the value of structures on the site. Section 15: Park Development Impact Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fee, the Applicant shall pay a park development impact fee in the amount of $19,176.20 prior to building permit issuance. The fee is assessed based on the following calculation: Proposed Commercial: 2,440 SF of new net leasable square feet multiplied by $1,530.00 per 1,000 SF=$3,733.20 Proposed Residential 2 (four-bedroom) Free Market Residential Unit multiplied by $3,634 per unit= $7,268.00 3 (two-bedroom) Residential Units multiplied by $2,725 per unit= $8.1 75.00 Total: $19,176.20 Section 16: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as iffully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 17: This ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. . Section 18: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 19: A public hearing on the ordinance was be held on the 12111 day of June, 2006, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen days prior to which, a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. The public hearing was continued to the 26111 of June, 2006. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 24111 day of April, 2006. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _day of Attest: ,2006. Kathrn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor MEMORANDUM VI'l b TO: Mayor Klanderud and City Council FROM: Sarah Laverty, Environmental Project Coordinator THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: Recycle Center COWOP Final Approval Second Reading of Ordinance No. _22-, Series of 2006 DATE: June 26, 2006 SUMMARY: In April 2006 the City of Aspen 'and Obermeyer Redevelopment Company entered into a COWOP (Convenience and Welfare of the Public) review process to consider a redeveloped recycle center. A community task force started meeting in April and held six meetings. The task force was made up of neighbors, citizens, representatives of the Skate Board Park, Pitkin County, City Council, Obermeyer, P&Z; architects, and appropriate City staff. The redevelopment of the recycle center grew out of the Land Lease agreement between the City of Aspen and Obermeyer Redevelopment Company. As part of the Obermeyer construction project, the City of Aspen and Obermeyer Redevelopment Company agreed that compensation for leased lands by Obermeyer during construction will be made in the form of improvements to the recycle/snowmelt center parcel, as well as other Permanent Improvements. (See Attachment H: Land Lease Agreement) In anticipation of these improvements, Obermeyer and Cottle Car & Yaw Architects did some initial research and design work for the new recycle center. Upon determining the desire for a COWOP project, no further work was done by the architects on the recycle center project. To begin the process CCY presented the task force with what it had found to be project objectives and program requirements. These objectives and requirements resulted from discussions with the County Solid Waste center, Obermeyer, and the City Parks department prior to determination of a COWOP process. The first task of the task force was to go through these objectives and requirements, make any necessary changes, and then adopt them as a group (See Attachment B: Objectives and Requirements). Over the next six meetings, the group worked through discussions on thirteen main points before ultimately reaching a design. The majority of the group is in support of the final design presented by CCY; however, the group has asked CCY to explore the possibility of a slight alteration to the final design. CCY will present the findings of this alteration, along with the final design, to Council on June 26, 2006. Staff recommends City Council adopt Ordinance No. ~2 _, Series of 2006, upon second reading. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council approved Resolution No. 19 (Series 2006) on April 1 0, 2006 to begin the COWOP process and set the Rio Grande location as the location for the redeveloped recycle center. Council also gave the task force direction on location and cost at a work session April 17, 2006. Council determined that the Rio Grande location is the most appropriate location for the recycle center, and directed staff and the COWOP task force team to continue with design plans and to not consider alternative locations. Council also directed staff and the COWOP task force to pursue a state of the art design for the recycle center that would be a showcase of environmental excellence in building, with an accompanying cost structure. DISCUSSION: MAIN ISSUES: Recycle Center COWOP Meeting Summaries City Council requested and received the meeting summary reports from the COWOP Task Force Team meetings. (See Attachment I: Meeting Summaries) Design The design proposal (See Attachment D: Recycle Center Drawings) for the Recycle Center includes an enclosure and roof to house six recycle bins. The enclosure has spaces for 7 full size bins so there is room to remove a full bin and replace it with an empty one. The enclosure is shaped like an "L" with one section oriented north/south with 4 spaces, and one section oriented east/west with 3 spaces. The enclosure is three sided, with the fourth side being open to allow for access to the recycle bins. The side opposite the open side will have a raised platform with an attached ramp. (The task force also requested the design team to look into the possibility of having 5 spaces oriented north/south and 2 spaces oriented east/west. The design team can present this to Council June 26th.) The entire site can be lowered to minimize the overall visibility of the enclosure; however, the extent to which it can be lowered is dictated by the elevation of the storm water vault that is already in the ground. The task force also recommends berming the land to the west of the enclosure up to allow the Recycle Center to be better integrated with the surrounding park and landscape. A berm on the east side of the Recycle Center will also help limit the visual impact of the Recycle Center from eastern views (Oklahoma Flats neighbors, river, and bike path users). One of the City's goals in designing this facility is to let it be a showcase of the City's commitment to environmental excellence. Several design features help meet that goal. The task force recommends using glasscrete for paving. Glasscrete is a type of paving that incorporates recycled glass - a fitting product for a recycle center. The task force also recommends a green roof for the north/south portion of the enclosure. This section 2 is curved, which fits better with the landscape and helps avoid a warehouse-type feel. The east/west portion is designed with a translucent roof with a photovoltaic system embedded in the roof. The photovoltaic system converts sunlight into electricity - this electricity can be used onsite and any excess can be fed back into the grid. A narrative and educational display is considered an important element to the Recycle Center, and the task force recommends including funds for the design of this feature in the budget. The Recycle Center will be plowed, and although the task force recommends installing the piping for snowmelt, it does not recommend using it. The task force feels the priority should be to remove snow as the city already does on sidewalks and trails, or to shovel the snow that is not removed through plowing; however, should that not be a possibility, the ability to turn on snowmelt will exist. By installing snowmelt upfront we don't run the risk of having to tear up the pavement to install snowmelt at a later time. (Use of snowmelt systems is a strong concern of city staff, because the very large energy use is contrary to the City's Canary Initiative goals.) (See Attachment C: Detailed Discussion of Design Elements) Cost Obermeyer agreed to pay $475,000.00 for Permanent Improvements, including the redevelopment of the Recycle Center and other improvements. If incurred costs of Permanent Improvements exceed $475,000.00, the City shall reimburse to Obermeyer the difference. Staff met with Council at a June 19th work session to go over the finances in more detail. Staff also applied for a grant through CORE to help fund the Recycle Center. Staff will be requesting a Supplemental for roughly $362,000. Operating Agreement The City and County are in the process of establishing a Land Lease Agreement for the Recycle Center that will establish City and County responsibilities at and for the Recycle Center. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: At this point the design is still in a conceptual stage, thus the budget and construction costs are still estimates and subject to change. The rough estimate at this point is that the recommended design will cost about $736,971.86. (See Attachment E - Basic and Detailed Budget) Again, this figure is subject to change based on material costs and final design alterations (e.g. a "green" roof is not fully accounted for in this budget, while the use of gabion walls instead of ranuned earth should cost less). Also, staff applied for a grant through CORE's REMP program. CORE has recommended that the City receive $50,000 for the Recycle Center (to help fund a "green" roof, a photovoltaic system, and energy efficient lights"). Of the $475,000 Obermeyer is committed to providing towards this project, roughly $100,000 has already been spent, or is earmarked, for other requirements under the Land Lease Agreement. This leaves the balance of the project at about $362.000. Staff will be 3 requesting a supplemental for roughly this amount. (This figure will change pending material costs, and approval by BOCC and Council of the CORE grant) If snowmelt is used, the armual natural gas costs will be $1,000 - $1,500, if natural gas prices do not go up, as well as the initial capital cost. The additional cost to offset the respective greenhouse gas emissions is about $150 +/- armually. On the whole, the task force considers use of environmentally preferable building materials, lowering the site, landscaping, an educational display, and design elements that can be replicated in town to be important and warrant additional investment if necessary. Having a curved roof is preferable, but is an area the task force would recommend eliminating if costs need to be reduced. Video surveillance and lighting, beyond what is necessary for safety issues, are not considered priorities by the task force. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: Given the task force recommendation for paving and a building structure, avoiding snowmelt and using environmentally preferable materials will have the most beneficial environmental impact. Glasscrete incorporates recycled glass with aggregate to use as a paving substance. A green roof will help mitigate storm water issues, and encourage and educate about an environmentally beneficial alternative, although many of the greatest environmental/energy conserving benefits of a green roof will not be realized as this is not a heated or cooled building. Using reclaimed timber beams from the Snowflake will have significant environmental benefits as it is a local source (thus reducing energy requirements of shipping) and precludes the need to mine, process, and manufacture steel (all of which correspond to significant energy use and resource degradation). The photovoltaic in one section of the roof will be a source of electricity, and any excess that is generated will be able to be fed back into the grid. The use of snowmelt, even just in selected locations, will have negative environmental impacts. Staff understands the priority of safety, but believes this can be addressed with a more thoughtful solution. The proposed 2,000 square feet of snowmelt would be responsible for 8,660 lbs of C02 from the burning of natural gas, slightly less than the US average home uses for heat. Staff has concerns that this sets a dangerous precedent. If this option is selected, staff recommends purchasing carbon offsets worth twice the greenhouse gas emissions, so that the project has a net positive environmental impact. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council adopt Ordinance No. 22 , Series of 2006 upon second reading. ALTERNATIVES: Design alternatives have been discussed under the main issues section. Council can also make suggestions or recommendations on the current design proposal. Additionally, please refer to Attachment G for letters written to the COWOP by task force members outlining other design options. 4 PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to adopt Ordinance No. 22 ,Series of 2006 upon second reading. " CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A -- Attachment B -- Attachment C -- Attachment D -- Attachment E -- Attachment F -- Attachment G -- Attachment H -- Attachment I -- Attachment J -- Staff Findings Objectives and Requirements Detailed Discussion of Design Elements Recycle Center Drawings Basic and Detailed Budget Alternative Design Opinions (Letter from Debra, Kristine, Doug) Letters Received Re: Recycle Center (Letter from Diana Van Deusen) Land Lease Agreement (only pertinent pages) Meeting Summaries (Reference Council Packet from 6/12, or see staff for copies) (herein by reference) - Project Notebook - Contact Sarah Laverty at 429.1798 or sarahl@ci.aspen.co.us. PUBLIC INFORMATION: Those seeking additional information about this project should contact or stop by the Environmental Health Department, 2"" floor of City Hall. 5 ORDINANCE NO. _22_ (SERIES OF 2006) . AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN APPROVING FINAL LAND USE APPROVALS AND GRANTING A DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR THE RECYCLE CENTER COWOP PROJECT, ON LAND OWNED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN, KNOWN AS LOT 1 RIO GRANDE SUBDIVISION, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF RIO GRANDE PLACE, DIRECTLY EAST OF THE SKATE PARK. Parcel No. 273707306851 WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council, pursuant to Resolution 19, Series of 2006, determined eligible through the City's Convenience and Welfare of the Public (COWOP) review process, the redevelopment of the Recycle Center for the purpose of improving operations, minimizing visible and audible impacts of the Recycle Center, and demonstrating Aspen's commitment to the environment; and, WHEREAS, the Recycle Center is located at the southeastern edge of the Rio Grande park, just north of Rio Grande Place, and east of the skate park and is legally described as Lot 1 of the Rio Grande Subdivision as shown on the plat thereof recorded in book 32 at page 84 of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder; and, WHEREAS, the COWOP land use review process, Chapter 26.500 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, was created and adopted by the City of Aspen to allow the planning of projects of significant community interest, when determined necessary by the City Council according to said Chapter, to evolve all attributes of a project considering input from neighbors, property owners, public officials, technical advisors and consultants, members of the public, and other parties of interest assembled as a formal reviewing and recommending authority - a COWOP Task Force Team - providing recommendations directly to City Council on the land use, physical dimensions, financial impacts, and public policy aspects of a project; and, WHEREAS, the Recycle Center COWOP Task Force Team was comprised of voting members (representative of Obermeyer Redevelopment Company, a representative of the City of Aspen City Council, a representative of the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, neighbors, citizens at large, representatives of the skate park, a representative of the City of Aspen Parks Department, and a representative of the Pitkin County Solid Waste Center) and staff and technical resources (the City of Aspen Community Development Director, a representative of the City of Aspen Environmental Health Department, representatives of Cottle Car & Yaw Architects, serving as the design team, and a representative from CORE). The City of Aspen Community Development Director served as the chair of the Task Force Team, in compliance with the requirements of Section 26.500 of the Aspen Land Use Code. Meetings of the Task Force Team included opportunities for members of the public to comment. The composition of the Task Force Team was approved by the City of Aspen City Council, pursuant to Resolution 19, Series of 2006, and provided the project with a broad range of expertise and awareness of community issues; and, Ordinance No. _22_, Series of2006. Page 1 WHEREAS, the COWOP review process enabled the planning and design of the Recycle Center to reflect essential community goals and values, taking into consideration various opinions and expressed points-of-view from neighbors, citizens, skate park users, City and County staff, and technical expertise from various professional staff of essential City, County, and quasi-municipal districts; and, WHEREAS, the COWOP land use review procedure does not and has not lessened any public hearing, public noticing, or any critical analysis or scrutiny of the project as would otherwise be required; and, WHEREAS, the Recycle Center COWOP Task Force Team met a total of six (6) times, each time for approximately three (3) hours, to consider the goals and requirements of a redeveloped recycle center that will improve the operations and convenience of use, and be a model for green design, where appropriate, on the following dates: April 13, 2006, April 14, 2006, April 21, 2006, April 28, 2006, May 4, 2006, and May 22, 2006; and, WHEREAS, the Recycle Center COWOP Task Force Team meetings were open to the public. Meeting summaries were produced and adopted by the Task Force at each subsequent meeting; and, WHEREAS, the location of the Recycle Center is advantageous in that people are already familiar and habituated to the location, and no other feasible locations where deemed to exist by an Altemate Recycle Center Location Study conducted by City staff, as required by Ordinance No. 18 (Series of 2003); and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council, through adoption of Resolution No. 19, Series of 2006, adopted the findings of an Alternate Recycle Center Location Study performed by City staff February 2003; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council, through adoption of Resolution No. 42 (Series of 1993) designates this area as the location of the City of Aspen's Recycle Center; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council conducted two publicly noticed work sessions to review the progress of the Task Force Team and to provide guidance to the location of the redeveloped Recycle Center in relation to the Rio Grande Master Plan and the Alternate Location Study by City staff, and how to proceed with the design as it relates to cost, on April 17, 2006, and to go over costs associated with the Recycle Center on June 19,2006; and, WHEREAS, it is a goal of the City of Aspen and Obermeyer Redevelopment Company, the co-applicants for the COWOP process, and the task force, to design a recycle center that will enhance the functioning of the recycle center, for both the operators and users, minimize visible and audible impacts, integrate well with the surrounding landscape, and demonstrate Aspen's commitment to recycling, conserving landfill space, and energy and resource efficiency; and, WHEREAS, the redeveloped Recycle Center allows for the ability of persons with disabilities to participate in recycling; and, Ordinance No. _22_, Series of 2006. Page 2 WHEREAS, the redeveloped Recycle Center allows for enhanced operations and reduced maintenance; and, WHEREAS, the materials used to build the recycle center will support the structure and serve as an educational tool to promote the environmental value and importance of using environmentally responsible building materials, with respect to resource and energy conservation; and, WHEREAS, the Project is of higher quality as a result of the Recycle Center COWOP Task Force Team review process and the interactive discussions that occurred; and, WHEREAS, the Project is consistent with the Goals and Objectives of the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan, the Project is consistent with the direction of the Civic Master Plan - a pi arming project commissioned by the City of Aspen currently in progress analyzing proper uses of land surrounding and including the subject property; and, WHEREAS, during a regnlar meeting of the Recycle Center COWOP on May 22, 2006, the Task Force Team recommended, by a majority vote, that City Council approve the proposed design for the Recycle Center; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.304 and 26.500 of the Land Use Code, City Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny all requisite land use approvals necessary to grant a development order for a proposed development determined eligible for COWOP land use review upon a recommendation from the Community Development Director and consideration of comments offered by the general public at a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Community Development Director has reviewed the proposed development in consideration of the recommendations of the COWOP Task Force Team, the requirements of the land use code, and comments from applicable referral agencies and has recommended approval of all necessary land use approvals for granting a development order for the proposed Recycle Center including Final approval of aCOWOP Land Use Review, Rezoning for a Plarmed Unit Development overlay, Final Plarmed Unit Development Plan approval, final Specially Plarmed Area plan approval, and Growth Management approval for an essential public facility, subject to conditions of approval as described herein; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Recycle Center COWOP Task Force Team, the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. Ordinance No. _22_, Series of 2006. Page 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: The Recycle Center COWOP Project is hereby granted a development order for a site specific development plan and granted all necessary land use approvals including Final approval of a COWOP Land Use Review, Rezoning of the property to include a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay, Final PUD Plan approval, Final Specially Planned Area approval, and Growth Management approval for an essential public facility, subject to conditions of approval as described herein. Section 1: Rezoninl! for PUD Overlav The Official Zone District Map of the City of Aspen shall be, upon filing of the Final PUD/SP A Plans, amended by the Community Development Director to reflect the property, as described in Exhibit A, as included in the Public (PUB) Zone District with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay and a Specially Planned Area (SPA) Overlay: Section 2: Approved Proiect Dimensions All project dimensions shall be as reflected in the Final PUD/SP A Plans. The Final PUD/SP A Plans shall be substantially consistent with the May 22, 2006 design development drawings presented to City Council on June 26, 2006. Section 3: Sidewalk and Trail Closures Proper signage and barriers shall be used during periods of construction necessitating the closure of sidewalks and trail surrounding the Project. Section 4: 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. 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 City of Aspen Recycling Center located within Lot #1, Rio Grande Subdivision, by Ordinance No. , Series of2006, of the Aspen City Council. Section 5: Final PUD and SPA Plans and Al!reement Ordinance No. _22_, Series of 2006. Page 4 Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for a Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Final PUD & SPA Development Plan containing the following: 1. An illustrative site plan with dimensioned building locations. Off-site improvements, such as improvements to the right-of-way, shall include design specifications for approval by the City Engineer. 2. An architectura1 character plan demonstrating the general architectural character of the building with dimensions and depicting materials. 3. A drainage plan depicting roof and surface drainage and how it will be connected to the City's storm drainage system. 4. A lighting plan sheet shall not be required in the PUD/SPA Plans, but compliance with the City's Lighting Code shall be checked at the time of building permit review. 5. A PUD/SP A Agreement shall not be necessary as the property is owned by the City of Aspen and there is no need to bond the public improvements. Section 6: Buildine: Permit Requirements The building permit application shall include/depict: I. A letter from the primary contractor stating that the approving Ordinance has been read and understood. 2. A signed copy of the final Ordinance granting land use approval. 3. A fugitive dust control plan approved by the Environmental Health Department. The applicant shall wash tracked mud and debris from the street as necessary, and as requested by the City, during construction. 4. A construction management and parking plan meeting the specifications of the City Building Department. Section 7: Proiect Amendments Amendments to the Project shall be reviewed according to the procedures and limitations of the Land Use Code for amending a Final PUD Plan. A gate shall not be included in the initial design. If safety or illegal dumping proves to be an issue, the addition of a gate can be approved by the Community Development Director as insubstantial PUD Amendment. Section 8: 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, 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. Ordinance No. _22_, Series of 2006. Page 5 Section 9: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 10: 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 11: Tbat 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 12: A public hearing on the Ordinance was held on the 26111 day of June, 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 13: This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final adoption provided the City Attorney is satisfied before the effective date of this ordinance that the covenants burdening the property do not prevent the construction of the project as approved herein. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 26111 day of June, 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 C:\home\Visitor Center\Ordinance.doc Ordinance No. _22_, Series of 2006. Page 6 / Exhibit ^ Recycle Center COWOP Review Criteria and Staff Findings Staff Comments: COWOP Review Standards City Council Resolution 19, Series of2006, established the COWOP review for this project and the criteria under which it would be judged. Following is a review of each criterion: 1. Planned Unit Development - Section 26.445 (Note: PUD is a land use tool to spell out project dimensions such as height, setbacks, parking ratios, etc. Approving a PUD "locks-in" the proposed dimensions for the project.) Review Standards: Planned Unit Development A development application for Conceptual, Final, Consolidated Conceptual and Final, or Minor PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the limited issues associated with Conceptual Reviews and properties eligible for Minor PUD Review, certain standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application, and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this title. A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: Staff believes this development is consistent with the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). The AACP sets forth a series of policies and goals according to topic areas. Staff believes a more effective recycle center is supp0rted by the AACP and is consistent with the various other policies and programs of the City regarding recycling. An action item of the AACP states: Promote the concept of 'reduce, reuse, and recycle' as a way to protect our environment and extend the life of the Pitkin County landfill. In relation to Design Quality section, this project addresses a goal of the AACP - make every public project a model of good deveiopment, on all levels, from quality of design to positive contributions to the community fabric. The development is within the Aspen Community Growth Boundary and, more importantly, is ideally located to serve the various users of the facility. The City recently explored alternate sites to house a recycling facility and found none being superior to this site. The project incorporates recycled materials and energy efficient systems. This is consistent with the City's policy direction for construction and reflects the intent of the recycling program. Recycle Center - Staff Comments Page 1 Lastly, the COWOP land use review process created an environment of trust and collaboration, bringing together various interests in a series of thoughtful and interactive discussions between all principal parties aimed at delivering the best project for this site. This process enabled creativity in the physical and financial planning and successful public policy discussions not commonplace with traditional review processes. The project is of a higher quality due to this interaction. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The area is a highly mixed-use area with civic, institutional, commercial, recreational, retail, office, residential, and industrial land uses. The use has existed within this mix for many years and staff believes it is consistent with the historical pattern of use. The proposal provides for better logistics and aesthetics for the facility, which are long overdue. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The project does not compromise the rights or abilities of surrounding properties. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Staff Finding: Growth Management approval for an essential public facility IS being requested concurrently with this application. (Also see GMQS Section.) B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following: 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural or man-made hazards. Recycle Center - Staff Comments Page 2 c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. Staff finding: The dimensional provisions that are being contemplated are compatible with these influences on the property. The mass, heights, view planes, and parking ratios being proposed are compatible for the intended uses, the proximity to adj acent uses, and the purposes and logistics of the recycling center. The height being considered and the manner of suppressing the facility into the landscape is compatible with the surrounding area and is expected to "fit-in" with adjacent uses. There are no significant natural or man-made hazards that would complicate or direct development on this site. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and ofthe surrounding area. Staff Finding: Staff believes that the scale, massing, and site coverage are appropriate for the character of this area. The existing site has very little aesthetic value and detracts from the park edge. Improvement ofthis area was a primary goal ofthe COWOP Task Force Team. The height of the building and the lowering ofthe site being considered is favorable to the logistics of the facility and the character of the surrounding area. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. Staff Finding: The facility does not include "standard" parking spaces in the traditional sense. It does incorporate drop-off areas for the unloading of recyclable materials and staff believes the area devoted to the drop-off function is adequate. Recycle Center - Staff Comments Page 3 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. Staff Finding: No infrastructure constraints have been identified that would require a reduction in the amount of development that is being proposed. There are no residential units proposed for this site. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. Staff Finding: No natural hazards or critical site features exist on this property that would require a reduction in the density for the property. There are no residential units proposed for this site. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. Recycle Center - Staff Comments Page 4 c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. Staff Finding: There are no residential units proposed for this site. C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces,. is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. Staff Finding: The proposal specifically addresses the skate board parking, the street, Obermeyer Place, the Oklahoma Flats neighborhood, and the park and trail. These edges of the site were significant contributing factors in the design. This resulted in a lowering of the site, the access point, splitting the facility into two buildings, an earthen berm, landscaping, the roof forms and materials, and some lighting and operating considerations. Staff be.lieves this criterion has been met. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. Staff Finding: The street fal'ade of the facility is expected to have an informational display. Staff believes this will provide some interest to a fal'ade of this building that would otherwise be blank and inform the passer-by about the City's recycling efforts. This proposed orientation meets this criterion and is the result of significant COWOP Task Force Team efforts on the design ofthe project. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. Staff Finding: The plans have been reviewed by the emergency service providers and County Solid Waste and the design meets their access requirements. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. Recycle Center - Staff Comments Page 5 Staff Finding: The application provide for ADA access to all of the recycling containers and staff believes this will meet or exceed the ADA requirements for the facility. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Staff Finding: Site drainage is proposed to be accommodated in coordination with the storm water drainage infrastructure that is to be developed within the Rio Grande Park. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programatic functions associated with the use. Staff Finding: Service requirements and delivery/drop-off functions were a principle consideration in the design of this facility. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: I. The landscape plan exhibits a well-designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staff Finding: The landscape plan represents an appropriate and desirable treatment of public and semi- public spaces suitable for the character of the project and of the area. Special attention was provided on the east side of the project site where portions of the facility are visible from the Okalahoma Flats neighborhood. Special attention was also paid to the view from the park, from the skateboard park, and from the Obermeyer Place project. This resulted in the lowering ofthe site, an earthen berm, and an earthen roof over part of the facility. E. Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standard is to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public Recycle Center - Staff Comments Page 6 spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 1. be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. Staff Finding: The low and simple character of the architecture does relate to its intended use appropriately. The design was developed to respond to the surrounding uses and characteristics. Staff believes this architectural typology to be appropriate for this site and for the intended use. 2. incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. 3. accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Staff Finding: The proposal does take advantage of solar access by incorporating solar photo-voltaic technology. This is expected to permit the facility to be "off-line" with respect to electricity use. Storage and removal of snow and snow shedding issues are adequately been addressed although there is some continued desire for the spaces between the recycling containers to incorporate snow melt. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: I. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Staff Finding: The applicant has indicated that the outdoor lighting will be in compliance with the City's Outdoor Lighting regulations and be only that necessary to comply with the applicable building codes. Recycle Center - Staff Comments Page 7 G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. Staff finding: The common areas are sufficient and properly designed. There is no need for a deeded interest to be conveyed for these areas as the facility is a public facility owned by the City of Aspen. A maintenance program will need to be identified in a forthcoming Land Lease Agreement between the City (owner) and the County (operator). The agreement is not expected to significantly alter the historic operation of the facility. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: I. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Staff finding: Adequate infrastructure exists to serve this proj ect. Existing access and drainage infrastructure is sufficient to accommodate this development. No significant utility related improvements are expected to be necessary. Recycle Center - Staff Comments Page 8 J. Access and Circulation. (Only standards 1&2 apply to Minor PUD applications) The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: I. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. Staff Finding: This parcel has adequate access. No road upgrades or intersection improvements will be necessary as a result of this development. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding: A trail along the eastern and northern boundary of the site is being maintained and the project is expected to improve the aesthetics of this trail experience. A proposed pedestrian access to the facility from Rio Grande Place is a desirable element of the project. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. Staff Finding: No streets are proposed and the adjacent street is already in public ownership. 6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. Staff finding: Recycle Center - Staff Comments Page 9 A security gate is proposed. Staff believes a gate should not be implemented initially but be able to be installed in the future as an insubstantial amendment if determined necessary. J. Phasing of Development Plan. Staff Finding: Only one phase has been proposed and the phasing criteria only apply to multi-phase projects. 2. Essential Public Facility. The development of an Essential Public Facility shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the City Council based on the following criteria: a) The Community Development Director has determined the primary use and/or structure to be an Essential Public Facility. (See definition.) Accessory uses may also be part of an Essential Public Facility project. Staff Finding: The recycling center fall within the definition of an Essential Public Facility and is eligible for this approval. Definition: Essential public facility. A facility which serves an essential public purpose, is available for use by, or benefit of, the general public and serves the needs of the community. b) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the uses, pursuant to Section 26.470.030.C, Development Ceiling Levels and Section 26.470.030.D, Annual Development Allotments. Staff Finding: The recycling center does not fall within one of the types of development regulated by growth management. c) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: Staff believes this project is consistent with the AACP. Please see staff comments on page one of this section. d) A sufficient percentage of the employees expected to be generated by the project are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash-in-lieu thereof in a manner acceptable to the City Council. The Employee Generation Rates may be used as a guideline but each operation shall be analyzed for its unique employee needs. The City Council may waive, or partially waive, affordable housing mitigation requirements as is deemed appropriate and warranted for the purpose of promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals. Staff Finding: The recycling center is not expected to increase the number of employees needed to serve the operation. Staff, therefore, is not recommending employee housing mitigation is relation to this project. Recycle Center - Staff Comments Page 10 e) Free-Market residential floor area on the parcel is accompanied by affordable housing units or mitigation pursuant to 26.470.040.C.6, unless otherwise restricted in the zone district. The City Council may waive, partially waive, or establish a different limitation as is deemed appropriate and warranted for the purpose of promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals. Staff Finding: The recycling center does not incorporate any residential units and, therefore, no mitigation is necessary. f) The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such additional demand is mitigated through improvements proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services. Staff Finding: The recycling center relies on adequate existing infrastructure and no upgrades are expected to be necessary. Also see comments under PUD section related to infrastructure. 3. Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map - Section 26.310 (Note: This section addresses the new Medical Office definition and changes to the zoning map to include a PUD Overlay on the Property.) The following criteria apply to amendments to the Land Use Code and amendments to the official zone district map: (The PUD Overlay constitutes an amendment to the Map) A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. Staff Finding: The proposed PUD Overlay is consistent with the Land Use Code and does not represent any potential conflicts. The PUD controls the dimensions of the project and provides for greater public input on the character of the facility. Staff believes the PUD Overlay is appropriate and desired and is recommending approval. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: Please refer to PUD comments related to the AACP starting on page I of this attachment. In summary, staff believes this application is in compliance with the AACP. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Recycle Center - Staff Comments Page 11 Staff Finding: Please refer to PUD comments related to neighborhood compatibility starting on page I of this attachment. In summary, staff believes this application is in compliance with the AACP. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Finding: The PUD Overlay will not be increasing the allowable residential density of the parcel as the facility will not be incorporating any residential units. The facility has been in existence in this location for a long time and the road and intersection network has been sufficient to accommodate the traffic generated by the facility. A negligible increase in trip to the site may result as a function of the improved facility and additional awareness of recycling programs within the City. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and 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: The utility and infrastructure needs for the project have been addressed in the PUD application. Because of the location of the development and existing capacities, no significant up-grades are expected to be required to accommodate this development. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: Staff believes the proposed zoning overlay and the proposed development do not represent adverse impacts upon the natural environment. Sufficient criteria to evaluate potential impacts on the natural environment are included as PUD criteria and the overlay actually ensures the community a greater degree of scrutiny. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Finding: The PUD and the COWOP review process both insure that the character of the development and the uses and character of the immediate neighborhood are taken into consideration. The facility has been in existence in this location for a long time and the aesthetic and logistivcal improvements are needed. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Recycle Center - Staff Comments Page 12 Staff Finding: Development within the Park Zone District requires the adoption of a PUD plan to set the dimensions of the development. The City explored alternate sites for the recycling center and found this site to be the preferred site for a variety of logistical reasons. Staff believes the rezoning for a PUD Overlay is necessary to implement the redevelopment of this facility. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. Staff Finding: Staff believes an improved recycling facility serves the public interest. Staff believes the proposed zoning, and the proposed project, promotes the purpose and intent of this Title and is in harmony with the public interest. 4. Subdivision - Section 26.480 (Note: Subdivision is necessary for the reconfiguration of land, rights-of-way and property boundaries. Also, the development of multi-family housing requires subdivision approval.) This review was listed as a potential review standard if it was determined necessary during the project development and COWOP review. No lot lines are being altered and no residential units are proposed. So, there is no need for subdivision review or approval. 5. Anv necessarv technical desie:n standards of utilitv providers shall be considered and the COWOP decision shall not supercede anv non- citv utilitv provider. 6. Anv necessarv operation considerations of the Aspen Police and Pitkin Countv Sheriff Offices. 7. Anv necessarv or desired technical desie:n considerations for the proper desie:n and operation of a recvcline: center and the architecture of a civic buildine:. Staff Finding: The project was reviewed by the Development Review Committee to identify all technical requirements of the project. No special considerations were identified by the Police or the Sheriff. Any road closures will require proper notification ofthe Police and the Sheriff. The project was also reviewed by Pitkin County Solid Waste who is the intended operator ofthe facility. The requirements ofthese providers have been included in the design of the facility. Recycle Center - Staff Comments Page 13 8. The Asven Area Community Plan shall be considered a volicy l!:uide and the final recommendation shall include an analysis of conformance with this adovted vlan. Please refer to staffs findings under PUD, AACP compliance starting on Page I of this attachment. 9. (Note: Soeciallv Planned Area Desi2nation Criteria SPA review is necessary as the property is designated with an SPA Overlay.) A. General. In the review of a development application for a conceptual development plan and a final development plan, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall consider the following: 1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space. Staff Finding: See response to context criteria of PUD standards. 2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed development. Staff Finding: Sufficient public infrastructure exists to accommodate this development. 3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for development, considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards. Staff Finding: The parcel is suitable for development and has no adverse characteristics or natural hazards exist that need to be addressed. 4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques to preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide open space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at large. Staff Finding: The review of the project through the COWOP process focused on these concerns. The review and development of the design took into consideration the impacts on neighbors and surrounding park amenities such as noise, visibility, heights, lighting, and the general character of the area. Staff believes the design is a direct result of the special attention these planning issues received and that the design represents a balance of the logistical requirements of the facility and the affects the facility will have on the surrounding parcels. Recycle Center - Staff Comments Page 14 5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: Please refer to staffs comments on compliance with the AACP on page I of this attachment. 6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood. Staff Finding: Public facilities being contemplated will be funded by a combination of public and private funds. None are excessive or considered an unfair public burden. 7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent meet the slope reduction and density requirements of Section 26.445.040(B)(2). Staff Finding: No steep slopes exist on the property and no density reductions are required. 8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development. Staff Finding: Growth management approval for an essential public facility is being considered concurrent with the final approvals within the authorization of the COWOP land use review process. 10. Stream Marl!in Review Standards (Administrative approval) This review is necessary because the development site is within the Stream Margin Review area. This is a review which may be approved by the Community Development Director if all the criteria are found to be met. Criteria: I. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado which shows that the base flood elevation will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques on or off-site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the development; and 2. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan and the Roaring Fork River Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. Areas of historic public use or access shall be dedicated via a recorded easement for public use. A fisherman's easement granting public fishing access Recycle Center - Staff Comments Page 15 within the high water boundaries of the river course shall be granted via a recorded "Fisherman's Easement;" and, 3. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut or fill) made outside of a specifically defined building envelope. A building envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be barricaded prior to issuance of any demolition, excavation or building permits. The barricades shall remain in place until the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy; and 4. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary, including erosion and/or sedimentation during construction. Increased on-site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to prevent entry into the river or onto its banks. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained outside of the designated building envelope; and 5. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a water course, and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency; and 6. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished; and 7. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the one-hundred-year floodplain; and 8. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking place below the top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the high waterline, whichever is most restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian vegetation and bank stability. (See Figure "A" below for illustrative purposes); and 9. All development outside the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope does not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five (45) degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. Height shall be measured and determined by the Community Development Director using the definition for height set forth at Section 26.04.100 and method of calculating height set forth at Section 26.575.020 (See Figure "A" below for illustrative purposes); and 10. A landscape plan is submitted with all development applications. Such plan shall limit new plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers, and grasses) outside of the designated building envelope on the river side to native riparian vegetation; and II. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the river or located down the slope; and Recycle Center - Staff Comments Page 16 12. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape architect, or engineer are submitted showing all existing and proposed site elements, the top of slope, and pertinent elevations above sea level; and 13. There has been accurate identification of wetlands and riparian zones. Staff Comments: This is a review for which the Community Development Director may approve. The proposed development is not adjacent to the river and the proposed setbacks and height comply with the setbacks and height limitations established by the top-of-slope. The property is not within the flood plain and no watercourse alterations are proposed. No wetlands exist on the property. No building envelopes are recommended. Staff believes the project complies with all requirements of stream margin review and the Director has granted approval contingent upon approval of the various other reviews needing City Council approval. Recycle Center - Staff Comments Page 17 ~~~-t ~. AspenIPitkin Recycle Center Redevelopment PROJECT OBJECTIVES 04/07/06 1 Redevelop the Recycle Center site once it is no longer in use as a staging area for the Obermeyer Place Project. 2 Result in a Recycle Center which is more convenient to the public, encourage recycling 3 Result in a Recycle Center which is more readily managed and maintained 4 Attractively integrate Recycle Center into the surrounding Rio Grande Park, existing and as envisioned in future 5 Minimize visual and audible impacts on neighbors - Obermeyer Place, Oklahoma Flats, Skate Park, Theater in the Park, Park users, John Denver Sanctuary. 6 Enhance ability of persons with disabilities to participate in the recycling process. 7 Demonstrate the community's commitment to recycling and reduction oflandfill . use 8 Demonstrate the community's commitment to resource and energy efficiency 9 Contribute to the visual quality of Aspen as a mountain resort community 10 Have work be compliant with Ordinance and Land Lease Agreement Aspen/Pitkin Recycle Center Redevelopment PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS 04/07/06 (Developed through initial meetings and review with Solid Waste Division, Parks and design team) 1 Shed shall provide for six covered containers, (18'long x 8' wide x 6' -4"high) 2 Provide for efficient removal and replacement of full containers Truck maneuvering area - about 30' in front of container Tip-up height (about 15' at peak) Spare container space Explore possibility of7 spaces (6 containers and one spare space) 3 Parking for public vehicles while depositing recyclables (as many as 15 spaces have been discussed, including on-street. This appears to be in excess of historic use) 4 Accessible van parking (I) 5 Provide access to container inlets within wheelchair reach limitations 6 Space for several 90 gallon plastic containers for specific recyclables (phone books, batteries, etc.) and seasonal items. 7 Design flexible to accommodate future uses 8 Closet or small room for miscellaneous service and storage needs. 9 Water supply for cleaning and maintenance 10 No office is required, center is not to be staffed 11 No rest rooms, but plan location for possible accessible porta-potty 12 Video surveillance system 13 Traffic monitoring devices 14 User lighting for earlyllate hours and low light days - off-grid if possible 15 Minimal safety lighting for nighttime 16 Control of snow and icing for winter operations 17 Signage to direct public, flexible as containers change 18 Allow for expanding skate park with Streets Course 19 Keep maintenance to reasonable levels 20 Design with intent of being able to secure area at night - perhaps through gate(s) to close after operating hours (not full perimeter fence) (manual or motorized?) 21 Cein operated lighting for skate parle? 22 Possible future use of building if curbside recycling takes off A*", C- ~ \">"QAI\ \ C. Detailed Discussion of Design Elements [Votes: Yes - No - Ambivalent] Entrance [9-1-0] The task force recommends having one entrance to the recycle center. One entrance minimizes the number of curb cuts and from a traffic engineering position, fewer curb cuts is preferable for traffic flow and safety. Two entrances cold allow for better traffic circulation within the recycle center, but would also require more paving, and it is likely people will not observe one way signs. The proposal is to also have a gate at the entrance. This gate will be closed while the bins are being picked up to allow for greater public safety. Lowering Site [10-0-0] The task force is in unanimous agreement to lower the site to the greatest extent possible given various constraints. The fInal proposal does not lower the site as much as some of the other design options, but the majority of the group agrees that this design most effectively fIts the other needs and desires for the recycle center. This proposal does still lower the site; however, the elevation of the site is fIxed by the elevation of the storm water vault doors, which can not be changed. Some proposals looked at keeping the drive away from the vault door, but ultimately, the design that best accommodates all the other needs does put the vault doors in the drive. Container spaces [8-2-0] Original program requirements provided for 6 container spaces - 5 spaces for recycle bins and one empty space to allow for more efficient operations. It is far more effIcient to operate the recycle center with one empty space, as the empty bin can be brought to the recycle center, dropped in the open space, and then the full bin can be picked up. (Without an open space, the empty bin must be dropped in the drive, the full bin needs to be picked up and then dropped in the drive, then the empty bin gets picked up and dropped in the newly opened space, and then the full bin is picked up and taken away.) In light of the city's recycling ordinance, and the new yard waste drop off program, the majority of the task force recommends increasing the number of spaces to 7 - 5 for the current recycle bins, 1 open space, and 1 for yard waste. This yard waste bin can be used for the Christmas Tree drop off in the winter (which means Herron Park parking lot will no longer need to be used), for yard waste in spring, summer, and fall, and can also allow for flexibility should the city or county desire to run other pilot recycling programs . Orientation and Number of Buildings [8-1-1] The task force looked at dozens of options for orientation and for keeping the recycle center all as one building, or splitting it in two buildings. The initial preference was for one building as it minimized the number of handicap ramps, minimized the amount of building material, and minimized the overall footprint. 1 After being evenly split between preferring a one building east/west orientation, and a one building north/south orientation, the task force asked the design team to return with a design that merged the best elements of each orientation. The design that resulted maintained the majority of the building structure (4 spaces) in the north/south orientation, pushed as far west as possible (to keep its visual impact minimized from the eastern views of Oklahoma flats, and bike path and river users), with one section (3 spaces) of the building oriented east/west, with the whole structure pushed as far south as possible (to allow for more room for future skate park expansion). The majority of the task force is in support of this design; however the task force has also asked the design team to look into the feasibility of orienting 5 spaces north/south and 2 spaces east/west. The potential advantages of this configuration is to move the footprint of the design away from the storm water vault doors, which could then allow the possibility of further lowering the site, and reducing the amount of building on the east/west orientation which will help preserve the view plain from the east (Oklahoma flats, the river, and the bike path). Potential disadvantages from this configuration are an increased cost to further lower the site, and possibly less room for future skate park use. The design team will present the [mdings of a 2/5 configuration at Council. Enclosure [10-0-0] The ultimate recommendation of the task force is to have a 3 sided enclosure that is a combination of traditional walls, berms, and a combination of berms and walls. An enclosure will help alleviate many of the issues of blowing debris and litter, enhance the efficiency of maintaining the recycle center, and minimize the visibility of the recycle bins and operations. Some members of the task force did propose, and support, extensive landscaping in lieu of an enclosure to shield the recycle bins and minimize debris issues. The thought here is that less is more in terms of building materials, cost, and overall visibility of the recycle center. Access Access to the recycle center will be both from a drive/parking area, and from a sidewalk. The bins can be accessed from ground level, or from a raised walkway along the backside of the bins. The two raised walkways and accompanying ramps are an important upgrade from the old recycle center as they allow access and use of the recycle center by individuals with disabilities. Roof [7-3-0] The majority of the task force is in support of having a roof over the recycle center. Reasons for including a roof are multiple and include increasing the ease of operations and maintenance. A roof will reduce the amount of snow accumulation between and around the recycle bins, which will allow for reduced maintenance and increased ease of use for all during the winter months. A roof can also increase the convenience of use during any kind of inclement weather. A roof and enclosure can also help lessen 2 the audible impacts of the recycle center and will minimize the visual impact of the recycle center operations from Obermeyer Place. Arguments against having a roof include less is more - in some respects state of the art can mean minimizing what is built. Having no roof also decreases the overall mass of the recycle center and minimizes its intrusion to the view plane from all angles, in particular the east. Eliminating the roof also saves money. Green and Translucent Roof [8-2-0] The design proposes the north/south section have a green roof, and the east/west section have a translucent roof with a photovoltaic system embedded in the roof. A green roof will help mitigate the impacts of storm water run off and will serve as a model of environmental design. A green roof also provides aesthetic benefits and helps integrate the recycle center into the surrounding landscape. Once established, the green roof should not require any additional maintenance. (It is important to note that a green roof refers to a planted roof. The intent is to plant species that can survive in our climate and this does mean that the roof will not literally be the color green all year long.) The translucent roof is design similar the roof on the Wagner Park Bathrooms and allows for a photovoltaic system to be incorporated without increasing the height of the roof. Having two roof options can also serve as an educational tool. Members of the task force who do not support the green roof see it as adding unnecessary height and cost to the roof. Many of the benefits of a green roof relate to its added insulation value, and as this will not be a heated or cooled building, these benefits will not be captured. If a roof is included, there is a proposal for all the roof sections to be translucent so as to minimize the height of the roof; however, this proposal is not supported by the majority of the task force. Curved Roof Section [6-3-1] The recommended design proposes that the green roof on the north/south section be curved. A curve allows the roof (and building structure) to flow and integrate better with the surrounding landscape. While the majority does favor this design, the task force recognizes that a curve will cost more than a straight roof, and will add some height to the center of the roof. Green Features [10-0-0] The proposed design seeks to be a model of green design and resource efficiency, which is in keeping with the principle of recycling - conserving and making more efficient use of resources. Major green features included in the design proposal are a green roof, photovoltaic, use of glasscrete for paving, incorporating recycled materials as much as possible, and using timber beams from the old Snowflake Lodge for all the structural support. A significant environmental feature would be avoiding snowmelt and 3 clearing snow with existing machines or manually - a way for the city to lead the way in its commitment to greenhouse gas reductions. One recommendation that many agreed with is the use of green features that can most effectively be replicated in other areas of town. Landscaping [10-0-0] The task force unanimously agrees that landscaping is an important element to the redesign of the recycle center. The task force recommends landscaping efforts that include the berm on the east side, a continuation of trees along Rio Grande Place, increasing the berm on the west side to more effectively integrate the recycle center into the surrounding landscape. Narrative/Education Display [10-0-0] The task force unanimously agrees that incorporating some form of a narrative or educational display is important to the recycle center. The exact details of this display have not been formalized yet but will probably result from collaboration between the County Solid Waste Center, City Environmental Health, and City Parks Department, with input from members of the task force if they are interested. Suggestions for the display include having plaques that explain where the. materials came from and how they benefit the environment, having some historical information, having recycling information, and being in keeping with other City displays. Snowmelt [10-0-0] The task force does not support snowmelt for the entire drive area, or area inside the enclosure. The task force does recommend laying the piping for snowmelt for certain areas - about a 5-10 foot wide stretch just inside and outside the enclosure along the open side, and along the sidewalk - for a total of roughly 2,000 square feet. These areas have been identified as potential snow accumulation areas that will not always be cleared by plowing. The majority of the task force, however, does not recommend using the snowmelt. First and foremost the task force recommends using manual labor (shoveling and chipping ice when necessary) to remove any snow accumulation. This will be the responsibility of either Parks, which already removes snow on the sidewalks at this site, or the County Solid Waste Center. At this point neither entity has the funds or resources to do this, but would be able to if they receive additional funding and policy direction from their respective Councilor Board. Staff is in the process of establishing a land lease agreement between the City and County for the recycle center which will address which entity is responsible for this element. City staff believes that every effort should be made to ensure that snow removal is done without use of snowmelt. If, after the first winter of use it is determined snow removal can not be accommodated by manual means, then, and only then, the task force recommends investing in carbon offsets to offset the greenhouse gas emissions of the snowmelt system. 4 Atto-c-~I'Y'eV\+ D '" (J) n . ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0; "U .. ~ is Q) 3 g :J . " .. Ii ~ ASPEN RECYCLE CENTER "'0 CD ., Ij) tl CD (') .... < CD < \h CD ~~ 0ifJ G" ASPEN RECYCLE CENTER m >< '1J OJ J ,^rJ1 --. rJ 0 ~J f- $ (]) ~ 11 .., o 3 UJ ~ OJ ..... (]) '1J OJ .., ~ ASPEN RECYCLE CENTER Atroc.t'~V\-t f - ~~L I lJi-k,lLd 8Na~+ Recycle Center Preliminary Budget (revised 6/14/06) Cost Env. Components SITE WORK Includes site clearing, excavation, grading, curb and gutter, paving, etc. Sub-total Sitework I :t>139,467.64 Building Systems Includes concrete, walls, structural support, roof system, etc. Sub-total Building Systems I :t>261 ,247.00 Mechanical Requirements Snowmelt system and run-off collection system Sub-total Mechanical Requirements I $75,000.00 Electrical Requirements Includes single phase amp and lighting. Sub-total Electrical Requirements I :t>25,000.00 Narrative/Educational Component Sub-total Narrative/Educational component I :t>5,000.00 I Sub-total above Components $505,714.641 Indirect Costs Includes general contracto fees, building permits, bonds, insurance, architectural and engineering costs, and contigency. Subtotal Indirect Costs I $231,257.22 ',.. $736,971.86 Obermeyer Funds $475,000.00 Obermeyer has already incurred some costs, and will incur future costs (separate from the Recycle Center), which are outlined in the land lease Agreement, but which reduce the overall contribution to this particular component of Obermeyer's obligation. Obermeyer has spent, or will need to spend, roughly $100,000 Obermeyer's Contribution I $375,000 IFunds still needed $361,971.861 This budget includes the cost of glasscrete, rammed earth walls(estimate), a PV allowance, snowmelt installation, and an allowance for a narrative display. It does not fully account for a "green" roof. This budget assumes a $5/sq ft cost for a "green" roof, a more accurate estimate is about $30/sq ft - for an additional $72,500. (The cost of a curved roof and motion sensors are also not included.) Glasscrete Rammed Earth Walls green roof PV system Motion sensors 0 0 s: W N 6 Co Co 0 <> <> 0 0 <> 0 0 <> 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 ww w ~ 'l' N NN 'l' N N 'l' N N ~'i" N NN N N N N N ~~ ~ ,"Co cD':"" ....in in :: .:.. "' "'...~ ww w ~ ~ ~ ~ "'- ~ ...- N'" ...W N 0 N ~ "'- ...W N .... '" N 00100 00 00 00 0 0 '" 0 000 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 000 00 0 0 0 0 0 :II " 3 3 CD "- CD " S ~ ii' "TlO:€:""T1 -;-.Q !!!. 8 Qlu;:o;-=: ~ 0 ::t ,;2 Q);~ -;;; a.::J Q) :J 9:a.::JQ. = (II a.:E ~o_e. ~ " - ~ ~n III Q g '" 3 " or .:0. ~ g .co "'~ . 3 ~CD '" 3 =r CD '" =r C/)cnrr-r-r- ."."tlJcncncn '" N ... .................... '" '" ~....E>4r-.J N...... 01 0> fit b.'A.o-"'" 1\,)690(0(,..,)0 OOOCDc)~ 000000 000000 ~ ~~E.'f~ I\J /\,).......(1Icn -.to. 0.-,:.. '0-"'" oot.'tOCQwo OOOCDC)(I) gggggg o ~ & 8 ~ ~ ~ t1 CD CD iD 8 '" f CD 0. CCJ)cncn ~NJ\.)I\J 0.;:;:;: g gig g ~~~~ Ca.a.o.. iila.a.a. -QlQ)Ql C3roroCD cc.a.o. CIl~~~ cao "''''''' ~ "" CD "- 6' ~ ~ or " '" [ " or () o z () ;a m .... m lD =. ii :; <II iD 3 '" <II C cr ~ !!!. !!! or ~ o ;l- cnS;:(j){f}()U>"):o ;:;: S" Q) a: coo.!!!. CD _. CD (D a- .., C 12- :E 3 Q) :E m 3 is.. ~ !!!.e!..-P!::J..,Ql;::;: .-_CD ;71;,':-5 g:.g CD ~ ~!!!. o!:! 0 ::J ~ ~ Q.,< 5" a~ a._~' Q)L;! :E CD~. iil ~ ~~ ~ ~ CD 5' 0' 0 = (II en ::J CD 2 ll) Q) ~~a. 5.. Q.::Jn :1:. 00 C'" < CD :J W ~ Q) ::J ~ ~. -a ll: '" 0. = ~!U !!?.a._ ;11:'::1.0 S" Cii "'C $' _. ll) ~a;' Ql C'D Ul. ~ iit~ &l21 CD 3 a.mcnr-r-r-cn -<"T1)>-n"""" N NO "'O~ ~ N tnW.......N 0000 '" N t:~g~tt~~i4 NOOOO'lOOl~ ~8gggg~~ .. ~ '" '" ;.. '" .... 'f :x: ~ C ~ CD 0. " iD 0. ~ - ~ ~ '" C)"'C::;-r-"mG)IIl-lm()(/)owC/) ii"~~'~? ~ ill Q) 2)( o::;;(tl c =t C/)~Q)a.~Q)<~~~aCD3~m ~ og:g~!.m..~5'C3 2Qc;'~:E ....["g!:J~Q)_.(J) _ =OQlUl 0 ~r9. ~ ~ g g. OJ g g ::I. ::J :u ;! c~g g:'"rn:JtS~ ;:ti; Gl3 !D~ ~2~ ~ s.~ 2n.2 ~ a -0. 0 ,,-" '" ..... c!i!!.. (I) ~ ~ ... ~ ;- ~ (I) (I) Ul Q) ~. 5._Ul)( ~ a; ~ "'=.... 0." a :1 "'0 or ~ { ~ 5. ~ g. ~. (JJ :J 3 I"'"" ~ a CD ~ " ~ 0. ~: !!l- o' ~ C/)r-r-,(')(')oo()(')() "000000-<-<"-<-<-< ~ '" ~ '" 010............~ _w ~~.(lo.g:~ ....,OI\JCOO '" '" '" ~~~~~~~ 0) ~~~~~~......~ ~~~ C~~~b~~ ~ ~b~~~~b~ ~~~ 01000010~~ W~OO~O~""'I\J~~~~O wooooowo ~OOOOO1.(lo.~"""I\JO""'I\JO ~ggggg~g ggggg~g~~~g~~g ~ ~ ~.s:fi~ Ul Ul III Q, ~ 13: c::: c::: III 11I11I1'<' 3 3 natQl~ CD (I) .Q.~;::o: g (ii' at 5 ;.~ .~ 5'" -~ Q) :- 6" ;;!'I~ go='" (JJ :; 11I_0 iD ~ ... ~-(!! o.:::C ~oQ) o CD =: :1 :J is: S' ~ (11- o-n:J ~6 mg- ()- r::n ~i ~~ ~ :r "'''' N'" ~ 1no~~ .ut~ ~~OO~~~.(lo.I\J~ NOOOO......I\JNO)CO (noboou,(n~~~ ooooool\Jcoom :::c:::c:r::::c:r ~(I)CD(I)(II gd!lgg 2.2.2.2.2. (I) (b (l\ (I) (I) a. 0- 0- 0- 0- Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) (;,(;,CD'CD<D a. 0- 0- 0- 0- - - w <3 '" ii' ~ o ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~...... ~ ~ ~aaaaa CD 0l0'l0'l0'l0) - CD CD Woo ."ww .... '" '" "'~- "'''' ~.... tntn "''"0 ONO ~(nO "'00 :x::x: H g-g 00 CDCD' 0.0. " " H ~- -- ~ - ww co 0>'" <> c 0 ~ 0 -<: '" c 0 ~ () 0 !!t ;0 CD < iii' co c. 2! - ~ o '" ;u Cl) () () i" n Cl) ;:, - Cl) ~ () o 3 3 <1> ~ or "'D ~ !!!. ~: ;:, III m(")s::s:: -00)[1) 85..'<'< -0.0--< 5."'" CD [ m CD 0 c: - 0.-0 (') U)~"tJCD n CD 0 (') o (") ::1 0 "O05~ CD UJ _. l>> --.< 0' ::I - ~ c.Om'" .,coo 0.8 - "- oa~~ ~ 3 ~ 2 ~CQ.~2- CD~S:CD -<n&l:::;; 0" _ O"-@ Cll ~ CD _ n _. a,CD.gc5 CD 0 CD .., - ~ CD CD" " 3g ~ S"Q CD CD CD 0. c.(i - S' 3' CT ., CD en ~ '0 en ::I' =r ~ 0 3 Ul ::I o ~ '" '" !I' o " o co Cil ~ " ",. CD 0. a 3 " o :a ~ Q) " S ,., . (;l ~ ., ::I Q. ~ o - !!!. .. ... ... .. .. ... - .. .. s:: '" ::I ., co CD 3 CD :a CD' CD en .. ... '" .. o .. l/l " IT - o - !!!. '" ... '" '" ic j .. '" ~'" "'''' - .. NCn "'... ...- NA "'''' "0 ~ ol ~ ~ or '" '" x m C g o !I ~ g ;i o o 3 '0 o ~ '" ~ iO o o "- s' '" ~ ~ o '< ("))>(')CJG)Gl ~g.g5.~~ ~_.~a.CJ)CI) H~~'H o~~"U88 ~CDUl~3.3. n_ :E~.m@ m 1lCilSlSl 8" Q..Q.. ~ m m Q. 0 m < '" ~ 3-; ~ m~ a Q. 8 c ~::> ; 5.9: :J ::!: o 0 '" ::> ~(Il ~ ::> Q. ~ 2 o E' ~ m ~. ::> '" '" ~. 5 .- .- .- oooo oo - .. ... '" "'''' *' fF.*" '" '" '" o .. '" .. .. o 0 .. .. ~~... (It-(/) wco..... I'\)N 01010 0101 0'"0:"" NN 00.....-(1)0)0) OO~Oc.nOl C,(:;:)NO~:"" 00<00""'(.0) ~~~~~ ;;; Q ~ ",ol ",ol <!1 :5 3 ~ ::> m Q) CD or.i 3 CD ~ (ll al ~=~=~ i.5-@6-& :7Si~oo ()!!!..m6iii C"') -. -- -<Un a;~ii~ gOon 3 000 o >~~ ijl ;; a. :J:J en UiUi oo c 'i' o !I ~ g < ~ o o 3 '8 ::> ~ ::> ;;; .. o .. '" .. '" -:.., ~ '" ... en c '" i; !: z !: ~ ~ ! m Q. c o ~ o ~ !!!. o o ~ o ~ CD a ~z -!: ~ -. - ~ 5< ~!!. o~ g~ Q.~ $.0' '" ::> 3!!!. S" (") '" 0 ~~ ~ 0 g ~ ~~ o a c: !!1 .- oo .. co .. .. '" '" o .. .. o .. .. '" b .. co .. co '" '" o .. .. o .. en c r; o !: m i' ~ n !!!. :II CD 5. ; 3 CD a . .. '" '" b co co .. co r~ 1 _.J Afuc"^",,eY\ t- -;:- Sarah Laverty From: Debra Moore [dmoore9468@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 12:15 AM To: Sarah Laverty Subject: Re: Recycle COWOP Hi Sarah. After reading over the minuets of last COWOP meeting, it is clear that the group has eliminated the one orientation that could lower the building to the maximum (North/South). The option that was voted for, Scheme 04 "L" shaped, completely ignores all concerns from the neighbors. This orientation is detrimental and with the most adverse impacts to Oklahoma Flats residents in that: 1. It cannot be lowered but only l' from existing grade. Our original goal was to depress the site and minimize the visual impacts. The building will be much more visible and look much taller from the neighborhood with #04.L. 2. It will be closer to the river and to the neighbors which again increases adverse visual affects. The building looks taller every inch that it moves closer to the riverside. 3. The Oklahoma Flats residence are the only concerned parties that have to look directly into the entire structure no matter how it is orientated. 4. The 7th bin is added onto the East side of the building, extending the building even further towards the river and to Oklahoma Flats. Why not extend it to the West? Maybe the future skateboard park should be minimized a bit! 4500 square feet shouldn't have to be the set number if it negatively impacts something else that already exist. 5. If a sod roof is eminent, it will make the roof even higher (at least another foot with earth and plants). A sod roof is expensive and only benefits Obermeyer Place as they are the only ones that will look down on it. 6. Benefits are obvious for Obermeyer Place and the skateboard Park and there are absolutely no benefits to Oklahoma Flats residents. The Scheme 04 "L" orientation is a lose, lose, lose situation for the residents of Oklahoma Flats. If in fact the recycle center must go here, and must have a roof on it, with sod, then we should at least be able to compromise on an orientation that works for Oklahoma Flats residents as well. I would like the COWOP to reconsider the North/South orientation with a longer, more gradual sloping entrance.This orientation would satisfy some of the visual concerns of the Oklahoma Flats residents. There is more maneuverabiiity for the trucks, less congestion for the cars and allows for landscaping and berming along the street side (Obermeyer Place) as well as Rio Grande Trail, with ample room for the skateboard park expansion. The longtime Aspen residents shouldn't have'to watch their property values go down, or loose their view planes because of inconsiderate or uninformed planners. I. am informing you that #04 "L" scheme does not "Preserve view planes to the river and Independence Pass with low-profile development" as the Rio Grande Master Plan emphasizes. The new Obermeyer residents were told before purchasing their investments that there would be a recycle center on this parcel. Thus. it is not really an issue for them. The Oklahoma Flats resider.lts never had the luxury of knowing in advance before investing in their properties that they would have to be dealing with this infringement. All parties involved or affected should be considered! Please let these concerns be known to the COWOP at our next meeting and to City Council Members when the final recommendation goes forth. . Thank you, 5/22/2006 Sarah Laverty Page 1 of2 . From: Kristine Crandall [birke@comcast.net] 'Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 7:58 AM To: Sarah Laverty Subject: Re: Recycle Mtg Minutes 4.21 Hi Sarah, \ ,., As far as thoughts/comments at this point --1 would throw in the idea that, as one of the options within the spectrum, a scenario be considered that is not a hardened structure (ie. doesn't have a roof or tall sides -- rather is more open). 1 still feel strongly that "recycle" means smart use of resources (less can be more), and one way to go "state of the art" is to adopt this philosophy, do a tasteful design that fits the active landscape and viewscapes, uses natural landscape options and reclaimed/recycled materials as appropriate (e.g. glashphalt or pervious surface, hay bales to define/configure the drop off zone, solar powered motion light, recycled materials for interpretive signs, etc.). This might be a good comparative example for council to see. Another thought is to include something in the de~ign that honors Aspen's unique character/history and that connects with the art park (e.g. have a place within the site for a sculpture garden, where sculptures using recycled materials are displayed....could be a juried selection process done a few times/year -- and involving kids, with the sculpture garden named in honor of Freddie "the Fixit" Fisher, Aspen's first recycler). Anyway, these are general comments and am not sure how useful they will be, but that's what comes to mind right now. Have a great meeting! Cheers, Kristine ._________m_ Original message m___________ From: "Sarah Laverty" <sarahl@ci.aspen.co.us> Hi Everyone- Here are the meeting minutes from last Friday's meeting. Please read them over so we can make any necessary adjustments, additions, or changes this Friday. The next meeting is this Friday, April 28'h, from 11a.m.-2p.m. We'll meet in Council Chambers at City Hall, and lunch will again be provided. See you ail then. Sarah Laverty 4/28/2006 '.. " DOUGLAS P. ALLEN 403 LACET LAl''iE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (970) 925-8800 FAX: 925-8943 EMAIL: doug@douglasallen.com Sarah Laverty c/o Rio Grand Recycle Center COWOP Taskforce Team Dear Sarah: As a result of long standing vacation plans I will be out of the country on Thursday, May 4, 2006 and miss that COWOP meeting. I would appreciate it if you would read the substantive portion of this letter concerning my conclusions regarding the facility. The effort of this committee and the City of Aspen should be to create the most effective and least obtrusive facility to accomplish the goal of the recycle facility, not to build some sort of "landmark" building where one is not needed. A facility that is adequately fenced, bermed and landscaped will accomplish this goal, both operationally and aesthetically. My review of ADA leads me to the conclusion that no roofis actually required. In addition, by allowing the sun .to shine on the facility rather than having it covered by a roof which would totally shadow the containers in the winter, no roof will actually achieve a better design and result. We have all worked very diligently on this. Let's.have it be the best it can be operationally without breaking the bank budget wise. Less is more in this case. Doug Allen 1930.RecycleCenter Ati-a.~IY'eV\+ G , ,-"., Distu~bing QuestioI!s of the Recycle Center Why does the site of the Recycle Center remain in a growing residential area when there is the loud noise of clanking bottles and glass containers being dumped into' the recycling bins and the sight and sound of huge trucks loading the full bins and returning them emptied to the disturbing sound of the "beeping" while backing up? Why is a "state of the art" recycle center being designed when there is already curbside recycling available and being used? Why is the City and COWOP bent on spending an enormous amount on the present site which is far too small to accomplish what they are trying to do using our tax dollars? I feel a new site is a must! The present recycle center is on a site that should be a continuance of the public park - open and beautiful. Does lu;mrious Obermeyer Place deserve being directly across from a recycle center? And do the long time area residents deserve losing a view from a possible high roof over the recycle binr which are already enclosed? At the present, the recycle center appears to be a no win situation. Maybe the City and COWOP should slow down and take into consideration what is best for the residents and the beautiful City of Aipen. D v~tV VAAl D.u~ Diana Van Deusen 233 North Spring St. Aspen, Co. 81611 OBJECTIONS TO THE RECYCLE CENTER PLANS I do not understand this plan for a highly advanced recycle center when there is already recycle curbside service! The recycle center is on a rare piece of land on the river. This site should become a continuation of the park where the community could enjoy relaxing in an unparalleled atmosphere. The Parks Department could do a masterful job with flowers and trees and a spectacular central fountain. The City and COWOP could be proud of bringing into being, something beautiful and in keeping with our unique City of Aspen. It would be difficult to fmd another city in our Country with a recycle center on a site in a residential area next to a river! Are we losing our minds? Another site should be found immediately! The mistake should not be made of taking away the precious views of longtime residents. And how would the future residents of Obermeyer Place like hearing the clanking of bottles and glass containers being dumped into the recycle bins! And there is the sight of the large trucks constantly taking away and returning the recycle bins, and the sound of the trucks backing up with that annoying "beep-beep" sound. With the planned extra bins, the trucks would be filing in more often, as would other traffic which would cause unwanted congestion. Don't let Aspen be the first resort town to cram a state of the art recycle center onto the most inappropriate location possible! Diana VanDeusen 233 North Spring Street Aspen, Co. 81611 . . To: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council 12 June 2006 After attending 6 COWOP meetings and more than 18 hours on the redesigning of the recycle center, many of us realized that there are too many reasons why the center does NOT fit on the tiny little parcel owned by the City of Aspen, nestled in the heart of the Rio Grande Park. The reasons are as follows; I. The parcel that was designated for the COWOP to design a recycle center on is simply too small to fit in all the whistles and bells and perks of a "world class", "showcase" example of environmental excellence! It was brought up at more than one meeting that we are trying to fit "10 pounds of potatoes into a one pound bag"! We've had several letters entered into the minuets (see Memorandum 6/12/06 Attachments F & G) from citizens at large summarizing the feelings that "less is more", and to please try to keep this project to a "minimum". Maintaining the feel of what Aspen stands for should be of most importance! Keeping low profiles and preserving mountain view planes are more valuable than a signature structure that stands in the way of our mountain views forever. This parcel is too small to incorporate all that is required to call it an example of environmental excellence. Simply, it does not fit!!! 2. Even though the parcel is tiny, because of where it's located (near the river, bike path, skateboard park, residential areas etc...) it is extremely visible to many. The parcel is appropriately zoned "SPA" (Specially Planned Area). It was specially planned for "park and recreational use only". A recycle center does not fall into either of those categories. A recycle center is inappropriate for this small prime location of beauty and riverside enjoyment. Even Chris Bendon (Sr. long range planner) stated in his memo to the Mayor and City Council on 10/28/02 that "staff agrees that the project could be more successful (Obermeyer Place) if the recycling facility were relocated." The study that was performed three and Yz years ago couldn't find an alternative. It should be revisited today because there are currently other sites to consider! 3. The Rio Grande Master Plan (RGMP) is supposed to be the guide for site improvements to the Recycle Redevelopment (stated in the lease agreement between Obermeyer and the City). The goals and guidelines have been ignored by this COWOP group! If the city council adopts these recommendations from COWOP, then they are violating the Rio Grande Master Plan guidelines (as of 1/1/05 -which is the RGMP 1993). The current COWOP recommendation DOES NOT: . Retain and optimize park and recreation uses . Preserve view planes to the River and Independence Pass . Design a low profile development . Consider impacts on neighbors and concerned citizens . Construct a facility partially below grade (COWOP voted on a design that can only be dropped down one foot as opposed to four feet) . Limit the development to one story = 12" (Cottle Car & Yaw (CCY) proposed a 24 foot roof at one time and a sod roof which adds another foot. An "aesthetically" arched roof also adds on more height)) . Limit the facility to 5,200 sq' (CCY said it's now 14,024sq' plus - almost 3 times what was recommended) . Reconsider other locations for the recycle center l' - , All of these points are stated in the Rio Grand Master Plan as guidelines for the redevelopment of the recycle center. All of them have been ignored in the fmal design! There actually is a plan that incorporates all of these guidelines (the North/South orientation originally presented by CCY). 4. A recycle center does NOT promote public health, safety and welfare (referring to Resolution No.1 9 (series of 2006)). A dumping center of trash is not usually considered a healthy atmosphere, nor is it considered a safe environment when you co-mingle kid's recreations with the congestion of cars and trucks pulling in and out of a busy center. Constructing a partially enclosed building with sod on the roof, you are enticing and inviting all kinds of deviant behavior, from kids trying to climb onto the roofto hiding within the structure. An obvious healthier and safer and more appropriate environment could be a fountain or pond with flowers, trees and landscaping, benches and picnic tables incorporated with the expansion of the skateboard park and/or other recreational ideas. It is a far stretch to say that this center is safe and healthy and good for the welfare of the public. This proposed recycle center doesn't fit the area for many reasons stated. Even though it has been in this location for many years, it has always been considered TEMPORARY for very good reasons! To change the land use code to allow a permanent recycle facility of this sort on this site is ridiculous, costly and a huge mistake! YES, we need an efficient operating recycle center. If it must be on this site, then take the recommendations of concerned community citizens (not the city staffers who are not essentially impacted in any way). There are numerous ways to clean up the site and make it more efficient without destroying views and neighboring property values. Please don't limit future options by forcing and rushing this project thru without careful review!! ! Debra Moore LANDLEASEAGREE~rnNT JL.\\-\o.c..,^~T H- (jA2'-\W\eii\t 7u'Jec s) THIS LAND LEASE AGREEMENT (hereinafter "Agreement") is entered into by and between THE CITY OF ASPEN COLORADO Lessor (hereinafter "Lessor" or "the City"), and Obermeyer Redevelopment Company, Lessee (hereinafter "Lessee" or "Obermeyer"), to be effective on the date on which the parties actually affix their signatures hereto. WIT N E SSE T H: WHEREAS, the City owns the two parcels subject to this Agreement (hereinafter "Zupancis Parcel" and "Recycle/Snowmelter Center Parcel", together called "Leased Parcels"), located in Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Obermeyer Redevelopment Company, the Lessee, is a Colorado S-Corporation authorized to do business in the State of Colorado and primarily engaged in the business of developing real estate; and WHEREAS, the City has the rights, title and interest in and to the real property and public facilities on the Leased Parcels, together with the rights, licenses, and privileges hereinafter granted; and WHEREAS, the City has full power and authority to enter into this Agreement in respect thereof; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen granted a development order for the Obermeyer Place COWOP Project as evidenced by the City of Aspen Ordinance No. 18, Series 2003, specifically approving the temporary use of the Lease Parcels; and WHEREAS, Lessee desires to lease certain property with the intent of installing certain small business operations in temporary and existing structures on site, along with construction-related operations thereon upon the terms and conditions hereinafter stated. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth herein the parties agree as follows: SECTION I LEASED PARCELS A. Leased Parcels: Included Areas Lessor hereby leases unto Lessee, for the term and upon the rentals, fees, charges and conditions hereinafter stated, two parcels of land. The Zupancis Partel is located at 540 East Main Street. The Recycle/Snowmelt Center Parcel is located adjacent to Rio Grande Place on the eastern side of Rio Grande Park. Both parcels are described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (collectively referred to herein as "Leased Parcels"). . B. Lease Parcels: Excluded Areas I. Snowmelter Ooerational Area. The area within the Recycle/Snowmelt Center Parcel devoted to the operations, traffic circulation, and maintenance of the City's snow dumping and snow melting operations' is specifically excluded from the definition of Leased Parcels for the purposes of this Agreement. 2. Recvcle Ooerational Area. The area within the relocated Recycle/Snowmelt Center Parcel devoted to the operations, traftic circulation, and maintenance of the Pitkin County recycle operations is specifically excluded from the detinition of Lease Parcels for purposes of this Agreement. Page 1 of 17 SECTION II INITIAL IMPROVEMENTS, USE OF PREMISES AND FINAL IMPROVEMENTS A. Initial Imorovements Deschotion. Lessee, at its sole expense, shall be responsible for construction of the following "Initial Improvements" on the Leased Premises. Any and all such changes shall comply with the City's Building Department requirements. Relating to both the Zupancis Parcel and the Recycle/Snowmelt Center Parcel: a.) To accommodate the temporary relocation of a number of small businesses included in the Obermeyer Place project, project management, and for construction-related activities, Lessee shall install temporary buildings and structures of varying sizes and dimensions on both sites. All such temporary structures shall be limited in height to 25' from existing grade (a height that is less than that allowed by current zoning). Structures shall be skirted and may be interconnected with adjoining pathways and decking to allow for pedestrian access. b.) Utilities necessary for such stated uses may be extended and upgraded for service to the Leased Parcels. Such upgrade, including potential realignment or relocation of services, shall be the responsibility of Obermeyer and shall be performed in conjunction with the applicable agencies and all such work shall be performed in accordance with applicable building code requirements. c.) Exterior lighting shall be added to the existing and added structures in accordance with City of Aspen lighting requirements and with sensitivity to Concept 600 Building residents. d.) Lessee shall site grade as appropriate to accommodate such changes and may add a road base topping surface in areas that are appropriate for traffic circulation and parking for the two parcels. In addition, existing sidewalks may be repaired and a concrete surface may be added to the site to allow for a covered storage facility not to exceed 100 s.f. Relating solely to the Zupancis Parcel: e.) The existing one-story house structure on the Zupancis Parcel on East Main Street and the two existing garages to the north of the house shall be modified to accommodate small business operations. Such modifications may include the removal of internal walls, replacement of current roofs to accommodate higher interior heights inside the garages up to 12 feet, and other such changes in accordanc.e with current zoning. The existing buildings may be painted and window awnings may be added. The existing fence along East Main Street may be removed. f.) Clearing of brush 'and ground vegetation may be necessary to allow pedestrian access, traffic circulation, and parking within the site. Any such changes shall be performed in accordance with City Municipal Code. g.) Public signage in the form of a general business directory within the site, individual business signs, and directional signs shall be installed in accordance with the City's sign code provisions. h.) Under no event shall the three historically designated structures located on the northern end of the Zupancis parcel be disturbed or removed by Lessee. Such structures shall be either fenced or otherwise secured by Lessee to ensure they are undisturbed during the term of this Agreement. Page 2 ofl7 i.) All exterior changes to the Zupancis structures shall be subject to review and approval of the City's Historic Preservation Officer and/or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable. Relating solely to the Recycle/Snowmelt Center Parcel: j.) The continuous dirt berm located along the north and east edges of the Recycle/Snowmelt Center Parcel shall be partially removed to provide additional traffic circulation and parking for the site. Such berm may be reshaped and regraded to a height not to exceed 5 feet from existing grade. Once reshaped, the berm shall be revegetated and maintained with appropriate ground cover plant materials for the duration of this lease. Obermeyer shall, upon termination of this Agreement, work cooperatively with the City to either leave the berm as modified or re-establish the dirt berm to its substantially former condition, inclusive of its original height and its former state oflandscape vegetation. k.) The dirt berm located adjacent to Rio Grande Place along the southern edge of the Recycle/Snowmelt Center Parcel shall be removed entirely in order to provide additional traffic circulation and parking for the site. \.) A 6' tall protection and screening fence made of wood shall be installed alongside the current sidewalk, between the two existing entry points to the Recycle/Snowmelt Center Parcel in accordance with Building Department regulations. m.) Public signage in the form of a general business directory within the site, individual business signs, and directional signs shall be installed in accordance with the City's sign code provisions. Title to such improvements shall remain with Obermeyer until expiration or other termination of this Agreement, as provided for in Section xm, below. Such Initial Improvements contained in this Section II shall be comp leted during the term of this Agreement. B. Permanent Imorovements Descriotion. Lessee, at its sole expense, shall be responsible for construction of the "Permanent Improvements" described in Exhibit B herein. Any and all such changes shall comply with the City's Building Department requirements and all other relevant provisions of the Aspen Municipal Code. C. Coooeration With Existinl! Uses Adioininl! the Recvcle/Snowmelt Center Parcel I. Snowmelt Ooerations. Obermeyer agrees to work in good faith with the City to ensure the snowmelt operations remain accessible for their operations continuously through the term of this Agreement. 2. Recvcle Ooerations. Obermeyer understands the importance of the continued use by the public of the Pitkin County recycling program and shall work with the County to ensure the operations remain accessible to the public through the term of this Agreement. The recycle dumpsters shall be relocated to the northern edge of the parcel and the traffic circulation and access to the area shall be routed to a one-way route. Obermeyer shall install accompanying signage within the Recycle/Snowmelt Center Parcel to assist the public with directional and way-finding questions. D. Authorized Uses I. Small Business Ooerations. It is understood by both parties that Obermeyer shall sublease spaces on the Leased Premises to a number of the small businesses currently located within the Obermeyer Place project boundary. Such operations, on both the Zupancis Parcel and the Recycle/Snowmelt Center Parcel. shall occupy either current non-historic structures or temporary job trailers. Page 3 of 17 2. Proiect Management Operations. It is understood by both parties that Obermeyer shall manage the Obermeyer Place construction project, the tenant relocation work, and the continuing sales and leasing operations for the proje~t from a location within the Recycle/Snowmelt Center Parcel. E. Unauthorized Uses I. Equipment. Construction Vehicle Storage. Portable Restrooms. Obermeyer shall not store on the Zupancis Parcel any construction equipment or construction vehicles or any portable restrooms that may be visible from any point along East Main Street. 2. Non-residential PropertY. Obermeyer shall not permit anyone to reside on the Leased Parcels. F. SubleaselUselLicense/Storage Agreements Obermeyer may rent out portions of the Leased Parcels and enter into agreements with third parties to use the Leased Parcels. The base rents per square foot of the subleases shall not exceed current lease rates for the tenants currently located on the Obermeyer Place site. In addition, each tenant shall receive one rent-free month to defray relocation costs. SECTION III TERM A. Base Term The initial term of this Agreement is for a period of time beginning on the date of execution and ending June 30, 2006 ("Base Term"). Obermeyer shall have the right to extend the term for one (I) three month period of time, in accordance with Subsections Band C, below. During the Base Term and extension term, lease rates shall be in accordance with the provisions of Section N, Subsection B, below. B. Ootions to Extend I. Extension Ootion. Obermeyer shall have the right to extend the Base Term of this Agreement for one (I) three-month period oftime, as follows: From July 1,2006 through September 30, 2006 In the event of unforeseen exigent circumstances, at Obermeyer's request and with the , written approval of the City, additional three-month extension{s) may be granted. Such extensions may be exercised so long as Obermeyer is not in default under terms of this Agreement. 2. Ootion Exercise. Lessee shall notify Lessor in writing of its intention to exercise the option for each extension term no later than 'ninety (90) days prior to the otherwise expiry date of the then current term. 3. Title Conveyance and Surrender of Possession. Upon the ending of the Base Term or upon ending of the last and flnal exercised Extension Options, Obermeyer shall peacefully surrender possession of the Leased Parcels and remove all personal property, inclusive of all temporary structures and any constructed' buildings or occupied structures that were not included within the Leased Parcels prior to occupancy under this Agreement, without further requirement of notice by the City or opportunity to cure by Obermeyer, under terms of Section XII, below, or otherwise. Title to the associated improvements shall vest in the City. . C. Lessor's Notice of Failure to Exercise Should Obermeyer fail to exercise an option to extend the term of this Agreement within the time provided, as defmed in Subsection B above, Obermeyer shall not be deemed to have forfeited the option until such time as the City shall give Obermeyer written notice of failure 'to timely exercise the option, Page 4 of 17 , ,~ together with notice of a period of five (5) days, after the date of said notice, within which Obermeyer shall continue to have the right to exercise the option to extend the relevant term of this Agreement ("Notice of Failure to' Exercise"). If Obermeyer shall not have exercised the option, by written notice to the City, within the five (5) day period provided in the City's Notice of Failure to Exercise, the option shall be forfeited and Obermeyer shall have no further right to extend the relevant term of this Agreement. D. Holding Over Should'Obermeyer or any of its subtenants hold over the use of or continue to occupy the Leased Parcels with express written approval of the City after expiration of the Base Term or any extended term, such holding over shall be deemed a month to month tenancy upon the existi.tJ.g conditions and agreements provided for in this Agreement. It is expressly understood that no title to the temporary structures, inclusive of installed structures commonly known as job trailers or any constructed building or structure not included on the Leased Parcels prior to occupancy under this Agreement, shall pass to the City if Obermeyer or any subtenant becomes a hold-over tenant. SECTION IV RENTS, FEES AND CHARGES A. Base Term Ground Rent I.' Recognition and compensation to the City of Aspen for the use and occupancy of the Leased Premises by Obermeyer as described in this Agreement shall be made in the form of improvements to the Recycle/Snowmelt Center Parcel, plus certain adjacent areas, herein referred to as the Permanent Improvements denoted in Exhibit B, Section II, and Section V of this Agreement. 2. Permanent Improvements as approved through the City's land use approval process shall be completed no later than nine months following the vacation of the Recycle/Snowmelt Center Parcel as described in Section III, para.,oraph B, of the Agreement If, at the time of completion, Obermeyer's audited actual incurred costs (not including developer profit) for the permanent Improvements approved by the City and denoted in Exhibit B are less than $475,000, Obermeyer shall pay to the City the difference between the . actual incurred costs and $475,000. If, at the time of completion, Obenneye(s audited actual incurred costs (not including developer profit) for the Permanent Improvements approved by the City and denoted in Exhibit' B are more than $475,000, the City shall reimburse to Obermeyer the difference between $475,000 and the higher actual incurred cost B. Extension Ootions Ground Rental Rates 1. Date of Execution through June 30. 2006. The rental rates specified in Subsection A, above, shall be the rent charged during the Bas.eTerm of this Agreement. 2.' Julv I. 2006 Rental Rate. Beginning July I, 2006, the first extension period of this Agreement, if a buyer other t\1an the City has the Zupancis property under contract, the rental amounts shall be paid in monthly insta'tlments of $10,000 for both parcels, or $2,000 per month for the . Recycle/Snowmelter Center parcel and $8,000 for the Zupancis parcel. If the property is not under contract, the rental"amounts shall be paid in monthly installments of $4,000 for both parcels, or $1 ,000 per month for the Recycle/Snowmelter Center parcel and $3,000 for the Zupancis parcel. The monthly rental amounts under either scenario for each approved successive extension period shall be increased by 1%. C. Payment Dates 1. Monthlv Rents. During the Extension Option periods, rent shall be payable in monthly installments beginning on the first day of each month. 2. First Payment of Rents and Pro rata Rents. If any partial month rent is due, such rents shall be calculated on a daily basis from the date of execution through to the end of the month. PageS of 17 " , LAND LEASE AGREEMENT PERMANENT IMPROVEMENTS EXHIBIT B This Exhibit B is an accompanying and integral document to the Land Lease Agreement between the City of Aspen and Obermeyer Redevelopment Company. Permanent Improvements: General Obermeyer Redevelopment Company accepts the responsibility for the scope of work items denoted herein. The site for which such Permanent Improvements are to be constructed shall be known as . "Recycle Center", which is an area separately defmed from "Recycle/Snowmelt Center Parcel" within the Agreement. Such improvements arise from the construction of the Obermeyer Place project and the public-private partnership integral to the development of the site, however, the Agreement and the Permanent Improvements described herein are separate and independent transactions and shall be restricted to the terms and provisions described herein. Permanent Improvements: Site Location For purposes of this Exhibit and for the purpose of delineating the scope of work encompassed by the Permanent Improvements, Recycle Center encompasses the land to the north side of Rio Grande Place, from the north edge of the entry to the Eagles Club parking lot to the westerly entry to the current Recycle/Snowmelt Center Parcel. From the Eagles Club parking lot entry extending to the eastern entry to the current Recycle/Snowmelt Center Parcel, Permanent Improvements shall generally encompass the sidewalk area only. The Recycle Center Permanent Improvements shall continue from the eastem entry to the western entry, and shall extend to the north to the area currently encompassing the snowmelt equipment and the perimeter landscape berm. Permanent Improvemt:nts shall extend northerly to the current Rio Grande Trail pedestrian walkway although they shall not extend to the area intended for an expanded skate park. Any expansion or reconfiguration of the skate park is excluded from Obermeyer's scope of work. . Permanent Improvements: Scope of Work Obermeyer Redevelopment Company 'shall provide the following: 1. Architectural and landscape design, engineering; and construction of the Recycle Center, inclusive of site iniprovements and a building to cover the recycle center operations (see item #12, below). It is understood that the Recycle Center building shall be a non-heated, open garage-type structure consisting of three walls and an open side facing to the north with a size large enough to house six recycling dumpsters. The overall design shall be as low in height as possible, shall be efficient in size in order to provide the Rio Grande Park area to expand if possible, shall operate as a daytime only operation, shall shield and minimize visibility of and reduce the current level of noise from the dumpsters and loading areas from the Rio Grande Place and from the Obermeyer Place project, shall accommodate adequate traffic circulation according to fmal design plans, including drop-off and temporary parking tor people using the . Recycle Center, shall provide improved access to the recycle dumpsters by individuals using the service, and shall accommodate the operations of Pitkin County Resource Recovery in a form largely consistent with current operations. The City of Aspen shall be allowed to comment on and approve the proposed aesthetic improvements with the understanding that the final design shall shield and minimize visibility of the dumpsters and loading areas from the Page 15 of17 Obermeyer Place project (per Ordinance no. 18, Series 2003). The site design willutilize the City's Rio Grande Master Plan in effect as of January 1,2005 as the guide for site improvements to the Recycle Center area. 2. Demolition and site preparation, including the removal of the current snowmelt equipment, effluent piping, utility lines and meters, and the transportation of the equipment for storage to a site to be designated by the City within twenty miles of the current location. 3. Grading and on site drainage improvements, including asphalt paving and parking curb stops. Asphalt shall be designed and constructed using 8" compacted backfill with a minimum of 95% modified proctor density, followed by hot bituminous paving a minimum of 5" thick, placed in two lifts per the City's standard shallow utility trench details. 4. Utilities extended to the north side of Rio Grande Place, in conjunction with a single street cut, including the following services: a. Extension of domestic water to the Recycle Center, capped. The City shall pay any corresponding water tap fee. b. Natural gas service re-routed from snowmelt equipment, capped. c. Electrical servi~e to accommodate the electrical specifications provided by the City and configured for the current amount and mix of uses on the south side of Rio Grande Place. d. Storm drains, including inlet/outlet of typical storm sewer pipe and tie-in to storm system. Any related storm water fee or sewer fee shall be paid by City. 5. Payment to the City of$IO,OOO to go towards construction of the storm water interceptor device or other such storm sewer system improvements in the vicinity of the Recycle Center. Payment to be made upon commencement of permanent improvements to the Recycle Center area. 6. Street speed hump along Rio Grande Place in one location near the Recycle Center. New sidewalk and curb (detached, non-dyed concrete) from Eagles Club entry to western entry of Recycle Center. Provide ADA handicap access ramp for the western entry of the Recycle Center street crossing. None of the pavement or hardscape shall be snowmelted 7. Landscaping the Recycle Center, including shrubbery (30 count) along the perimeter berm , common to the Oklahoma Flats residential neighborhood and at entry points to Recycle Center. Broad leaf trees (4" caliper) along street at 20' intervals, planted between curb and sidewalk. Sod installed between sidewalk and curb. Irrigation to all new landscaping as needed. The City of Aspen will review and approve the landscape plan to ensure it meets the site requirements in terms of design before completion of the landscape plan in this area. The landscape contractor will coordinate with the City of Aspen before commencing landscaping activities to ensure that irrigation connections and utilities are clearly identified and located. 8. Steel pipe bollards (6") at utilities stub up areas. 9. Paint parking space in Recycle Center, street crossings, and bollards. 10. Electrical service to the Recycle Center shall include two electrical outlets (II0Y), four sidewalk light fixtures along Rio Grande Place, and the installation of an emergency 9-1-1 call station... There shall be no site lighting for the Recycle Center, which shall remain a daytime only operation. I!. City Ordinance No. 18, Series 2003, Section 12, calls for the cessation and removal of the mechanical snow melter equipment. Obermeyer shall perform this work at Obenneyer's expense. Such work shall be performed at Obermeyer's discretion after providing 30-<lay written notice to the City, and shall occur no sooner than March 31, 2006, thereby saving the City the estimated $IOO,OOO/year in snow hauling costs during the winters of 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. Upon occupancy of a residential unit at Obermeyer Place, use of the snow melter will be restricted to daylight hours. Page 16 of 17 r,' . 12. Per City Ordinance No. 18, Series 2003, Section 13, the Obermeyer Place project was required to pay the City the sum of$125,OOO toward the improvement of the recycling facility ("Recycle Center Funds''), either as improvements to the current location or as improvements to an alternative location. Insofar as the City accepts the terms and provisions of this Agreement, such requirement imposed by the City by way of the Ordinance shall be deemed satisfied and fultilled by Obermeyer Place Holding Company as developer of the Obermeyer Place project. The Permanent Improvements described herein shall encompass the use of the Recycle Center Funds plus other funds deemed compensation for Base Term Ground Rents (per Section N of the Agreement). It is understood that Obermeyer and the City shall work in unison toward an acceptable design of the Recycle Center, specifically providing for a signature approval of said design by the City of Aspen Parks Department and the Pitkin County Public Works Department. 13. When Obermeyer begins the mass excavation of the site, both Obermeyer and the Parks Department will create a plan for efficiently handling boulders such that the Parks Department shall have the first right to accept all boulders excavated from Obermeyer Place that are not needed by Obermeyer. As such boulders are excavated from the Obermeyer Place site, Obermeyer will relocate them to a designated receiving area north of Recycle Center, via a City-approved access route. Permanent Imorovements: Timin~ Permanent Improvements shall be completed no later than nine months following the vacation of the Recycle/Snowmelt Center Parcel as described in Section III, paragraph B, of the Agreement. Page 17 of 17 l: " Co... III c <( ~ ....... I~~ o~ -T - - N Z Q:: 5 w'" on . ~ --~ , o . . - - - ~ - " Cl "0 ::l III '" C> C> N = ;! 5 :: ~O~~~~:Olfil .... "'0"'0111 .- ~ ~g~~~ E ..; p.: _"iii .;: , . ,,; ~ ;i ~O~~6~ ~- ~~~~ . ~ N' 1~ ~ Ii N ~~;:mi~;::i!! ~~~~~~ ~ <DN ~',..;_' <Ii _ N OOO::!~08",,~ on,.., <;;> '"' qi,..: 10 m Ml"l N 00 'N N . Ii G ~ ,; ;; ! ~ ~Oa'~*;:O~ ~ m g~~i~ ~....~ ,..; p.: ...:..,." ..; fj ~o~~~~ o Qiai<<i ~ <'l~~ . . . :d" I!:!: _ _::l Ii: = N ~ :Ii ~ In <:I on <,"Q :n ~l8:::: ~ ~~. . ~ :i I~ 'N Ha &:~~:slfH~ ~ ......m"'...1D III "':NNlI'ivi.oCJ>= s;::::rn::~~""~ ~N ...."....;.: ~. ooo~.~~ In'" I,~~~ ":'~ ~ , ':(i . ~ .... 5 . N ~Q;:1l.n~::iO~ ... <'lOll......,... = ~ ~~~~a ~ N ,.: ...:....- ..; . ~ ~ ;; lIS ~~g.l~i12 ;o;~;I'~~ I: .... Ii IN ~~~~~!i~~ ~~~~ga~g iii... ...:rri....' .;: _ N OOO~~08 ~ ~~ OCI....g 'N N , ~ ~Q1::!:;;~:il.no:g '" 00........... '" ~ ~~~l~ ~- N ..:...:..; ,.; . = ~ := ~08ig~~O~ ~ 19~~~ ~ N <Ii":'; ,.; ~ :8 . !l ~oa:H~8 ~ :ll-~li8 ~ ,; ~ Ii ~as~~~~~ =.....00;...0. ai :ec;;;X~.n:e""~ ......,: ...:.-;...: t"j _ N OOO~80g",~ ..;,.; ~ ":'!ii;l .... , " N N a ;O~a~~~O~ ~ ~~~~g ~ ('oj <IS .,.:..," ri ~ N ~ ~ ~ogS:g ....= ~ ~ a :3IQt:;1~ ..,. .... DI8J$lS = ~~~8i~N~ !~~~~~....~. .......: ...:,.;.: N _ N =O="'NOGI~llI; -. . 'N _ N.n ,..- NG " '... "Ill , '::j : := . ~ i r8 . IN :; ~~~$~~~O~ ~g~-;~~~ ~ ':";lIi':'; ..; , ~ ,,; ~ ~ ~=~:~ ~ !;l' ~:8il;;;f;:;Ji" ,., ..~I~q~ R1NIOIOIllGl ... ,..~S~ili:g,..S ~~~g~~... ~- ~... ..:..;..' ;:; OOO~;O~~: ":.n 11;I ..; NIO N,..,.. ',,:, "';" "'- ~ . ~ ::i -. ll: =~~8~6~=~ ..;....lIi.:...-N lIi ,.,,..=-,..- ... O"''''Ill..N _ ....0 ..:...- ..; ~ :Ii . :i ~O~~U ~ ~~=' N : $ -,; :; ~m~ii~~...~ ~-~!~~5~ ~ ..;..: ri";": _ N 00 0 ~1~ Ol~~~ ...,.. <0 III ":'~ a!i , ~ II ' " Ii ~ "'ij'i8Gl~gO;!! I"'NN~~1t> ... ";~O>''''-'':N~" .. It> <II... <0 III N ... ............ 0 NNlIi':'; ..; ~ ;:; ;; Ii ,O~~~I~ ~ ~~~ :; - ::j G Gill! ~ ~g~~iE~re ~":oi";O':_N "'!.~!;:{l~.~."'1; ~.. ,.,.. ~ ======0 . ~ '" " . . ~ ~UUn!i~'iii !;igre~~fig:a..; ~ <II '........ ...N....1i ,., wi":..j N~' gG g " U gi N, . OGg 1i Ii " a ~!8~!!~!8 i gg~g~~ij'~ ~..: ri": g! =00000 ~ ~~a;:;~iC~ E ~~~;~~~. 5'" S ..: lIi":'; N ~ o ~~ai~~~~~ i~.~g~lln ~ ~..; N": := 000=000 . o , N ~~;~~m~s ~~~Ug~! g..; ci ~ ;:::00000 ~ ~ oS ~ ~ ~ L ~ ~ l I~~ = ~ ;; . ~ t Ii ~ ! ~ :l : i! ~:: ~ = :tI. Is8~ l ...._; S21l1 "~~:!';.J!I~ :l ll-..I;; ;.!I:l U. 01 .. Iii.;:r.. ~ o::l i~! <~-i ;;;~~fi~ i:: rn'~ j i~511~i~: ". I 1. !. : ~ . ~ ~ ~ i 1;1':1 F 0 ~ ". s 0 el"'''~ , 8 . , !II: ~j;:... 1jIl.Co.IIl_ "go!:.2'C~!~ 18-1511 "'5!li~. 8 llI::illl%l~';,,:!: E~ i ~j~~ i!~1~ ~ ~]~~~- ei an ~ij~~~~ i 1~1~I~i~.t~ i ~o ~ aI a~~l~:f~i~~f'I-~~~i.i-i~ ~ ~:f~8~88~ e ,,~!. ~!i;i c:~ -ii.c...,a::.s1.e - !l~ii~~ ...U III """.l! .!uoo zzr!i-llI ~ ~~(I)~li!i~1Il3~ ~~11~i~~1 lii ~~g~2ag~ atU88!ile~.Q ~ ~ u~l=a~o(os(L6 .;; ~w5~~~~';;~ 0 gih;fZI~~~~ cn@URl!a~~N~~ li ~ . s ~ $ N ~ !l ~ ,,; ~ ~ 8 . N ~ :; ~ ... ~. ,; ~ ~: . . , I~~,! .w~ C , 1 .)( ~. w.o ii';li -u u~~ 00 OOO~i 0": ~= o OOO~~ ~.~ :;~ GG OGGg~ 0"" ~<II G OOOg~ 0": ;= G OO=8~ 0.... ~= G OOOg~ ej": ;= 00 OOOgi 0"'" ~<II OG OOOg!i! 0": ;:" GG OOO~*...~ giM05 ~~ -. '~ OOOgW 0': :!~ ~ ~ GG g~n~ ~'i~~=' ~ . . ~ . . E : " ! ..-: ~ ~ ~ ~ ? ~ ~ l.! I .. ~ ~ i U ~g~ ~ ~g~! )-~o~II."".e "6o(~~~;!~ 2006 Operating and Capital Budget. City of A~pen VIII. 4 o !( ~ ~ ~. ~ o !( ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,,; ;; -. ! " ~ " g . . ~ G . ,; N ~ ... t~... g a co ,,~ ~ 8 ~ :ISa~ =in:. ; tlH ~ -~ ~ g ;! :: ~ l ~ :: :; ::; ::! N .. ~ ~ '" N ~ ~ N N , . .. N ~ ~ G .. ~ ~ .; N ~ ... :I: 8 :;: ~ S N co N rJ : 8! : :; a... :: or N , N N ~ , ~ .. " ~ N ~ z : g $ =~a~~ ~ :t:; : '..:: g ~ ; CDl a ~ ~ : :t; ;:I; G .; ~ N N ~ ~ o !!! g :: .! ~ ~ " . :I . , ~ " :l N ~ . ~ .0. ;: g ;: ~~a :t:i . - t; N ~ I ~ :;,.. ... ";'" .. ~ ; co i N ~ ~~~ sn ...... N ",-,.: .,; III ...... :_' ;: aa_ ~ g ;; 0"- 2 ~ :;i ~ :: 'i G ;i ~ . G ; =... ~ ; ciI, ~ ~ ... ti :: . .. " " e . 1 , ~ .. !i f l!. o . " ." .;~ ui~ w.. '" " ~ , -' f "'~ ~u 0, ~ . I fad ~;:( ici :i !~ 5i ");0: ~~ ~ii ~ ~~ c~ '6 ~~ !::i'1%: o i , .. 1 = o . -e ~ ! '. it ~ ~ ;; l i ~ 1 ll- ~ ::I ~ ; ~ l :3 8 . " w Y~d ~(~/~b AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: t2 €.C-VC./.f7 C 'P VL + eV'" SCHEDULEDPUBLICHE~GDAT~: ~1/7--y;b & , Aspen, CO ,200_ STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, "---. \ 0 \AA 0:"5 '..---I \ /f.C J J-. (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: ~ Publication of notice:' By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. , _ Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained fr&m the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, .- waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches\"wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed ofletters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the _ day of , 200--, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. ~ Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to <ill owners of property within three hundred (300)leet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addre'sses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin Cou:~ty as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public heanng. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. j1mFrZ/1 ~dt gnature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was a~owledged before me this /z:!I.<<ay of JUlJli , 200~, by JAtJui~ LI-lcrr WITNESS lviY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL PUBue NOTICE RE: RIO GRANDiCYCLE CENTER REDEVELOP. MENT NOTICE IS EREBY GIVEN thaI a public hearing will be donMonday,June26,2006,at ameetingtob n at 5:00 p_m. before the Aspen City CouncU, Cf Council Chambers, City Hall, 130S. Galella St.. Aspen, to consider the Final ap- proval of a COWOP Land Use Review, Rezoning for a Planned Unit Development overlay, Final Planned Unit Development Plan approval, Final Specially Planned Area plan approval, and Growth Management approval for an essential publiclaciJity. The projet:t was found eligible for the City 01 Aspen Convenience and Welfare of the Public (CDWOP) review process pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 19,5eriesof2006 The property subject to the request is owned by the City of Aspen, and is legally described as Lot I of Rio Grande Subdivision. The property is commonly known as the Rio Grande Recycle Cen- ter. for further information, please contact Sarah Laverty at the City of Aspen Environmental HeaHh Department. 130 S. Galena St., As~n, CO ~OPY OF THE PUBLICATION (970) 429-1791\. (or by emall at sarahl@ci.aspen.co.us) s/HelenKKJanderud,Mayur PUbliShedintheAspenTimeS~~~Y~~;J~~~nlc~~ PH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) Cp:::;o) j D GOVERNMENTAL A-GENCIES NOTICED I BY MAIL My commission expires: 04/1 r/2.Dor 7r;<)~ tary Public ATTACHMENTS: AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: hI" (-::><<::..V"k\2.or'lc\.o Ca~ ,Aspen,CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: ""~ 2. Co ,200i2 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, S;e-"iLA'v~ lc-.~--'u-1 (name, please print) being or representing an Applic~ the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: +- Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. _ Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days , prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the _ day of \ , 200_, to and including the date and time of the public ( , hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. _ Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) ofthe Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by fIrst class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) r / I Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. d,J 1.'~4 Si ture / The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 200_, by WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: Notary Public PUBUC NOTICE RE: GRANDE RECYCl.L CENTER RfDEVELOP- onCE IS HEREBY GIVEN that II public hear" will be held on Monday, June 26,2006,al am lngto beg!n aI5:00 p.m. beforetheAsperr City uneil, City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130S. Galena St, Aspen, to considerlhe Final ap- proval of a COWOP Land Use Review, Rezoning lor a Planned Unit Development overlay, Final Planned Unit Development Plan approval. Final Specially Planned Area plan approval, and Growth Management approval lor an essential public facility. The project was found eligible lor the City of Aspen Convenience and Wellare of the Public (COWOP) review process pursuant to City Council Resolution No. i9,Seriesof2006. The property subject to the request Is owned by the Cily of Aspen, and is legally described as Lot 101 Rio Grande Subdivision. The property is commonly known as the Rio Grande Recycle Cen- ter, For further information, please contact Sarah Laverty at the City of Aspen Environmental Health Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 429-]798, (or by email at sarahl@ci.aspen,co.us). s/Helen K. Klanderud,Mayor Aspen City Council Publlshed in the Aspen Times Weekly on June 11. 2006.(37~ CPAXLP \ ATTACHMENTS: C'OPY'OF THE PUBliCATI'ON OGRAPH 'OF THE P'OSTED N'OTICE (SIGN) ,RS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: WI tAo VVVlYj.tt!-ehijlbJ/Vit;,'I1V! I SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE~.1(P , Aspen, CO ,200'& STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, VI (name, please print) being 0 representing a Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: N& Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. L Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed ofletters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the _ day of ,200_, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. I Mailing of notice. By the mailing ofa notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) JjJL Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. ..... ~:b!+;t The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledl;ed befor~ me this ~ day, of \~e. ,200~,by ~A ..J. 5- b.eo-..~<-<:-SL \\\\\\\1111/1/11/1 .;.",,~ 0 't C -'1 1111// ~." ....... If -" " :::" ..... ......'1' ~ 2: :"_,OTAR .,'.. ~ _ . \..... r..... :: { _Gl'>- \ ~ . <.1'\" PUB\..\C, ./0 } ~-::,;,:~~I/'_;;"'"", ......~0~/~ "';,' 01' CO\; ".' <j/;." ,\\\\ "'i!i:ll:'\\\ WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: to - 7 - 0 g- ~~~ Notary Public <\ ATTACHMENTS: --copy (}.,,'" n:E PFaU€ATlfJN PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL - PARCELNB 273707317004 273707326010 273707326002 273707325019 273707300014 273707327009 273707325016 273707325031 273707325026 273707322014 273707360006 273707360006 273707326004 273707372015 273707323002 273707317005 273707327006 273707325014 273707325013 273707300051 273707325023 273707327005 273707326012 273707300859 273707300569 273707318007 273707325041 273707325028 273707372001 273707379001 273707371011 273707310001 273707325024 273707318001 273707327007 273707326009 273707311002 273707325004 273707325032 273707318003 273707325006 273707325029 273707350803 273707311001 273707372010 273707326005 273707325009 273707371005 273707371004 273707309003 273707326007 '- ACCOUNTNO OWNERNAME _ R000116 225 N MILL ST LLC R013705 AARON ROGER S & VIRGINIAA R014400 ALEXANDER JUDY R005390 ALLEN CARROL A REV TRUST R014468 ALLEN DOUGLAS P R019101 ALLEN LEONARD A III R005364 ARNOLD RICHARD S & KATHRYN J R005482 ASPEN LEGACY LLC R005308 BAILEY MARCIA UNGREN R014535 BANKERS MORTGAGE CORP R009821 BECKWITH DAVID E QPRT R009821 BECKWITH NATALIE B QPRT R014402 BERLIN JAMES & MADELINE L R010830 BEYER ALAN R R015689 BLISSFUL LLC R000421 BLU VIC LLC R019098 BOHNETT MARSHA ANN TRUST R005288 BORCHERTS HOLDE H TRUSTEE R005292 BROUGH STEVE B R009363 BUDINGER PEYTON E REV TRUST R005312 BULKELEY RICHARD C & JULIE J R019097 CALDWELL CHARLES G & DEBRA H R013850 CARNEY GAYLA W R014746 CITY OF ASPEN R011032 COLORADO PROPERTIES L TD R018431 COMMUNITY BANKS OF COLORADO R010477 CONCEPT 600 LLC R005393 COPPOCK RICHARD P R010819 CROWN LAURIE J R014806 CWG HOLDINGS LLC R009745 DALY GLENN A R005550 DCR FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP R005325 DORAN RALPH R000229 DRACO INC R019099 EASTHOPE THOMAS J R013706 EISENSTAT ALBERT & CONSTANCE R005311 ELDEN RICHARD & GAIL M R005299 EMPHASYS SERVICE COMPANY R005519 EMPHASYS SERVICES COMPANY R018427 EVERHART-NELSON SYSTEMS ANALYSTS L TD R005336 FICKE CLARK R005411 FOSTER MARTHA LEE LIVING TRUST R013952 FRATERNAL ORDER OF EAGLES R005310 FULLERTON RICHARD B R010837 GARWOOD JANET R014397 GERSHMAN JOEL & ELAINE R005445 GILKERSON LINDA R009739 GINSBERG JEROME D R009738 GINSBURG FRANCES R005368 GOLDSTEIN GERALD H & CHRISTINE S R013708 GREENBERG DEAN 273707371009 R009743 273707379002 R014807 273707327001 R019093 273707327001 R019093 273707345001 R008923 273707327002 R019094 273707325018 R005389 273707325030 R005458 273707317003 R005160 273707325035 R010471 273707326011 R013704 273707372021 R013309 273707321001 R000534 273707323005 R015692 273707326008 R013707 273707310002 R005420 273707318005 R018429 273707360007 R009818 273707360005 R009820 273707325015 R005387 273707317024 R009539 273707317023 R009538 273707325009 R005445 273707317015 R009530 273707327003 R019095 273707372007 R010825 273707311006 R015104 273707371010 R009744 273707317029 R009947 273707325020 R005391 273707325021 R005392 273707325012 R005503 273707325012 R005503 273707325012 R005503 273707325022 R005358 273707372012 R010827 273707371006 R009740 273707307001 R005438 273707325033 R005540 273707325034 R005554 273707300048 R005475 273707322015 R017018 273707323003 R015690 273707310004 R008515 273707318004 R018428 273707350001 R008629 273707305002 R019480 273707317029 R009947 273707318006 R018430 273707305001 R019479 273707371012 R009746 273707372001 R010819 GUlL TINAN JOHN F JR & HELEN C TRUSTEES GUPTA BENJAMIN K HASENAUER C BRUCE & SHERYL R HASENAUER COREY B HEATH JESSE B JR & HETTA S HENDERSON JAMES C HEYS MARIE L TRUSTEE HICKS GILBERT W & PATSY K HODGSON PHILIP R 50% INT HOLLAND AND HART HOLTZ ABEL & FANA HOROWITZ JAMES M HOTEL JEROME INC HUNT W L & GAYLE G LVG TRST HURST ROBERT J JACKDOG L TO JAS CAPITAL LLC JONES MICHAEL C KALLENBERG JEFFREY 0 J KESSLER SEPP H & JANE KLEIN HERBERT S & MARSHA L KRABACHER B JOSEPH & SUSAN S LAMB DON Q JR LARSON KARL G & M MADELEINE LESTER JIM LIPSEY WILLIAM S LITTLE RIVER HOUSE LLLP LONE PINE UNIT 10 LLC MADDEN WALTER ROSS 37.5% MAESTRANZI BART MANN KATHLEEN A 99% MARASCO BERNARD R 11.0446% MARASCO EMILY A AK MEYER EMILY A 11.0446% MARASCO FAMILY TRUST 33.4331 % MARCHETTI FAMILY LLC MARTIN MICHAEL S MARZIALE ANTONIO MAYER HOWARD & PAULINE MCCUTCHIN GENE P MCGAFFEY FAMILY & CO NO C LLC MILL STREET VENTURE LLC MILLENNIUM PLAZA LLC MOCKLlN PETER & MONICA M MOORE GARY C & DEBRA J MOORE KIMBERLY K MORSE JAMES A TRUST MURPHY GEORGE W MYRIN CUTHBERT L JR 37.5% NEWLON LLC OBERMEYER PLACE RENTAL GRP LLC ONEILL MARIE 0 ORTEGA G RICHARD "- 273707371001 R009735 273707325008 R005357 273707308001 R005380 273707372009 R013721 273707311005 R005419 273707371003 R009737 273707347852 R015951 273707371007 R009741 273707352001 R008716 273707372017 R010832 273707326003 R014401 273707371008 R009742 273707326013 R013709 273707325027 R005371 273707327008 R019100 273707317010 R009525 273707322004 R008942 273707360008 R009819 273707371002 R009736 273707325010 R005269 273707373001 R013164 273707325025 R005408 273707325017 R005388 273707300013 R005451 273707327004 R019096 273707325012 R005503 273707372019 R010835 273707345002 R008922 273707352852 R014175 273707310004 R008515 273707325021 R005392 273707373002 R013165 273707373002 R013165 273707326001 R014399 273707325011 R005551 273707318002 R018503 273707345003 R010503 273707308002 R005432 ,- PARKS CAROL PASSAVANT TOM PEEPERS HOLLOW LLC PEMBER SARAH P & WILLIS PFEIFER LINDA G & EUGENE M III PHILLIPS DAVID C & ALEXANDRA M PITKIN COUNTY PORTER BARRY GRAHAM PUppy SMITH LLC REIDSCROFT PARTNERSHIP REINGOLD ROBERT B INC RICHMAN MARK RIVER PARK IN ASPEN CONDO ASSOC RKJR PROPERTIES L TO RUHNAU DAVID F & SHARON ENGEL S & A EQUIPMENT COMPANY SCHAINUCK LEWIS I SCHLOSSER BRADLEY F & KIMBERLY K SCHULTZ RESIDENCE TRUST SCHWAB ROBERT SEYMOUR EUGENE H & JUDITH K SHERMAN CAPITAL COMPANY SMITH JAMES F & N LINDSAY SODERLlNG LIVING TRUST SOUTHDALE ANESTHESIOLOGY PROFIT STARMER MARY JOSEPHINE 11.0446% TEAGUE HENRY B UHLHORN FLORENCE M US POSTAL SERVICE VAN DEUSEN EDWARD BENJAMIN TRUSTEE VAN WALRAVEN EDWARD C 1% VOLK RICHARD W FAMILY RESID TRUST 1/2 VOLK SUE J FAMILY RESID TRUST 1/2 WACHMEISTER EDWARD C A REV TRUST WASKOW SUSAN A WELLS FARGO BANK WEST NA WIENER WILLIAM B JR YOUNG DENNIS & ANDREA ADDRESS1 ADDRESS2 "-' 225 N MILL ST 45 BIRCHALL DR 130 N SPRING ST #10 ALLEN RONALD W REV TRUST PO BOX 1970 403 LACET LN PO BOX 8316 1405 OAK FOREST DR 17740 E HINSDALE AVE 3215 TARRY HOLLOW DR 420 E MAIN ST 3520 N HACKETT AVE CIO FOLEY & LARDNER 777 E WISCONSIN AVE 1795 BROOKWOOD DR 410NMILLST #B11 60 E 42ND ST STE 1912 68 TRAINORS LANDING RD 6435 ZUMEREZ DR #20 1555 WASHTENAW BROUGH DEBORAH A 599 TROUT LK DR 728 E FRANCIS ST PO BOX 450 3401 LEE PKWY #1504 100 N SPRING ST #1 OD 130 S GALENA ST CIO KLEIN & BARENBLAT 504 MILAM BUILDING 210 N MILL ST PO BOX 2914 PO BOX 44 414 N MILL ST 15 WEST 63RD ST APT 29A DALY CAROL CENTER 0155 LONE PINE RD C-11 RIVER BLUFF TH 1873 S BELLAIRE ST #700 2600 WOODWARD WAY A COLORADO CORPORATION PO BOX 8904 3375 CRYSTAL CT 358 WALSH RD 2430 LAKEVIEW AVE - #115 1925 BRICKELL AVE BLDG D PENTHOUSE 110 4400 N A1A STE 1002 POBOX 10207 15 W ARRELLAGA ST #3 5000 COAKLEY BAY #N2 700 E BLEEKER AVE 510 E HYMAN AVE STE 30 PLETTS SARAH A AS JT TENANTS PO BOX 3889 120 N SPRING ST UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 5640 ELLIS AVE CIO LANSCO CORP 575 LEXINGTON AVE STE 1600 306 W 7TH ST STE 506 ",...'...... PO BOX 2045 - PO BOX 129 12 RUE DEAUVILLE --- 5805 S 86TH CIR 9397 S SHADOW HILL CIR ECKENROTH KYLlE R 0637 CHADSWORTH LN 606 N SPRING ST KUCK KATHERINE M 4880 HARLEM RD 2495 ADARE 3674 WOODLAWN TERRACE PL 212 N MONARCH ST ATTN BRYAN DOWER PO BOX 8749 420 LINCOLN RD STE 220 110 E HALLAM SUITE 104 C/O EVEREST CHRISTY G 9000 N BROADWAY 4939 MEADOWLARK DR 950 FIFTH AVE 3900 ESSEX #101 0284 L1GHTHILL RD PO BOX 7966 401 MARKET ST #500 600 E MAIN ST #210 201 N MILL ST #203 201 N MILL ST STE 201 UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 5640 ELLIS AVE PO BOX 8207 434 E MAIN #103 414 N MILL ST C/O DENICE C REICH 1873 S BELLAI RE ST #700 C/O SHAMIE SAM MGR 26111 W 14 MILE RD#LL4 PMB 101 300 PUppy SMITH #203 1736 PARK RIDGE POINTE PO BOX 2057 320 DAKOTA DR 21701 FLAMENCO 65326 1/2 RD 1526 FOREST DR 4150 IRVING PL C/O HEPTAGON CAPITAL MGMT 1300 POST OAK BLVD PO BOX 333 14833 MIDWAY RD 12852 NW SHORELAND DR PO BOX 1112 C/O MEYER LOWELL PO BOX 1247 PO BOX 807 233 N SPRING ST PO BOX 11919 107 SINCLAIR DR PO BOX 4146 300 PUppy SMITH ST #203-101 C/O DANFORTH PO BOX 1863 OBERMEYER PLACE SALES GRP LLC 115 AABC '''-. 2302 ST CHARLES AVE #3A '....,.... 414 N MILL ST '.,.~- 200 NEWBURY ST GLENN KAREN 600 E MAIN ST STE 201 728 E FRANCIS ST PO BOX 8073 16300 CANTRELL RD PO BOX 11449 530 E MAIN ST STE 302 4229 EDMONDSON AVE 205 S MILL ST SUITE 301A PO BOX 10443 1187 COAST VILLAGE RD STE 1-116 1700 S BAYSHORE LN #6A 730 E DURANT 5934 ROYAL LANE SUITE 250 PO BOX 7209 SCOTT LARSON GENERAL PARTNER PO BOX 910 2900 OCEAN BLVD 301 LAS LOMAS 3849 PASEO DEL CAMPO LEITCH B BRYAN III & JORGENSEN TED E 906 SANTIAGO TR 390 N SPRING ST 5840 E JOSHUA TREE LN 6542 WESTCHESTER C/O N MILL ST VENTURES LLC PO BOX 8769 SHARING TRUST FBO ROY G BRYAN 5836 LONG BRAKE TRAIL RD 12738 W 84TH DR 412 N MILL ST 991 ISLAND PARK DR WESTERN REGION VAN DEUS EN DIANA JEAN TRUSTEE 233 N SPRING ST PO BOX 4913 2400 SUGUST A #340 2327 MIMOSA DR 6223 WHITEHALL FARM LN PO BOX 4975 C/O EPROPERTY TAX-DEPT 303 PO BOX 4900 333 TEXAS ST #2375 PO BOX 133 CITY STATE ZIPCODE NAMETYPE ASPEN CO 81611 P SCARSDALE NY 10583-0000 P ASPEN CO 81611 P LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 P ASPEN CO 81611 P ASPEN CO 81612 P ORMOND BEACH FL 32174-3407 P FOXFIELD CO 80016 P AUSTIN TX 78703 P ASPEN CO 81611 P MILWAUKEE WI 53211 P MILWAUKEE WI 53202 S AKRON OH 44313-5070 P ASPEN CO 81611 P NEW YORK NY 10165 P ASPEN CO 81611 P MALlBU CA 90265 P ANN ARBOR MI 48104 P SANGER CA 93657 P ASPEN CO 81611 P RED OAK IA 51566 P DALLAS TX 75219 P ASPEN CO 81611 P ASPEN CO 81611 P SAN ANTONIO TX 78205 P ASPEN CO 81611 P BASALT CO 81621 P DEXTER MI 48130 P ASPEN CO 81611 S NEW YORK NY 10023 P ASPEN CO 81611 P DENVER CO 80222 P ATLANTA GA 30305 P ASPEN CO 81612 P COCONUT GROVE FL 33133 P ATHERTON CA 94027 P CHICAGO IL 60614 P MIAMI FL 33129 P HUTCHINSON ISLAND FL 34949 P ASPEN CO 81612-7318 P SANTA BARBARA CA 93101 P CHRISTIANSTED VI 00820-4561 P ASPEN CO 81611 P ASPEN CO 81611 P ASPEN CO 81612 P ASPEN CO 81611 P CHICAGO IL 60637 S NEW YORK NY 10022 P FORT WORTH TX 76102 P ASPEN CO 81612 P ".,.. NEWPORT MN 55055 P NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 P OMAHA NE 68127 P LOAN TREE CO 80124 P LITTLETON CO 80129 S ASPEN CO 81611 P GALENA OH 43021 P ANN ARBOR MI 48104 P HONOLULU HI 96822 P ASPEN CO 81611 P DENVER CO 80201 P MIAMI BEACH FL 33139 P ASPEN CO 81611 P OKLAHOMA CITY OK 73114 P EL PASO TX 79922 P NEW YORK NY 10021 P HOUSTON TX 77027 P SNOWMASS CO 81654 P ASPEN CO 81612 P SHREVEPORT LA 71101 P ASPEN CO 81611 P ASPEN CO 81611 P ASPEN CO 81611 P CHICAGO IL 60637 P ASPEN CO 81612 P ASPEN CO 81611 P ASPEN CO 81611 P DENVER CO 80222 P FRANKLIN MI 48025 P ASPEN CO 81611 S PARK RIDGE IL 60068 P ASPEN CO 81612 P GRAND JUNCTION CO 81506 S MISSION VIEJO CA 92692 S GRAND JUNCTION CO 81506 P GLENVIEW IL 60025 P CULVER CITY CA 90232-2812 P HOUSTON TX 77056 P ASPEN CO 81612 P ADDISON TX 75001 P MEQUON WI 53097 P CRESTED BUTTE CO 81224 P ASPEN CO 81612 P ASPEN CO 81612 P ASPEN CO 81611 S ASPEN CO 81612 P MUSKEGON MI 49441 P ASPEN CO 81612 P ASPEN CO 81611 P ASPEN CO 81612 P ASPEN CO 81611 P NEW ORLEANS LA 70130 P ASPEN CO 81611 P BOSTON MA ASPEN CO ASPEN CO ASPEN CO LITTLE ROCK AR ASPEN CO ASPEN CO DALLAS TX ASPEN CO ASPEN CO MONTECITO CA COCONUT GROVE FL ASPEN CO DALLAS TX RANCHO SANTA FE CA PEWANKEE WI CORONA DEL MAR CA AUSTIN TX PALOS VERDES ESTATES CA WYLIE TX ASPEN CO PARADISE VALLEY AZ HOUSTON TX ASPEN CO EDINA MN ARVADA CO ASPEN CO MEMPHIS TN SAN BRUNO CA ASPEN CO ASPEN CO HOUSTON TX HOUSTON TX WARRENTON VA ASPEN CO SCOTTSDALE AZ SHREVEPORT LA ASPEN CO "',..."- 02116 P 81611 P 81611 P 81612 P 72223 P 81612 P 81611 P 75205-2701 S 81611 P 81612 P 93108 P 33133 P 81611 P 75230 P 92067 P 53072 P 92625 P 78746 P 90274 P 75098 P 81611 P 85253 P 77005 P 81612 P 55439 P 80001 S 81611 P 38103 P 94099 P 81611 P 81612 S 77057 P 70719 S 20187 P 81612 P 85261-4900 P 71101 P 81612 P June 1,2006 Dear Neighbor of Rio Grande Park, The City of Aspen and Obermeyer Redevelopment Company entered in to a COWOP process (development reasonably necessary for the COnvenience and Welfare Of the Public) for the redevelopment of the Rio Grande Recycle Center. The COWOP process established a Task Force Team which included representation from neighbors of Rio Grande Park, skate park users, citizens, Obermeyer, City staff, County staff, City Council, and other technical resources. This Task Force held six (6) meetings, for about three (3) hours each, to discuss and develop a design for the redevelopment of the Recycle Center. City staff will be presenting the findings of this Task Force to Council Monday June 26, 2006, at 5:00p.m. and will be asking Council to approve the recommended design. If you have interest in the Recycle Center please attend the Council meeting, or for more information please contact Sarah Laverty at the City of Aspen Environmental Health Department, (970)429-1798. Sincerely, Sarah Laverty Environmental Project Coordinator 130 S. Galena St City Hall - 2nd Floor (970) 429-1798 sarahl@ci.asoen.co.us Dwayne Romero Director of Development Obermeyer Redevelopment Company 210 North Mill Street Suite 201 (970) 920-6681 dromero@obermeverolace.com PUBLIC NOTICE RE: RIO GRANDE RECYCLE CENTER REDEVELOPMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, June 26, 2006, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider the Final approval of a COWOP Land Use Review, Rezoning for a Planned Unit Development overlay, Final Planned Unit Development Plan approval, Final Specially Planned Area plan approval, and Growth Management approval for an essential public facility. The project was found eligible for the City of Aspen Convenience and Welfare of the Public (COWOP) review process pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 19, Series of2006. The property subject to the request is owned by the City of Aspen, and is legally described as Lot I of Rio Grande Subdivision. The property is commonly known as the Rio Grande Recycle Center. For further information, please contact Sarah Laverty at the City of Aspen Environmental Health Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 429-1798, (or by email atsarahl@ci.aspen.co.us). s/Helen K. Klanderud, Mavor Aspen City Council "'~ (Q(~ ,'. c \ CITY OF ASPEN RIO GRANDE MASTER PLAN 1993 '. - '-' \ Prepared by: Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office Technical assistance provided by: Rick McGill c Map 2 - Site B ~.. , i ) - 13 ,. , f t'; I. Existino Conditions The community's recycling drop-off center has temporarily occupied the eastern portion of site B for several years. The facility accepts the widest variety of materials, and because of its central location, is one of the most accessible drop points within pitkin County. The materials accepted at the site are: aluminum, tin, glass, plastic, newsprint, cardboard, low grade paper, high grade paper, green bar computer paper, and used dry cell batteries. There is a 20 yard roll-off dumpster for glass, a 100 yard trailer for cardboard, twenty-five 90 gallon containers for aluminum, tin, plastic, and all grades of paper, and a small container for batteries. An employee of pitkin County public Resources monitors collection of materials at the site. Recently, the berms surrounding this area have been increased in order to shield the recycle activity from view, to prevent blowing trash and to reduce haul costs during the construction of the white water course. The access theatre is . . road (Art Park way) used for the snow melter ana the approximately 40 feet wide. The playing field, which occupies the majority of this parcel, was established as a temporary use until such time that the field is converted for transportation uses. other than the goal posts, and temporary recycle containers the parcel is void of any structural development. II. Goals Because the site was purchased with 7th Penny Transportation funds the basis of future development goals is transportation oriented. The parcel is also across the street from an assortment of land uses including the Bass/Obermeyer building, which is zoned service/commercial/Industrial (SCI) . Because of the close proximity to the SCI zone district and to downtown, a variety of land uses, including essential community services, are considered appropriate for this site. The Rio Grande Group has identified the following Goals for the redevelopment of site B: v:. Locate essential community services in the eastern portion of site B. ~. Ensure that existing and future uses on the eastern portion of site B are compatible with surrounding land uses because of this area's location and visibility. ~. Satisfy transportation related needs first when considering the use of Site B. 14 vd. R.tain and opti.". Park/r.or.ationa, u... in Chi. ar.a and replace the active park and playfield only with a regional rail facil i ty . ~. Preserve view planes to the river and Independence Pass with low-profile development. III. Recommended Land Uses/Activities for Parcel B This parcel can be divided into several different elements for discussion purposes: ~l. Recycle Site The recYcling center is in critical need of an enclosed space for collection of material. Blowing trash has been a problem and inClement weather reduces the site to mud. Pitkin County Public Resources propose to construct a facility that is partially below grade and will make collection, bailing, and hauling of material more efficient. Enclosed bins and bailing will eliminate unsightly conditions and blowing trash. Enlarged collection areas and more storage for material will reduce the nUmber of trips made to haul the material off-site. Efficient drop-off will encourage residents to continue to Use the site. The Upgrade of the recycle facility should consider relocation Possibilities to City land across the street on the corner of Spring and East Bleeker Streets. 2. Trolley Barn The Trolley Group proposes to develop a trolley rail system. The system includes a car barn facility, tracks and poles, and several trolley cars. Review for this plan only considered operation and routing that would occur on the Rio Grande parcel. Depending upon the location of the barn it can be incorporated with the proposed expansion and enclosure of the recycle facility or integrated with a future rail terminal on the PlaYing field. The structure is proposed to be one story in height. This is consistent with the recOmmendation for low- profile development on the parcel to avoid blocking views of the river or Independence Pass. The building could also be designed to enable affordable 15 I ~ ; ~ . t I Ii .i "; .' t . It- r :~:. . \ '''t. / _..,.m,_W_._ houS ing on a second level. The Tro lley Group cannot fund the cost of the housing but is willing to make the structure available for future housing development. Although the Group believes that housing associated with the theatre was an inappropriate land use, housing on top of the trolley barn may be more suitable if developed on the eastern portion of the site. The site's proximity to the street, S/C/I zone district and location on the edge of the park lend a more urban feel for a multi-use development. Impacts to the river and Independence Pass view planes would have to be considered. :> . Access Road The accesS road to the snow melter and theatre (Art Park Way) is 40 feet wide. Vehicular access into the park should be eliminated. A new pedestrian/bike path should replace the existing pedestrian/bike path and access road. It should be 12-14 feet wide and could be located either next to the playing field or recycle site. If the path were located next to the playing field the eastern portion of the site could be unified creating more land area for proposed uses. The new path is intended for pedestrian and bikes but the width can accommodate theatre service/delivery and park maintenance vehicles. TWO accessible parking spaces will also be provided for the disabled attending a production at the tent. 4. New Walking Trail \ ~ \1 1\ I A new walking trail has been roughed-in above the snow melter. The trail is approximately halfway up the berm surrounding the recycling lot. The trail should be graded and improved as a walking path connecting to Patsy Newbury park. The trail should not encroach into the recycle site. 5. Snow Melter The current relocation with other should be The snow melter will be removed from site A. recycle site should be considered as a alternative for the snow melter. Integration transportation/ essential community services considered. 6. Additional Activities In the event either the Trolley Barn, recycling center or the snoW melter are not built on the eastern portion of the site, other essential community oriented services may be located on site. However, a SPA review would be 16 r,_.;;.; i;i;.-, .'I]i. i I~; ~: ,/ .;f '. the parking garage, could be used for ticketing, baggage, and passenger services. ""l The trolley tracks on the north side of the field will remain a.nd a trolley stop will be tied into the rail terminal. ... IV. Recommended Action Plan Summary for Site B To achieve the goals and proposed land uses for this site, the Rio Grande Group recommends the fOllowing actions for Site B: A height limit of one story should accompany any development on Site B unless housing is approved for the Trolley barn on the eastern portion of the site. ~. Development on the eastern portion of Site B should be screened from the PlaYing field and Site A. v'4. V5. V6. v' 7. V" 1. The City of Aspen should. decide whether a City-wide trolley system is appropriate in Aspen. If the Trolley is approved as proposed, the eastern portion of Site B is the recommended site for the Trolley barn. However, the barn may be integrated with a regional rail facility when developed. v2. The slope and berms on the eastern portion of Site B should be revegetated to blend into the park on the rest of Site B and Site A. :) Any development on the eastern portion of Site B should not intrude into the Independence Pass view plane. The City and County should review the recommendations of the Roaring Fork Forum study relating to a regional-wide recycling program and other remedies that are being considered for the COunty recycling program. If the recycling operation is considered necessary at this location then the recycling site should be covered or contained. A facility up to a maximum of 5,200 square feet is recommended' in order to integrate with other Uses. The reCYcling facility should be incorporated into the Trolley barn structure and/or snow melt facility, and should front the street for easy pUblic access. The access road (Art Park Way) and the existing pedestrian/bike path should be eliminated. A new pedestrian/bike path should be created connecting Rio Grande Drive to Site A. It should be 12-14 feet wide and able to accommodate theatre service/delivery and park maintenance vehicles only. The new path may also be Used by the disabled to park at the theatre during a ) 18 performance. / V 8. The walking path should be improved at the higher elevation along the slope that forms the edge of the recycle site. V9. The city should work with the youth Center to develop more recreational activities on site B. V1.0. The city should consider extending activities onto Patsy Newbury Park. recreational ./ 1.1. and playfield should be be replaced by a regional The temporary active park maintained on site B only to rail facility. 0/ 1.2. If a transportation use is developed on the playing field, then an equivalent parcel, in the city, should replace the playing field. V 1.3. A rail terminal and accessory facilities, if developed on the Rio Grande property, should be developed only on site B. ~.. .,/14. Development of rail facilities should not block-off access, both visuallY and physically, to site 'A. 0/ 1.5. The youth Center and the city should build a full-court basketball court in the open space between the recycle facility and the playing field. V 16. The youth Center and the city should install a half-pipe skateboard ramp in the open space between the recycle facility and the playing field. ~7. The city should realign the playing field. ~1.8. The city should continue negotiations with the property owners of the Bass/Obermyer building to settle the use of the publically owned property that is adjacent to the building and being used by customers and tenants of that building. .~ .. \ "1 ::!'.t: . "!: ~, \ ! , .....,; 19 ~I~~ --=~\')t..~ . These specif~c development details were Used to ensure that the ,.' proposed land Uses could be accommodated on the property. Theatre Tent The tent is approximately 60 feet seats approximately 100 patrons. 12.9' . X 80 feet and 26 feet high and The storage shed is 12.9' X riJ Recvcle Facili tv The proposed facility is approximately 5,200 square feet. This option eliminates several bins and moves part of the floor plan below grade for increased efficiency. Customer access to the recycle site should be directly off of Rio Grand Drive. Haulers should access off of snow dump road on the west side of the site. If the trolley barn is located on the site the cuts into the embankment, necessary for trolley access to the trolley barn, can also provide truck access to the recycle facility. Trollev Barn According to the plans, a trolley will leave the barn, cross the pedestrian/bike trail and Rio Grande Drive and travel in between the Youth Center and Jail to Main and Galena Streets.' The Trolley Group proposes to run track along the north Side of the ball field providing stops at the Art Park then Mill Street. The Trolley would continue across Mill Street and utilize PUppy Smith right- Of-way ~or a stop at the post office. The Group proposes to develop a car barn approximately 7,000 square feet which includes 1,000 square feet for accessory office, storage, and related Uses. The barn will house the trolleys and provide a garage for light maintenance. The second floor of the building could accommodate 5,700 square feet of affordable hoUsing. Basketball Court and Skateboard Half Pipe' , A 52' X 90' basketball COurt can be located in the open space between the Playing field and current recycle site. A 42' x 24' skateboard ramp can also fit in this space next to the basketball COurt. Location of these activities in this area requires trolley access to the barn to be moved down to the 20 foot buffer separating Site A from Site B or eventual relocation to the field if the barn is integrated with the rail terminal. ......--..~".h'IIL.......,~. , - ~ '"."r ...",~,,,=., ",", ;j1 "....~--_..-~".--.,-..,.__. Gl~ Dear Council Members- I am sorry that I am not at the meeting tonight in person to show my support for the outcome we reached on the COWOP in regard to the recycling center improvements. We worked hard over the course of the past few months to listen to all issues involved with the center design, including impact to the neighbors, ability to function as a recycling center, its prime location in town, etc. 'feel very proud that we took the very divergent views and came up with a strong plan, that truly will be a working example of recycling in action, while having the potential for increasing the amount of materials dropped off at the center. I can say that we on the COWOP never debated the location of the center, but I personally feel that such a central location with tremendous access in the heart of Aspen offers the most reasonable droP-off location for the greatest number of users. That should always be the primary goal for any Drop-Off Recycling Center. We have made every attempt to meet the concerns of all the neighbors of the Center- Obermeyer, Oklahoma Flats, the Skate Park, other park users- and make this a part of the greater whole- both to the Park and to Aspen. I feel that we have done so. For me, the key to this decision is in the follow up. That is making sure that the recycled materials are used, that the very necessary public education component is implemented, that additional materials are viewed for inclusion in the recyling program, and that new innovative recycling opportunities are being fully investigated well into the future. Good luck in your decision making process. Thanks- Eric Vozick \.ot~ To: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council 12 June 2006 After attending 6 COWOP meetings and more than 18 hours on the redesigning of the recycle center, many of us realized that there are too many reasons why the center does NOT fit on the tiny little parcel owned by the City of Aspen, nestled in the heart of the Rio Grande Park. The reasons are as follows; 1. The parcel that was designated for the COWOP to design a recycle center on is simply too small to fit in all the whistles and bells and perks of a "world class", "showcase" example of environmental excellence! It was brought up at more than one meeting that we are trying to fit "10 pounds of potatoes into a one pound bag"! We've had severa11etters entered into the minuets (see Memorandum 6/12/06 Attachments F & G) from citizens at large summarizing the feelings that "less is more", and to please try to keep this project to a "minimum". Maintaining the feel of what Aspen stands for should be of most importance! Keeping low profiles and preserving mountain view planes are more valuable than a signature structure that stands in the way of our mountain viewS forever. This parcel is too small to incorporate all that is required to call it an example of environmental excellence. Simply, it does not fit!!! 2. Even though the parcel is tiny, because of where it's located (near the river, bike path, skateboard park, residential areas etc.. .) it is extremely visible to many. The parcel is appropriately zoned "SPA" (Specially Planned Area). It was specially planned for "park and recreational use only". A recycle center does not fall into either of those categories. A recycle center is inappropriate for this small prime location of beauty and riverside enjoyment. Even Chris Bendon (Sr. long range planner) stated in his memo to the Mayor and City council on 10/28/02 that "staff agrees that the project could be more successful (Obermeyer Place) if the recycling facility were relocated." The study that was performed three and V, years ago couldn't find an alternative. It should be revisited today because there are currently other sites to consider! 3. The Rio Grande Master Plan (RGMP) is supposed to be the guide for site improvements to the Recycle Redevelopment (stated in the lease agreement between Obermeyer and the City). The goals and guidelines have been ignored by this COWOP group! If the city council adopts these recommendations from COWOP, then they are violating the Rio Grande Master Plan guidelines (as of 1/1/05 _which is the RGMP 1993). The current COWOP recommendation DOES NOT: ~. . Retain and optimize park and recreation uses . Preserve view planes to the River and Independence Pass . Design a low profile development . Consider impacts on neighbors and concerned citizens . Construct a facility partially below grade (COWOP voted on a design that can only be dropped down one foot as opposed to four feet) . Limit the development to one story = 12" (Cottle Car & Yaw (CCY) proposed a 24 foot roof at one time and a sod roof which adds another foot. An "aesthetically" arched roof also adds on more height)) . Limit the facility to 5,200 sq' (CCY said it's now l4,024sq' plus - almost 3 times what was recommended) . Reconsider other locations for the recycle center All of these points are stated in the Rio Grand Master Plan as guidelines for the redevelopment of the recycle center. All of them have been ignored in the final design! There actually is a plan that incorporates all of these guidelines (the North/South orientation originally presented by CCY). 4. A recycle center does NOT promote public health, safety and welfare (referring to Resolution No.l9 (series of2006)). A dumping center of trash is not usually considered a healthy atmosphere, nor is it considered a safe environment when you co-mingle kid's recreations with the congestion of cars and trucks pulling in and out of a busy center. Constructing a partially enclosed building with sod on the roof, you are enticing and inviting all kinds of deviant behavior, from kids trying to climb' onto the roof to hiding within the structure. An obvious healthier and safer and more appropriate environment could be a fountain or pond with flowers, trees and landscaping, benches and picnic tables incorporated with the expansion of the skateboard park and/or other recreational ideas. It is a far stretch to say that this center is safe and healthy and good for the welfare of the public. This proposed recycle center doesn't fit the area for many reasons stated. Even though it has been in this location for many years, it has always been considered TEMPORARY for very good reasons! To change the land use code to allow a permanent recycle facility of this sort on this site is ridiculous, costly and a huge mistake! YES, we need an efficient operating recycle center. If it must be on this site, then take the recommendations of concerned community citizens (not the city staffers who are not essentially impacted in any way). There are numerous ways to clean up the site and make it more efficient without destroying views and neighboring property values. Please don't limit future options by forcing and rushing this project thru without careful review!!! Debra Moore ....~._.~---~_._.- - ....-,-.~.---- . Disturbing Questions of the Recycle Center Why does the site of the Recycle Center remain in a growing residential area when there is the loud noise of clanking bottles and glass containers being dumped into the recycling bins and the sight and sound of huge trucks loading the full bins and returning them emptied to the disturbing sound of the "beeping" while backing up? Why is a "state of the art" recycle center being designed when there is already curbside recycling availabl~ and being used? Why is the City and COWOP bent on spending an enormous amount on the present site which is far too small to accomplish what they are trying to do using our tax dollars~ I feel a new site is a must! The present recycle center is on a site that should be a continuance of the public park ~ open and beautiful. Does luxurious Obermeyer Place deserve being directly across from a recycle center~ And do the long time area residents deserve losing a view from a possible high roof over the recycle bins which are already enclosed~ At the present, the recycle center appears to be a no win situation. Maybe the City and COWOP should slow down and take into consideration what is best for the residents and the beautiful City of Aspen. {(I. I'.' \ /.., I/;u.w<.. Diana Van Deusen 233 North Spring St. Aspen, Co. 81611 "-~..._.,,. G[-zG, Re: June 20, 2006 Aspen City Council Gailen B. Smith -- Concerned citizen and future property owner at Obermeyer Place Recycle Center Date: To: From: Dear Council Members: I have been an owner of property at 60 1 E. Bleeker Street in the vicinity of the recycle center since 1986. As an Aspen citizen my associates and I appreciate the opportunity and convenience that the Recycle Center offers. However, the operation has not always been a good neighbor. Containment, noise, congestion, and weather related problems have been an issue. When it was announced that the Obermeyer Place project along with the city had agreed to renovate the Recycle Center, as part of the area redevelopment, it was enthusiastically welcomed. My associates, my tenants, and I personally began to think in much more positive terms of relocating into the new project. We had never objected to the center being there as it seemed appropriate to the activity in the area. However, along with the other improvements to the area, a state of the art facility would now be required to fit into the neighborhood. The Obermeyer Place project had foresight in the redevelopment and invested a large some in the Recycle Center upgrade. But, let us not forget over commercial and residential property owners (past and future) and lessees within the new project that have paid into the pool of money that now supports the Recycle Center redevelopment. Those financial participants and neighbors to the project need to have a large voice. Many of my former associates and tenants will be directly across the street from the new center. Additionally, I will reside in Obermeyer Place along with others who will be looking at the new Recycle Center from the upper floors. Although I have been unable to attend the COWOP meetings I have been following the process closely such as carefully reading all the meeting minutes. It seems to me that the various public comments such as the Recycle Center needs an "open environment" and that a roof "would not help the visual aspects" of the center seem short sighted. It would not be operationally sensible nor visually suitable to leave an open Recycle Center at the edge of the public park. I believe in the COWOP process and agree that they have come to a good compromise plan. I maintain that operational and aesthetic issues should stand to the forefront. A roof will make it tidier, cut down on debris and operation costs, and yet can be pleasing to the eye. The enclosure can trap flying debris while blending in with nature. Thank you for your diligence, Gailen Smith Page I of I Jennifer Phelan ~/ ~!7Pjh From: James Lindt Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 1:43 PM To: Jennifer Phelan Cc: Chris Sendon Subject: FW: moratorium Jennifer, Here is a letter to enter into the record on the moratorium amendments. Thanks, James From: Debbie Roberts [mailto:queen@theaspencastle.comj Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 1:39 PM To: Chris Sendon Cc: James Lindt Subject: moratorium Dear Chris - It is my understanding that the City will look at the moratorium ordinance this evening, vis-a-vis, allowing HPC to accept applications currently, as long as same do not increase square footage. I would like to comment that this is very important, as I believe other City regulations say exterior work can only be done in the off-seasons. Therefore, if we cannot tender now, exterior work would be prohibited this fall off-season which would be a terrible impediment. If you feel it appropriate, you may read this at the City Council meeting this evening. Very truly yours, Anthony J. Mazza 6/26/2006 MEMORANDUM VI' \c. TO: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ClAW) FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Senior Long Range Planner~ RE: Proposed Exemptions from the Temporary Moratorium - Second Readinl! of Ordinance 23, Series 2006 MEETING DATE: June 26,2006 Staff is proposing several exemptions to the temporary moratorium that came into effect with the passage of Ordinance 19, Series 2006. The moratorium prohibits any new land use application to be submitted for property located in the Residential Multi-Family (RIMF), Residential Multi- Family (RIMFA), Commercial Core (CC), Commercial (C-l), Service/Commercial/Industrial (S/C/I), Neighborhood Commercial (NC), Mixed Use (MU), Lodge (L), Commercial Lodge (CL), Lodge Overlay (LO), and Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) zone district except for any land use application deemed complete prior to April 26'h, administrative growth management review applications for single-family and duplex development, and any land use application for an essential public facility. Additionally, no building permit applications can be submitted for a property located in the above-mentioned zone districts unless the project will not increase the floor area of a building, is a single-family or duplex building, or is a prqject that was eligible to receive a Development Order on the effective date of the moratorium. The exemptions are divided into two categories: land use applications and building permits. Staff feels that there are a number of potential development projects that could be effectively delayed or stopped by the moratorium and are not intended by Council to be impacted by the moratorium. A summary of the proposed changes follows. Exempt Land Use Applications: In addition to the land use applications that are exempt from the moratorium as stated in Ordinance No. 19, Series 2006, Staff has considered a number of additional minor applications that, under the current moratorium language, would not be permitted. . Temporary Use applications are land use applications that are either reviewed administratively or by City Council. An example of a temporary use would be a restaurant that would like to provide a temporary canopy over their outdoor seating during the summer dining months. . Certificate of No Negative Effect applications are administrative land use applications for a property listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures or a non- designated building within an historic district where it is determined that the proposed work will have no adverse effect on the physical appearance or character defining features of a designated property. Examples ofthe types of work that are considered under this application include: fencing, signs, replacement or repair of architectural features, and installation of awnings. An example of a "Certificate of No Negative Effect" that was recently approved is an application that Elevation Restaurant submitted just before the moratorium. The request was to partially fill in a below grade courtyard for more bar space, and to expand their outdoor seating area along Hopkins Avenue. No additional floor area was created; however, Elevation would not have been able to apply for land use review if they came in now. . Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development applications are land use applications that are reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission for a property listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures or a non-designated building within an historic district where the work is considered minor development. An example of the type of work that is considered under this application includes the expansion or erection of a structure where the floor area increase is less than 250 sq. ft. or alterations to the building, fa..ade, windows, doors, for example, where the cumulative impact does not allow for the issuance of a Certificate of No Negative Effect. Staff has specifically included a prohibition from increasing the floor area of a structure. Currently, Brunelleschi's pizza restaurant (which submitted an application prior to the moratorium) wants to add a deck for outdoor seating, which needs minor review approval by the Historic Preservation Commission. If the ordinance is not amended, their application would not have been able to be submitted with the moratorium in place. They can apply for a building permit because they aren't creating additional floor area. . Designation of a Building, District. Site. Structure, or Obiect on the Aspen lnventorv of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures applications are land use applications for designating a property onto the Aspen inventory. Staff felt that this type of application, where the city may add properties to the inventory, should not be precluded from being applied for during the moratorium. . Variance applications are land use applications reviewed either administratively, by the Board of Adjustment, by the Planning and Zoning Commission, or by the Historic Preservation Commission. A variance request can be applied for, for example, to vary the minimum yard setbacks or to waive a design standard of the Residential Design Standards. This exemption is only for single family and duplex development. The only land use application exempted for single-family and duplex development from the moratorium is Administrative Growth Management Review. A person who felt it was necessary to apply for a variance as part of their single-family or duplex development, whether or not staff would support the request, would not be able to apply for a variance as the moratorium ordinance is currently written. . Staff is also recommending that a building (other than single-family or duplex development) have the ability to apply for whatever necessary land use approvals are required if the development proposal is limited to improving the accessibility of a building for ADA compliance. The request, when associated with only improving accessibility, may increase allowable floor area by the minimum size required .by the International Building Code for a lift or elevator. Staff currently has someone who is interested in providing an exterior lift to serve a building in the downtown commercial core and increases accessibility and ADA compliance. The exterior design would add floor area and as it is in the Commercial Core Historic District, would need review and approval by the Historic Preservation Commission. Both the need for review and approval by the HPC and the increase in floor area would preclude the project from moving forward during the moratorium. . Insubstantial PUD Amendments are land use applications are minor amendments to a PUD that alters an approved site-specific development plan. Examples of an insubstantial PUD amendment include minor amendments to a floor plan do not change the approved dimensional requirements or character of the plan. Staff had an approved lodge project, which was approved as a Planned Unit Development and is a site specific development plan, request to change the footprint of some of their rooms as some of rooms were quite angular in design. Once the property was sold, the new owner wished to redesign some of the rooms so that they were more traditional. Staff approved the change in the design of the rooms, which did increase the size of the rooms or number of rooms. Under the current moratorium, an approved project would not be able to make insubstantial amendments to the approval. Exempt Building Permit Applications: In addition to the building permit applications that are exempt from the moratorium as stated in Ordinance No. 19, Series 2006, Staff has considered a number of additional applications that were excluded from the moratorium exemptions that could effectively impact a number of projects. . Building permits for temporarY uses and special events. Both of these applications may, in certain scenarios, temporarily increase the floor area of a building. For example, Food and Wine submitted building permits for all of their tent structures. Staff felt that these sorts of temporary uses and special events should be clearly exempted from the moratorium. . Staff has recommended previously that a land use application that is specific to only improving accessibility and ADA compliance be allowed to be submitted. Staff is also recommending that a building permit limited to only improving accessibility and ADA compliance of a building be allowed to be submitted. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached ordinance, approving staff recommended changes to the temporary moratorium. City Manager Comments: Recommended Motion (All motions are proposed in the affirmative): "I move to approve Ordinance No. 23, Series of 2006, upon first reading." Exhibit A TEXT AMENDMENT REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS Section 26.310.040 of the City Land Use Code provides that applications for text amendments to the Land Use Code must comply with the following standards and requirements. 26.310.040 Standards of review. In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conffict with any applicable portions of this Title. Staff Finding The intent of the proposed amendments is to repeal any c01iflicts and provide additional clarification within sections of the Land Use Code. Stqff finds this criterion to be met. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding The code amendments generally implement the AACP. Some of the amendments such as requiring projects to use the Historic Landmark Lot Split will implement the goal of historic preservation. Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding The text amendments are not site specific. This review standard is not applicable. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Finding The text amendments will not directly impact traffic generation and road safety. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Staff Finding: The text amendments will not directly impact public facilities. Staff finds this criterion to be met. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding The text amendments will not directly impact the natural 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 Some of the code amendments should help preserve community character. Staff finds this . criterion to be met H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding The text amendments will not directly impact a specific site. This review criteria is not applicable. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conffict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. Staff Finding The intent of the text amendments are to clarifY and be in harmony with the intent of Land Use Code. Stafffinds this criterion to be met ORDINANCE NO. 23 (SERIES OF 2006) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE SIX MONTH TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE NO. 19 (SERIES 2006) WHEREAS, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 19 (Series 2006) establishing a six month temporary moratorium on the acceptance of any new land use application seeking a development order and on the issuance of certain building permits for property located in the Residential Multi-Family (R/MF), Residential Multi-Family (R/MFA), Commercial Core (CC), Commercial (C-l), Service/Commercial/Industrial (SIC/I), Neighborhood Commercial (NC), Mixed Use (MU), Lodge (L), Commercial Lodge (CL), Lodge Overlay (LO), and Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) zone district; and, WHEREAS, as ail effect of the moratorium, Staff has identified certain land use applications and building permits applications that would not be permitted to be submitted; and, WHEREAS, it is not the intent of the City Council to unnecessarily postpone certain projects and special events. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Exemptions from Moratorium Land use applications exempt from the temporary moratorium, in addition to those stated in Section 3 of Ordinance No. 19, Series 2006, shall be as follows: · Temporary Use applications pursuant to 926.450 of the Aspen Municipal Code. · Certificate of No Negative Effect pursuant to 9 26.4l5.070 (B) of the Aspen Municipal Code. · Certificate of Appropriateness for a Minor Development pursuant to 9 26.415.070 (C) of the Aspen Municipal Code which does not increase the floor area of a structure. . A land use application for designation of a building, district, site, structure, or object on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures pursuant to 926.415.030 (C) of the Aspen Municipal Code. · Variance applications for Single-Family and Duplex development pursuant to 9 26.314, 926.410.020 (D), and 9 26.415.110 (B) of the Aspen Municipal Code. Ordinance No. 23, Series 2006, Page 1 00 . A land use application that is limited to improving the accessibility of a building for ADA compliance, but which may have the effect of increasing the allowable floor area of a building by the minimum size required by the International Building Code for an elevator or lift. . Insubstantial PUD Amendments, which do not increase floor area or density. Applications for building permits exempt from this temporary moratorium, in addition to those stated in Section 3 of Ordinance No. 19, Series 2006, shall be as follows: . Building permits for temporary uses. . Building permits for special events that have been approved by the Special Events Committee or City Council. · Building permits that are limited to improving the accessibility of a building for ADA compliance, which may have the effect of increasing the floor area of a building by the minimum size required by the International Building Code for an elevator or lift. Section 2: This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. 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 4: A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 26th day of June 2006, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. [Signatures on following page] INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 12th day of June, 2006. Attest: Ordinance No. 23, Series 2006, Page 2 of3 Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Belen K. Klanderud, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this_day of , 2006 Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen K. Klanderud, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Ordinance No. 23, Series 2006, Page 3 of3 ._....."~.._---~~-_.....------'.....-"-".....,~.._-..,..,-,,....,- \~~ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Chris Bendon, Community Development Director Q.4V\n Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer ~ Call up of the Historic Preservation Commission Decision on 434 E. Cooper, Approval of an Application for Demolition THRU: FROM: RE: DATE: June 26, 2006 SUMMARY: 434 E. Cooper Avenue is a 9,000 square foot lot located within the Commercial Core Historic District. It is developed with the Mountain Plaza building, which was constructed in 1965 and designed by the office Fritz Benedict. Mountain Plaza was considered for landmark designation during the 2000 inventory review process, but designations were put aside while the City revamped the HPC ordinance. Since that time, there has been an on-going effort to work with the owners of post-war properties of historical interest to see if additional landmarks can be preserved in a cooperative process. The City does not need owner consent to designate a building that is at least 40 years old, like 434 E. Cooper Avenue, however, the practice oflate has been to seek consent. Neither Council, HPC, or Staff took action to seek consent for designation of the subject property since 2000. The owners of 434 E. Cooper have not expressed interest in designating their property and have instead requested approval for demolition as a first step in a proposed redevelopment. HPC reviewed and approved the demolition request on May 24, 2006. City Council has the authority to "Call-up" a demolition approval granted by HPC within 30 days of the decision. Council took such action in a timely manner on June 13,2006. APPLICANT: Bert Bidwell Investment Company, owners, represented by Mark Bidwell. The owner is represented by Haas Land Planning and Rowland + Broughton Architects. PARCEL ID: 2737-182-16-011. ADDRESS: 434 E. Cooper Avenue, Lots Q, R, S. Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: CC, Commercial Core. BACKGROUND: Several months ago representatives of the owners of 434 E. Cooper requested a worksession with HPC to discuss a proposed redevelopment of the site. The property is located with the Commercial Core Historic District and as such HPC must approve any alterations to it. Certain criteria, such as those for approval of demolition (removing more than 40% of existing exterior walls and roof, and building structure), require HPC to make a finding that the building has no historic significance. Anticipating that this was an issue that would require careful analysis, staff provided the board with the designation criteria and a white paper on Fritz Benedict's work at their December 14, 2005 meeting. The board was split in their opinion and contemplated making additional site visits. The idea of conducting further research of Benedict's work was brought up, which led the Community Development Department to hire an outside consultant to supplement existing records. Staff hired Tatanka Historical Associates, who has provided historic preservation services to the City on other occasions, to provide a professional opinion on the significance of the building. The paper, which concluded that the building should be landmarked, was produced as quickly as possible to avoid holding up the applicant. Its content was reviewed by Robert Sterling, who served as the project architect for the Bidwell Building while working in Fritz Benedict's office. A second worksession was held on January 25, 2006. Several, if not all, board members conducted additional site visits to the property in preparation for the meeting. Another long discussion took place, with board members remaining split on the value of the building. Staff determined that it would be best to formally "call the question" on the demolition request so that the board would have all of the relevant review criteria in front of them and the public could participate more fully in the discussion if desired. HPC held a public hearing on demolition of the structure on May 24, 2006. Staff did not find that the demolition of the structure met applicable review criteria and recommended denial. The applicant hired another preservation consultant to provide testimony about the building and that consultant recommended that designation would not be appropriate. The HPC voted 3 to 2 to approve demolition of 434 E. Cooper. Those who voted in favor cited functional problems with the building and a conflict with the surrounding historic district. HPC will retain the authority to conduct design review on this property because it is in a historic district. PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: Section 26.415.l20.D of the Municipal Code establishes the criteria by which the City Council may "call-up" HPC Decisions. There are three criteria upon which the City Council has to decide an appeal of a code interpretation. Based solely upon the record established by the original decision, the City Council shall consider whether 1) there was a denial of due process; 2) the administrative body exceeded its jurisdiction; or, 3) the administrative body abused its discretion. The City Council shall take such action as is deemed necessary to remedy said situation, including, but riot limited to: 1. Reversing the decision. 2. ALtering the conditions of approval 3. Remanding the application to the HPC for rehearing. 2 The review of 434 E. Cooper Application for Demolition followed all of the Municipal Code requirements and procedures for a public hearing. Appropriate public notice and affidavit of notice were provided. Staff and the applicant were permitted to make sufficient presentations. The hearing record, including the staff memo, application, HPC resolution, and minutes are attached for Council review. Staff finds that HPC objectively reviewed the proposal with the correct and applicable criteria with which it has authority; and HPC acted to approve demolition because they found that the standards for demolition were met. The board members have been appointed by Council to provide their expertise related to historic preservation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the proper and legal procedures were followed in this case. Staff recommends Council uphold the Commission's decision, however sample resolutions upholding and overturning the decision are attached. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Resolution # ~~, Series of 2006, upholding the decision made by the Historic Preservation Commission on May 24, 2006, to approve demolition of the building located at 434 E. Cooper Avenue." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Included as exhibits to this Memorandum are the following: City Council Resolution # ~ Series of 2006 Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Exhibit D: Staff memo to HPC Application to HPC HPC Resolution #14, Series of2006 Minutes ofHPC hearing 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING THE DECISION MADE BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION GRANTING APPROVAL FOR DEMOLITION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 434 E. COOPER STREET, LOTS Q, R, AND S, BLOCK 89, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO. RESOLUTION NO. ~ V, SERIES OF 2006 WHEREAS, the applicant, Bert Bidwell Investment Company, owners, represented by Mark Bidwell; and Haas Land Planning and Rowland + Broughton Architects, requested demolition approval from the Historic Preservation Commission for the property located at 434 E. Cooper Street. The property is located within the Commercial Core Historic District, and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission discussed the project on May 24, 2006. The meeting met the proper noticing requirements of Section 26.304.060.E of the Land Use Code. Demolition approval was granted on May 24, 2006 by a vote of 3 to 2, after the Historic Preservation Commission found that the application met the review criteria for demolition; and WHEREAS, no abuse of discretion, arbitrary and capricious conduct, nor denial of due process occurred during the above mentioned hearings; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council affirms that the proper procedures were followed and wishes to confirm the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission as rendered in their Resolution # 14, Series of 2006. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: City Council affirms the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission granting an application for demolition approval for the property located at 434 E. Cooper Street, Lots Q, R, and S, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, finding that there was not an abuse of discretion or a denial of due process by the Commission. APPROVED by the City Council at its regular meeting on this 26th day of June, 2006. ATTEST: MAYOR: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REVERSING THE DECISION MADE BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION GRANTING APPROVAL FOR DEMOLITION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 434 E. COOPER STREET, LOTS Q, R. AND S, BLOCK 89, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO. RESOLUTION NO.g SERIES OF 2006 WHEREAS, the applicant, Bert Bidwell Investment Company, owners, represented by Mark Bidwell; and Haas Land Planning and Rowland + Broughton Architects, requested demolition approval from the Historic Preservation Commission for the property located at 434 E. Cooper Street. The property is located within the Commercial Core Historic District, and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission discussed the project on May 24, 2006. The meeting met the proper noticing requirements of Section 26.304.060.E of the Land Use Code. Demolition approval was granted on May 24, 2006 by a vote of 3 to 2, after the Historic Preservation Commission found that the application met the review criteria for demolition; and WHEREAS, abuse of discretion, arbitrary and capricious conduct, exceeded jurisdiction, and/or denial of due process occurred during the above mentioned hearings; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council affirms that the proper procedures were not followed and wishes to overturn the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission as rendered in their Resolution #14, Series of2006. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: City Council reverses the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission granting an application for demolition approval for the property located at 434 E. Cooper Street, Lots Q, R, and S, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, finding that there was an abuse of discretion, jurisdiction was exceeded, and/or a denial of due process by the Commission. APPROVED by the City Council at its regular meeting on this 26th day of June, 2006. ATTEST: MAYOR: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud Bhl~iT A. ~ MEMOR<L"{DDM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Community Development Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 434 E. Cooper Avenue. Demolition, Continued Public Hearing DATE: May 24, 2006 SUMMARY: The subject property is a 9,000 square foot lot located within the Commercial Core Historic District. It is developed with the Mountain Plaza building, which was constructed in 1965 to replace a Victorian structure that collapsed. Fritz Benedict was the architect. Mountain Plaza was considered for landmark designation during the 2000 inventory review process, but designations were put aside while the City revamped the HPC ordinance. Since that time, there has been ;a.l1 on-going effort to \Xlork ,vit..~ the o\vners of post-\var properties of historical interest to see if additional landmarks can be preserved in a cooperative process. The City does not need owner consent to designate a building that is at least 40 years old, like 434 E. Cooper Avenue, however, the practice of late has been to seek consent. The owners of 434 E. Cooper have; not expressed interest in landmarking their property and are in fact are pursuing Demolition approval as a first step in a proposed redevelopment. Because this is a historic district, HPC will retain the authority to conduct design review on this property whether the existing structure is demolished or not. The Mountain Plaza building was not built during the Victorian era, which predominates the character of the Commercial Core Historic District. However, staff does not find that Demolition of the structure meets the applicable review criteria and therefore recommends denial. APPLICANT: Bert Bidwell Investment Company, owners, represented by Mark Bidwell. The owner is represented by Haas Land Planning and Rowland + Broughton Architects.' PARCELID: 2737-182.16-011. ADDRESS: 434 E. Cooper Avenue, Lots Q,R, and S, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: CC, Commercial Core. 1 DEMOLITION The appLicant proposes to remodel the building to the extent which would be deemed demolition according to the definition in the Aspen Municipal Code. The Code' defines Demolition as follows: "To raze, disassemble, tear down, or destroy forty percent (40%) or more of an existing structure (prior to commencing development) as measured by the surface of all exterior wall and roof area above finished grade and associated assembly and components necessary for the structural integrity of such wall and roof area." Demolition shall be approved by HPC if it is demonstrated that the application meets anyone of the following criteria: a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen, or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance. Staff Response: The application only has to meet one of the above criteria. Clearly the structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen, therefore criterion ~'c" is met. Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located, and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. Staff Response: The Commercial Core Historic District was created via Ordinance #49, Series of 1974. The ordinance did not state a "period of significance" for the district although it is likely that ail of the buildings which were considered to be contributing historic resources at the time were from the Victorian era. The "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" related to the Commercial Core also do not state the "period of significance" for the district, although they note the area's "rich mining heritage" and promote new construction that is compatible in character with the patterns clearly established by the 19th century buildings. The guidelines for the "Main Street Historic District" also draw heavily on the mining era character of the neighborhood, but note that later buildings may have significance, even if they do not establish the context for the district. There are a number of post.war era buildings in the Main Street Historic that have already been designated including the Pan Abodes at Christiana, a 1940's log cabin at 300 W. Main Street, and the cabins at 435 W. Main Street (in process). Several other post. Victorian era buildings have been of interest to HPC including the original 2 Pitkin County Library, Hickory House, Mountain Rescue and Cortina Lodge. While the review of the Mountain Plaza Building is the first instance when HPC has had to formally consider the significance of a modem building in the Commercial Core, there is clear precedence for valuing buildings outside the generally recognized period of significance on Main Street. HPC has had two worksessions to evaluate this structure relative to Aspen's landmark designation criteria. These have been thoughtful discussions that have included representatives of the property owner and some members of the public. The board has been presented with white papers written by preservation consultants who have come to the opposite conclusion about the need to preserve this structure. Staff is unable to make a finding that this building is non-contributing and inconsequential to the preservation needs of the Commercial Core Historic District as required by the demolition approval criteria. We believe that the groundwork for recognizing Aspen's rich modem history has been laid for many years. The fifth historic site ever designated in Aspen was the Lift I property, which was protected in 1974, even before the two historic districts were established. The Herbert Bayer designed house at 240 Lake A venue was designated a landmark when it was only 26 years old. Fritz Benedict's Copper Kettle was designated at age 41, and his cabin at 835 W. Main Street came under HPC review over 13 years ago. Unfortunately, a number of other buildings designed by these men have been demolished. In a previous memo for a Mountain Plaza Building worksession, staff noted that the Bidwell building is not as strong an example of Benedict's Wrightian training as is the old library, or 835 W. Main. It does not have the same connection to landscape as the Benedict Building on Ute Avenue, or Fritz's own house (in the County.) However, the Bidwell building is an interesting interpretation of modem commercial design with local influence. While it did not respond to some elements of the surrounding context in a traditional manner, the building does, either through the facades or the low wall around the courtyard, address the property edge. It is also a flat roofed, masonry building with vertically oriented windows and storefronts. All of this was handled, of course, with a modem and Wrightian approach. While there are Victorian era commercial buildings in existence all across the country, this building is unique to Aspen. Staff agrees with the findings of the paper prepared by Tatanka Historical Associates (attached.) Fritz Benedict was a creative designer who made important contributions to Aspen's built environment at a time when almost all of the existing building fabric was Victorian. The inventory form created in 2000 notes that this structure "displays the clarity of design concept, simplicity of decoration, and a modem approach to solid/void relationships characteristic of Benedict's work." This building has a high degree of architectural integrity and is one of the be~! remaining examples of Fritz Benedict's work, in staffs opinion. We believe that all work that was produced within his office, and therefore under his supervision, is attributable to him and his design influence and philosophy. The paper prepared by Tatanka Historical Associates states: "The Bidwell.Mountain Plaza building...was designed by a local architect, utilizing what he and his staff clearly viewed as "western" or "mountain" style of architecture appropriate to its setting. Within the budgetary and spatial constraints imposed by this particular 3 project and its need to fit onto an urban lot in downtown Aspen, Benedict created a building that has in fact stood the test of time, survived to the present day without significant alteration, and is perhaps more iconic of Aspen in the post-war era than many of the town's other commercial buildings of similar age. Plans for future changes to the building should therefore be reviewed in light of their potential impact to its integrity and place in the history of the development of architecture in Aspen." Staff finds that the review criteria for demolition have not been met and recommends denial. DECISION MAKING OPTIONS: The HPC may: · approve the application, · approve the application with conditions, · disapprove the application, or . continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC deny demolition approval for 434 E. Cooper Avenue, Lots Q,R, and S, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, the Mountain Plaza Building. All motions must be in the affirmative. The attached resolution is written to approve this demolition. Staff recommends that a motion be made to adopt the resolution, followed by a "no" vote by HPC. Exhibits: Resolution # _' Series of 2006 A. Previous documents provided to HPC at the MOW1tain Plaza Building worksessions B. Application 4 Historic Building Contextual Analysis BIDWELL - MOUNTAIN PLAZA BUILDING 434 E" Cooper Ave. Aspen, Colorado Completed for Amy Guthrie City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 by Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. 612 S. College Ave., Suite 21 P.O. Box 1909 Fort Collins, CO 80522 tatanka@verinet.com 970.221.1095 20 January 2006 Tatanka Historical Associates Inc. ~ 612 S. College Ave., Suite 21 P.O. Box 1909 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 tatanka@verinet.com 970.221.1095 20 January 2006 Amy Guthrie City of Aspen Community Development Dept. 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Subject: Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building 434 E. Cooper Ave., Aspen Dear Amy, Tatanka Historical Associates Inc. has completed the research and fieldwork necessary to provide the city with contextual analysis of the Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building in Aspen. The enclosed report presents the results of this work, which was completed during the month of January 2006. Please let me know if you have any questions about the material presented in this document. Thank you for the opportunity to assist the City of Aspen with this . project. Sincerely, Ron Sladek President Project Backqround In mid-December 2005, Tatanka Historical Associates Inc. was engaged by the City of Aspen to complete a contextual study of the Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building at 434 E. Cooper Ave. in downtown Aspen. This effort was undertaken to provide the city with a better understanding of the building's architectural and historic context, which relates directly to its potential for historic significance. Driving the need for such. understanding is the fact that the building's owners wish to complete a remodeling project that will permanently and substantially alter its original design, changing the overall shape of the building and adding two floors to its height. Analysis of architecture from the decades following World War II is particularly challenging due to widespread public ambivalence about modern architectural styles and to a lack of historical perspective that is gained only by the passage of time. It is difficult today for many to view post-war buildings objectively, and the tendency is to react to them with subjective responses (often negative ones) rather than studied analysis. The idea that these buildings merit serious historical analysis and that some might even be worthy of preservation is often anathema to both modern property owners desiring to maximize property values and profits, and to citizens who are not involved in historic preservation and are largely uninformed about the variety of architectural styles that surround them. The Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building was constructed in 1965, designed by one of Aspen's most important post-war architects, and certainly exhibits elements of a particular style. For these reasons alone, it is important to seriously consider the background and context of this building before it is forever altered. ,11,s Amy Guthrie wisely cautioned in her 14 December 2005 memo to the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, "what must be avoided is a discussion of whether or not we 'like' the building, but instead whether or not it is an important example of Fritz Benedict's work in Aspen and would therefore be worth preserving." Subjective feelings and impressions about modern architecture are important to consider, but an adequate degree of rational analysis is critical to understanding the place of such buildings in the larger picture of the development of architecture in Aspen and throughout the United States. This project was therefore designed to consist of a brief objective look at the work of Fritz Benedict, including a comparative analysis of his buildings in Aspen. In the end, the purpose of the study is to provide the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission with background information necessary to make reasonable, justifiable decisions regarding planned alterations to the Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building. The following report presents the results of the research and field analysis completed by Ron Sladek of Tatanka Historical Associates Inc. during the month of January 2006. The scope of work was limited to the following activities: Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. 2 . Field reconnaissance and photography of the Bidwell-Mountain plaza Building and other buildings in Aspen that are known to be attributed to Fritz Benedict. . Research in local archives to collect materials that would provide an understanding of this building and others designed by Benedict. . Analysis of the combined fieldwork and research to determine how the Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building fits into the context of modern architecture, how it relates to other Benedict buildings in the area, and an assessment of its possible historic significance About the Buildin!:l The Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building was constructed in 1965, replacing a late 1800s twocstory commercial building that had previously been located on this site. Fronting onto Cooper Ave. with a fully exposed side elevation along Galena St., the L-shaped masonry building is two stories in height with the larger portion of its mass located in the northern 2/3 of the site. Extending toward the south from the main body of the building into the southwest quadrant of the property is a slightly lower two-story wing of the same design. Occupying the open southeast quadrant of the property is a square sunken courtyard that exposes the full height of the basement level of the building. Providing additional commercial space, the courtyard is accessed by way of a stairway in its southwest corner. Surrounding the sunken courtyard at street level is a low masonry wall on the east and south, and a wrought-iron balustrade ornamented with a floral motif on the north and west. The floor and sidewalls of the courtyard are completely finished with brickwork. Ornamenting the building are several features of note. Perhaps most obvious are the open arcades that project outward from the primary walls of the building along its east and south elevations. These cover not only walkways within the property, but also provide shelter to the adjacent sidewalks and storefronts from both sun and snow. Constructed of simple squared posts and beams supporting flat roofs, they provide the building with a uniquely "western" look that harkens back to styles often associated with forts and other pioneer buildings of the 19th century frontier. An excellent example of this effect, with clear similarity to its use on the Bidwell-Mountain Plaza building, is the barracks building at Fort Laramie in Wyoming. In this case, the Modernist building employs the same pattern of posts and beams on the arcade, although the balustrades along the second floor walkways are constructed of wrought iron work with a floral motif that matches that found along the street-level edge of the sunken courtyard. (see the photographs in Appendices A and B) Whether the architect intentionally used the frontier precedent for the design of the Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building is unknown. However this was the resulting effect and association of this feature. Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. " ~ Also of design interest on the Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building is its employment of variegated earth-toned brickwork combined with stacked 2/3- to 3/4-height storefront windows. The use of non-synthetic materials such as wood, brick and glass was characteristic of the Modernist movement. Capping the building is a . flat roof with deep overhanging eaves supported by a pattern of exposed projecting squared roof beams. Together with the arcades described above, these features provide the building with a touch of Wrightian influence and appearance. In general, the building is horizontal in its massing and scale and employs a creafive "western" approach to commercial architecture. While it is not as purely Wrightian as Benedict's Pitkin County Library (Design Workshop) and Waterfall House, the Modernist building effectively fits into the surrounding natural landscape and commercial environment, reflecting good Wright- influenced design choices related to both the alpine setting of Aspen and the property's location in the heart of the downtown business district. Contextual Analysis In order to guide the process of assessing the significance of post-war architecture, the City of Aspen has prepared a context paper on the subject. According to this document, which dedicates an entire section to the work of Fritz Benedict, "the most important of Benedict's works may best be defined by the examples that clearly represent Wrightian ideas, or where innovation was key." Unfortunately, no comprehensive list of the buildings designed by Benedict is available. (It would be helpful for future analysis of his buildings if some effort were expended to assemble such a list.) However a number of Benedict's works are known and these were visited or researched if no longer standing to assess the Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building in relation to his other Aspen projects. The following properties were reviewed and compared with the Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building for the purposes of this report: . Pitkin County Library 1 Design Workshop, 120 E. Main St. (1960) . Benedict Building, 1280 Ute Ave. (1976) . Bank of Aspen / Norwest Bank / Wells Fargo Bank, 119 S. Mill St. (1956) . Fritz and Fabi Benedict Houses (1958 and c1980) . Usonian Houses (demolished), 615 and 625 Gillespie St. (1957) . Waterfall House (demolished), 202 Midnight Mine Rd. (1961) . Cabin, 835 W. Main St. (1947) . Copper Kettle, 845 Meadows Rd. (1954) Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. 4 . Aspen Alps, 777 Ute Ave. (1963) . Aspen Square, 617 E. Cooper Ave. (1969) . The Gant, 610 S. West End St. (1972) . Aspen Club Townhouses, Crystal Lake Rd. (1976) . Pitkin County Bank, 534 E. Hyman Ave. (1978) Of these buildings, certainly the best known examples of Benedict's training in the style and concepts developed by Fran_k Lloyd Wright are the Pitkin County Library and the Waterfall House, which was demolished in the early 1990s. The library, with its various Wrightian design elements, is intact and exhibits an excellent degree of historic integrity. Other surviving Benedict buildings from this list that appear to be of architectural and historic significance include Aspen Alps as well as the Benedict Building, Copper Kettle, and Aspen Club Townhouses.. The remaining buildings have either been demolished or significantly altered. Although this is nowhere near a complete list of Benedict's buildings in and around Aspen, they do represent the body of his work. Many others are known to have been destroyed or have lost their integrity over the past several decades. In relation to these Benedict-designed buildings in Aspen, the Bidwell-Mountain ,Plaza Building is his only known intact commercial building. The Pitkin County Library is now used commercially as a landscape architecture studio, but was originally designed to serve as a public building. In addition, the bank buildings designed by Benedict have been significantly and negatively altered. With many of Benedict's buildings demolished or altered in recent decades, and with just a few commercial buildings attributed to him overall, the Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building takes on even greater significance. Different categories of possible eligibility are available for a building to achieve historic designation. For example, for a property to be eligible for the National Register it ideally needs to be at least fifty years old and throlJgh rigorous research and writing must be shown to meet one of several possible significance criteria. The State of Colorado and City of Aspen both require that a building be at least forty years old to be designated. Constructed in 1965, just over forty years ago, the Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building is, at least according to age, eligible for historic designation on both the local and state levels. In addition to age a property must also retain a good degree of integrity in relation to its original design. This is determined by looking at several categories such as whether the building is in its original location and exhibits a substantial amount of its original workmanship, materials and appearance. Questions of integrity are addressed not only in relation to the survival of a building's original construction features, but also in light of alterations that might have taken place over the succeeding years. The Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building appears to . Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. 5 exhibit a high level of historic integrity, having suffered from few significant changes over the years since it was constructed. It therefore meets the requirement that a building exhibit integrity and, at least according to this category, is eligible for historic designation. Finally, according to City of Aspen guidelines (and similar guidelines established for State Register consideration), for a building to be eligible for designation it must also be substantially related to one or more of the following historic criteria: A - An event, pattern or trend that has made a significant contribution to local, state, regional or national history; 8 - People whose specific contribution to local, state, regional or national history is deemed important and can be identified and documented; C - A physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, 'craftsman or design philosophy that is deemed important. Designed by one of Aspen's most important architects of the post-war era, and exhibiting Modernist design elements related to Wrightian principles of architecture, the Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building appears to meet the standards of Criteria C and would therefore be eligible for historic designation on the local level and possibly also on the state level. Aspen architect Suzannah Reid, in her 2000 analysis of the building completed for a survey of historic sites, wrote that "this structure is significant for its position in the development of Aspen after WWII, the period signifying the rebirth of the community into a recreational and intellectual resort," adding that it "displays the clarity df design concept, simplicity of decoration, and a modern approach to solid/void relationships characteristic of Benedict's work." As Amy Guthrie stated in her December 2005 memo to the preservation commission, "the Bidwell building is an interesting interpretation of modern commercial design with local influence." While in essence she correctly went on to say that the building "bore little relationship to the surrounding context," it must be remembered that downtown Aspen in the mid-1960s consisted of a combination of building styles, just as it does today. Surrounding the Bidwell- Mountain Plaza Building when it was constructed were late 1800s mining-era buildings, post-war imported Germanic chalet-style buildings, and an emerging crop of Modernist buildings that were being developed to occupy vacant lots and the sites of decaying Victorian-era buildings. Mitch Haas and John Rowland, in their 14 December 2005 memo to the Aspen historic preservation commission, argue that the property owner "feels that the Mountain Plaza Building does not provide a strong example of innovation or the way Benedict employed Wrightian ideas. Indeed, it is not felt that the Mountain Plaza Building is a strong example of Benedict's work as an architect, in Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. 6 general." While the Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building is not Benedict's most purely Wrightian influenced work (surely his Pitkin County Library and Waterfall House are better examples), it can be argued that it certainly incorporates a Modernist approach to Wrightian concepts and represents the best remaining example of his commercial projects in Aspen. Downtown districts throughout the United States are typically made up of buildings of varying styles. Today we recognize that at least some Modernist buildings, even if they lack the nostalgic charm of pre-1900 buildings, are significant in their own right as representatives of post-war architecture. On the surface, the Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building may not be viewed as an iconic example of Aspen architecture, yet the town's historic mining-era commercial buildings, Victorian houses, and post-war chalet style buildings did not originate here either even though they give Aspen much of its character. These were all styles imported to Aspen from other locales. The Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building, on the other hand, was designed by a local architect, utilizing what he and his staff clearly viewed as a "western" or "mountain" style of architecture appropriate to its setting. Within the budgetary and spatial constraints imposed by this particular project and its need to fit onto an urban lot in downtown Aspen, Benedict created a building that has in fact stood the test of time, survived to the present day without significant alteration, and is perhaps more iconic of Aspen in the post-war era than many of the town's other commercial buildings of similar age. Plans for future changes to the building should therefore be reviewed in light. of their potential impact to its integrity and place in the history of the development of architecture in Aspen. Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. 7 Appendix A Photos of the Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Buildinq Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. ~ 8 Appendix A Photos of the Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Buildinq Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. 9 Appendix A Photos of the Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building , Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. 10 Appendix A Photos of the Bidwell-Mountain Plaza BuildinQ Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. 11 Appendix A Photos of the Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Buildinq Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. 12 Appendix 8 Photoqraph of the Fort Laramie Barracks This photograph of the Fort Laramie Barracks shows the type of frontier precedent for a post and beam projecting arcade that might have served as a precedent for the design of the Bidwell-Mountain Plaza Building in Aspen. Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. 13 Appendix C Other Benedict Buildinqs in Aspen - Aspen Alps Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. 14 Appendix C Other Benedict Buildinqs in Aspen - Benedict Bldq. t-.:,...."" :::-----. '=--- ~.~ '<-. Ii "-,~-~ ~ . Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. 15 Appendix C Other Benedict BuildinQs in Aspen - Aspen Square Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. 16 Appendix C Other Benedict BuildinQs in Aspen - Pitkin County Library Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. 17 Appendix C Other Benedict Buildinqs in Aspen - Aspen Club Townhouse ~, .~S-~ ,- ~~-,;~: -; c;.- -.--:0'0.-'" Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. Aspen Times News for Aspen Colorado - Letters to the Editor Page I of I fill AlII baa . What Fritz would say January 3, 2006 (This letter was originally addressed to the Historic Preservation Commission of Aspen.) Dear Editor: I read with great (nterest (and a good deal of nostalgia, as well) Janet Urquhart's article in The Aspen Times (Dec. 15) regarding your discussions abDut the Mountain Plaza Building at the corner of Galena and Cooper and whether or not it should be considered for designation as an "historic structure." In 1964, I was employed by Fritz Benedict as a project architect and would probably still be there if Fritz were still alive and in ousiness. When Bert Bidwell came to Fritz in 1964 with ihe Mountain Plaza project, it was originally assigned to another of Fritz's PAs, Jack Campoell. As the preliminary design was unfolding, it became clear that Jack's and Bert's personalities were not on the same page. Since I had been and was a good friend of Bert's, I was asked to take over the project, which I was glad to do. Bert had only four requirements for the design; he wanted as much rental space as possible; he wanted us to stay within his low budget ($200,000); he wanted "Mountain Modem" and he wanted a sunken courtyard on the comer, because he was in negotiations to rent the lower floor to Sunny's Rendezvous, which was located at the time in a similar space one block to the north under Aspen Drug. The building that resulted from our efforts was perfect for the program that Bert presented to us. We maxed out the space (18,000 square feet at the time); it was definitely "Mountain Modem"; Bert got his sunken courtyard (and a lease from Sunny); and the building cost came in at a paltry $9.33 per square foot, unheard of even then and far below Bert's budget number. To say now that the Mountain Plaza is not one of Fritz's more successful examples is grossly nmve. If one considers it in the context of maintaining good client relations, meeting a constraining budget and creating an example of Mountain Modem that pleased the client, the Mountain Plaza is definitely "historic" and actually does represent Fritz's best work. I know what Fritz and Bert would say now if they could sit in on your meetings and listen to tbe discussions about filling in the courtyard and doubling the height ofthe building, bastardizing it for tbe sake of more income, while at the same time ruining the character of the most important retail corner in Aspen. They would not want to have anything to do with the new structure and would advise that the building be tom down to join many otber magnificent structures (some of Fritz's included) that have suffered the same fate. That's what I would do, too! Robert Sterling Battlement Mesa BACK .... http://aspentimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060103/LETTERJlOI020014&Search...1/20/2006 n.O}'Cll lIme,,, ews IOr P,spen Colorado - Letters to the Editor Page I of I fa__ Some history on the historical December 17, 2005 Dear Editor: There seems to be a weird trend for public officials to try to think for dead people recently. While I would never presume to chromel or to speak for my good friend, Fritz Benedict, I am in a position to shed light on what he would do about the building on the comer of Galena and Cooper. I had a lengthy discussion with Fritz on this very subject, albeit regarding a different building. At the time, I was involved m the Highlands redesign and Fritz's "beloved" A-frame base lodge was in jeopardy. The building assumed more emoti:mal support and timeless stories than it did structural integrity _ still we were looking for ways to "save it" - at a different site. And I, personally, needed Fritz's blessing beforeI launched any kind of justification for its demise. Fritz laughed at me affectionately and stated that "the structure has seen its day in the sun." He continued, "Times change and materials change and change is good." He was a man of the future and while he revered the lessons of the past he was not sentimental about it. He would be the last person to support the preservation of a mediocre design that clearly has presented challenges from its inception. All you need to do is try to list the names of all the restaurants that have not survived the moat. Because of my profession (in the historical field), I feel I must add a qualifier here. Please do not construe the above comments to mean. that I don't support the historical preservation program in our community because I do, wholeheartedly. In some instances I would choose to be less accommodating than HPC has been. I am merely suggesting that there is a line somewhere beyond which preservation becomes impedimenta for the entire community - and this is the struggle that HPC deals with all the time. In this specific case, I'm hoping to aid their dilemma with a personal anecdote. Georgia Hanson Aspen ~..... http://aspentimes.com/apPS/PbCS.dIllarticle?AID=/20051217ILETTERJl12170026&Search...1/20/2006 . fxkt~l B. Haas Land Planning, LLC Memo To: From: The Aspen Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning, LLC John Rowland, Rowland + Broughton Architecture & Urban Design Thru: Amy Guthrie, Aspen Historic Preservation Planner Date: March 24, 2006 Re: Mountain Plaza Building/434 E. Cooper Avenue (aIkIa The Bidwell Building) Introduction i Mark and Jeannine Bidwell (collectively, the applicant) own the Mountain Plaza Building/434 E. Cooper Avenue located at the northwest comer of Galena Street and the Cooper Avenue Mall. The property is not on the City of Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures (the Inventory), but is located within the Commercial Core Historic Overlay District. The applicant intends to complete a significant remodel of the Mountain Plaza Building, and the remodel will involve demolishing more than 40% of the existing structure. As a threshold issue for this project, it must be agreed that the existing building is not worthy of historic designation and, thus, protection or preservation. Since this question has not yet been resolved, the applicant has not gone to the effort and expense of having the remodel/addition fully designed. In other words, there would be no point in having developed remodel and addition plans that would result in a building with an almost completely different look and feel if the HPC still felt the structure was historically significant and, therefore, not able to be completely overhauled in the first place. Therefore, this is an application for demolition, pursuant to Section 26.415.080 of the Code. Background After two work sessions with the HPC and a meeting with representatives of the Aspen Community Development Department, it has been agreed that the only way to satisfactorily resolve this threshold question is to submit a formal application for demolition and hold the public hearing necessary to bring the question to a close. The logic here holds that, if the HPC allows demolition, the subsequent application for conceptual approval of a 201 NORTH MILL STREET, SUITE 108. ASPEN, CO 81611 . (970) 925-7819. FAX (970) 925-7395 Page 1 of 4 Bidwell/MI. Plaza Building HPC Demalition Application March 24, 2006 major development will proceed without any question as to effects on a historically significant structure; rather, that review would focus on consistency with the Commercial Core Historic District. The applicant hired Nancy R. Lyons, AlA, of Preservation Partnership to study the subject property and its historic significance (or lack thereof). Please review Ms. Lyons' report in full before proceeding through review of this application letter. Ms. Lyons found, as shown in the attached report, the existing building was erected in 1965 and was designed in the offices of Fritz Benedict. For a full description of the history and existing conditions, please refer to the provided report. Ms. Lyons concluded the Mountain Plaza Building to be emblematic of commercial buildings designed in Benedict's office in that it was designed by junior architects with little direct input from Benedict himself and that the design was tenant-driven with a tight budget. Ms. Lyons further concludes that, "It is more difficult to make a case for the Bidwell (Mountain Plaza] Building being representative of Benedict's contribution to the evolution of a local vernacular." Ms. Lyons explains that, "This new local 'style', influenced by Wrightian principals and adapted to the mountain region is better represented by Benedict's residential structures, where he had more freedom to express his landscape design principals and their relationship to the buildings, and where he was personally responsible for the design and all its details. " With specific regard to demolition, Ms. Lyons assessment concludes that, While the Bidwell Building is typical of office/retail buildings constructed in the central business district during the Aspen 195 Os- I970s "boom" years, it has little to offer as a reminder of the significant contributions of Fritz Benedict. Furthermore, there are indications that the building is nearing its useful life span and would require extensive alterations and re-building just to remain viable and maintain its current appearance. Seen in this context, the demolition (or extensive remodeling) of the Bidwell Building does not appear to represent a loss to the site or the district of historically significant resources. Review Requirements The intent of Chapter 26.415 of the Code is to preserve the historic and architectural resources of Aspen that have demonstrated significance to the community. Accordingly, requests to demolish more than 40% of any structure listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures (the Inventory) are prohibited unless specifically approved by the HPC. While the subject property is not designated on the Inventory, it is within the Commercial Core Historic District; therefore, a request to demolish more than 40% of the existing structure requires HPC approval pursuant to Section 26.415.080(A)(4) of the Code. Page 2 of 4 Bidwell/Mf. Plaza Building HPC Demolition Application March 24, 2006 Section 26.415.080(A)( 4) of the Code provides that, the HPC shall approve a request for demolition if it is demonstrated that the application meets anyone of the following criteria: . a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen, or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and Clearly, even if an "appropriate location" existed, the Mountain Plaza building cannot practically be moved. The building is quite sizable and includes several levels, one of which is fully below grade with a relatively large walk-out area. Also, the building's structural integrity is questionable. The size, configuration (arcades, sunken areas, split levels, etc.) and methods of construction make relocation of the Mountain Plaza building highly impractical, if not impossible. Furthermore, no documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance. Indeed, the only buildings identified as contributing (having local designation) to the integrity and significance of the Commercial Core Historic District are those from the District's so-called "Period of Significance" (1880s-1893). While the building was designed in the offices of Fritz Benedict, the structure was actually designed by junior architects with little direct input from Benedict. The design was tenant driven and based on tight budgetary constraints; it is not representative of the contribution Benedict made to the evolution of a local vernacular (influenced by Wrightian principles and adapted to the mountain region)(Lyons, 2006). In addition to needing to be consistent with one of the four preceding standards, a request for demolition must also be found by the HPC to meet each of the following criteria: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located, and The parcel itself has no historic significance other than being in the Commercial Core Historic District. The structure has never been listed as contributing to the Page 3 of4 Bidwell/MI. Plaza Building HPC Demolition Application March 24, 2006 significance of the district. lndeed, the only buildings identified as contributing (having local designation) to the integrity and significance of the Commercial Core Historic District are those from the District's so-called "Period of Significance" (1880s-1893). The subject structure was built in 1965 (per the Pitkin County Assessor's records), long after the "period of significance." It is argued that the existing structure actually detracts from the integrity of the historic district. The building recedes away from the street and pedestrian fares, greeting the public not with an inviting entry and prevalent storefront windows but, instead, with a sunken courtyard that serves as an impediment to access. The building occupies one of, if not the most important comers in Aspen's downtown area but does not provide or enhance the streetscape in the manners prescribed by the Aspen Historic Preservation Guidelines. Indeed, in adherence to the Guidelines, the HPC would not allow a similar structure (with arcades, a sunken front courtyard/"moat", hard+locate front doors, etc.) to be built today. As a central tenet of modernist and Wrightian design principles, form must follow function; the years have proven quite clearly that the Bidwell Building does not function at all well, as evidenced by the inability of tenants to last _n it follows that, if the functionality is a failure, so too is the form. b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties, and Please see narratives provided in response to previous review standards. While the Bidwell building is typical of many buildings of its time, it has little to offer about the important parts of Aspen's 1950s resurgence or about the contributions of Fritz Benedict thereto. The existing building bears little historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties. The previous building on the subject site had a relatively strong architectural and aesthetic relationship with adjacent properties (many of which still exist); however, the design of the existing structure was driven by cost considerations and tenant needs, with little concern for relationship with surrounding buildings (Lyons, 2006). c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. Please see narratives provided in response to previous review standards. While the Bidwell building is typical of many buildings of its time, it has little to offer about the important parts of Aspen's 1950s resurgence or about the contributions of Fritz Benedict thereto (Lyons, 2006). C\My DocumentslCity Applications\BidweI1\Derro Application Page 4 of 4 THE BIDwm BUILDING Iv ALUATION OF HISTORIC SIGNillCANU : Provided to: Haas Land Planning Aspen, Colorado ,....-.-...'......-...... ~ PREsERVATION PARTNERSHIP 23 MARCH 06 THE BIDWELL BUILDING EVALUATION OF mSTORIC SIGNIFICANCE PROJECT INTENTIMETHODOLOGY Nancy Lyons, AIA, of Preservation Partnership, Denver, was retained by Hass Land Planning in February, 2006 to review the Bidwell Building at 434 East Cooper Ave., Aspen with respect to a proposed program for substantial alteration/demolition. The question facing the building owner, the developer, and the City of Aspen was whether the Bidwell Building, constructed in 1965, should be considered as a contributing resource to the City's Commercial Core Historic District, and as such, maintained in its original appearance. The site and the district were reviewed and photographed in early March by Ms. Lyons. Other buildings in the vicinity that were attributed to Fritz Benedict, architect of the Bidwell Building, were also visited to provide a context for the body of architect's work. Background docwnents reviewed for the purpose of this report included applicable City regulations, prior studies, maps, and photographs: .:. Historic photos, l880s .;. Sanborn Insurance Maps, 1904 .:. Bidwell Building construction drawings, 1965 .:. Aspen Design Guidelines, 2000 .:. OAHP Inventory Form, 2000 .:. Update of Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites Structures, 2000 .:. Aspen Retail Analysis, 2003 .;. Aerial Photos, 2005 .:. Historic Building Contextual Analysis, 2006 .:. Schematic design for alterations, 2006 .:. Engineering evaluation for alterations, 2006 Personal and telephone interviews were conducted with the following individuals: .;. Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer, City of Aspen .;. Eleanor "Ellie" Brickham, Architect, long-time Aspen resident who worked with Fritz Benedict and Herbert Bayer early in her career .;. Robert "Bob" Sterling, Architect, long-time Aspen resident who was the project architect for the Bidwell Building in J 965 .:. Sarah Broughton and John Rowland, Rowland & Broughton Architecture and Urban Design, presently retained for redevelopment design of the Bidwell Building and site BUILDING DESCRIPTION Constructed in 1965, the Bidwell Building is a two-story office/retail building with a floor plate of approximately 6,300 square feet on a 9,000 square foot site at the comer of East Cooper A venue and Galena Street. It is a heavy-timber structure with a flat root; deep overhangs, and a first-story roof supported on wood posts that overhangs the sidewalk and public right-of-way along Galena Street. The comer of the site is a sunken courtyard space with access to basement level retail spaces via a stair on the southwest of the courtyard. Predominate building materials are the exposed painted wood structure, storefront glazing, and a variegated red brick veneer. Decorative wrought iron panels with a floral motif are used at balconies. Robert "Bob" Sterling, project architect for the building in 1965, has described the style of the Bidwell Building as "Mountain Modern". The program for the building's design originated with its owner, Bert Bidwell. Bidwell, according to Sterling, wished to maximize the rental space, minimize the costs, and also accommodate the building's first tenant of the basement space, Sunny's Rendezvous, who desired a lower level courtyard space accessible from the street. The owner's program also dictated the expressed timber structure and the fiat roof. While the Bidwell Building clearly retains its original "modemist" characteristics and materials, it does show signs of wear and potential structural problems. From a cursory observation, instances of checking and deflection of wood beams are evident. Sterling noted that the wood columns were designed to very near structural capacity at the time of construction and were "questionable" in terms of necessary lateral support, an observation that was also noted in a 2005 review of the building by KL&A Structural Engineers. Code compliance of the building is currently substandard in certain respects: interior partitions added subsequent to its original construction present a potential fire hazard in the heavy timber construction type, there is a lack of handicapped accessibility, and the arcade roof projects over the public right-of-way. CONTEXT: COMMERCIAL CORE mSTORlC DISTRICT The Aspen Commercial Core Historic District is presently defmed with a Period of Significance ofthe 1880s (the mining days) to 1893 (the Silver Crash). Buildings currently identified with individual designation as "contributing" date from this period. Aspen's "quiet years", between 1893 and the end of World War II, represent a time of sparse development, and there are almost no structures in the district that date from that period. With the expansion of the ski industry following World War II, Aspen began a second period of growth and development. There are many examples in the District of office and retail buildings that date from the 1950s to the 1970s. These can generally be characterized as belonging to the "modernist" tradition stylistically, one that eschewed the design vocabulary, symmetry, and street patterns of their "Victorian" precedents in the area, and were generally designed and constructed on minimal budgets in a development environment that favored short term results over broader planning and preservation interests. Buildings in the District constructed post-I 980 are generally of better quality, but also suffer from open space and view plane regulations that appear to have worked against maintenance of the 1880's fabric. Constructed in 1965, The Bidwell Building is typical of the 1950s-1970s period. It was constructed with materials less durable and less expensive than its neighboring masonry structures, and with methods requiring less skilled labor and craftsmanship. Its design was largely tenant-driven, and it broke ranks from the previously established patterns of setbacks and massing. CONTEXT: FRITZ BENEDICT The City's context document for Aspen's 20th century Modernist period provides a good background on Fritz Benedict as an important figure in the City's post World War II "rebirth" with the development of the ski industry and the Aspen Institute. Benedict was a member of the lOth Mountain Division, which spawned the key players in the new ski industry throughout the region. He maintained the primary (some say "only") architectural practice in Aspen in the midst of the expanding growth in the 1950s, and his office was the training ground for many new architects looking to take part in the excitement of the growth and the new stylistic trends. Benedict made a significant contribution to the development of a new "mountain" vernacular architecture that drew from Frank Lloyd Wright's "organic" principals and also incorporated the local Colorado climate and landscape. He is also credited, according to Bob Sterling, with development of the "cold roof', a design that is still used today to solve the problem of ice dams that occur at roof eaves in the Colorado mountain climate. Fritz Benedict is clearly a key figure in the history of Aspen. The choice of the Bidwell Building as an appropriate reminder of Benedict is, however, debatable. The building can be considered emblematic of commercial buildings designed in Benedict's office during the 1960s: It reflects the restrictive budget and tenant-driven design that was typical of the I 950s-1970s period in Aspen. It was designed not directly by Fritz Benedict, but by one of the project architects in his office, Robert Sterling, with minor oversight from Benedict-a practice that was also typical of the period. It is more difficult to make a case for the Bidwell Building being representative of Benedict's contribution to the evolution of a local vernacular. This new local "style", influenced by Wrightian principals and adapted to the mountain region is better represented by Benedict's residential structures, where he had more freedom to express his landscape design principals and their relationship to the buildings, and where he was personally responsible for the design and all its details. While several of the Benedict-designed residential structures have, sadly, been lost, this loss has prompted a heightened vigilance regarding preservation of Aspen's modernist architectural heritage. It would follow that the City of Aspen move forward to expand upon their study of the 1950s-1970s context and add to it a more detailed documentation and evaluation of existing structures as well as recordation from personal interviews with individuals still living in the community who can add to the story of this period from direct experience. It is important to flesh out the "story" first, so that it can serve as the basis of selection for which physical structures are designated as important representatives of this "story". IMP ACT OF DEMOLITION OF THE BIDWELL BUILDING While the Bidwell Building is typical of office/retail buildings constructed in the central business district during the Aspen 1950s-1970s "boom" years, it has little to offer as a reminder of the significant contributions of Fritz Benedict. Furthermore, there are indications that the building is nearing its useful life span and would require extensive alterations and re-building just to remain viable and maintain its current appearance. Seen in this context, the demolition (or extensive remodeling) of the Bidwell Building does not appear to represent a loss to the site or the district of historically significant resources. An infill development in this location will have an important impact on the Commercial Core Historic District, and design of such a re-development merits close scrutiny for its compatibility with the District's previously designated 1880s buildings as well as those 1950s-1970s building yet to be designated. ; \. " '( . . '\: , ;f~_~ __1--' !, - .,.__,-_". J-'_- /!i,. .- f ,I "'f~ > i ;f I' ".: I II~;' , , , . ~,- , i t:' .~ ~ I' ~~, +," I 'I~"-l: - ~~T - "r-~t'". :~ ,,', I ~.l. .l , ,.' ~ I _< , \ I,' J >f'l !. l- I~ i':'~; 'J;,:'.;:l 11 ~ ii' I if I} Ii i! I " I I; I' , it It",. J ~ > ij ..____J_" ,_....-... ,,,n ........,~. '-'1_-._. . ... .'-I,!.f'-'I'- .., '" n"un ,'-.~ ;,.....~ ... 1)11113.1' - '.. - ........ -- NY'.J ~J;<; i JI1I!ll I 9t.i!O,U1'<a "-:~MaKl :,. "" 11 ~ ~ '" <> !5 00 ~ ~ 3~ ~ ~ ~s _:t~r_. _'~~.' .-t' - o'['!t;; -,0. l\. .. +~;~ :~ :g ~ ~~-! ~.~ ~ ~~sx~-~ _~ 8\l~~~L(~e II , Ide IK"~ ~ i~~t!t~~gt~~ ~~jlj~~~ L~~~'It:it>.ft5&~~~jJ14 U"lJ ~~~h~~h...~ llei.. :!il '" '" b 2 .( , ,. " '-': ,- '.' ,. : .~. . . ~ '. . _. "., ...:._ .0" ,_ _ ........,..~._ :..: iM'" .........'\3.,., iO~_'g::::: !If';!! 1t-..'iX.~ !II.'''' ~-i'>"a-:::-~, ..... ,.....':"-:-.,:""".'\."'~>:..::-"" . n ',;' ':,-, I ^~t i'C' ;,~. 11~-, ~ " t.." ,,' . "i. "} f :..~ ';.;~ :A'-;:;;.;~' :,-~~ t -,", '~:..~. ,.'~ . :~~~:I~.iI. -:;.-I:D' ".", ..~ ~ ~. , . . , ' :""Jm'";;''''' . .. ~ . . '~--' ..... ... ~ v ".. ~ '" . { :' '. .. . '~_ ",' ~i, .' "-',":'" i"/ ;-f r' .j "l'!l ,y "'J -]. :fl' .l ,I:' J " ... f:.: .- >i ,ii~' 11 .~ i~~ ~, .. i' Iii',' j Ill., , " . / UU-U' ".. ,.... oo...,.~ ...... . 0.0 _A'''Li~ 00:"......."" ...,i." N 1).1 'H a., .lH .lIllI' ~ 9~;Cii~ 113MClQ "JO-. ---- ~nl -- /'(',I",:.. I' 11 !'I NI'ICII ~'."'."'<IJ..~_,..._ 'If DI031U , "IG.n.:l ~+ loi ~: ~i .{I lil~ Hj lL.. , :- t : it.. jl . v S "I ~;l, .~ ,.,j~ ------i~1 ~ '. -.,j it t ~,)~ ~- ,:tj:i .j !! F~.".''}~I r'~I;j. 1 " r:Jjj~ 'i . . ~ .------4 ! I" 1,' @) .. 'I 1 I +t i i ~ I 1I""1tt ~ fli 1,1 J ~ r~~... l~' it n *1 1't; ~r---~r;. r 'l ',' J J UU 1, I = k.~-.-~.~----'--1t. ;\,~>r' ~ & _~ hI - :. - " _':L ~ l:irJI : . iii ~-~ G q, . i, .,~,~~- 0 l' I~I ""'-' 1'.111., :i..~.!} il!, ....f.ll........ " J! .~. l.. !~.t +t- I;' I': \:~i t~ \ ~~" l~F J , I . ! I 1..,1 ".1'1 l,. ;i -~....'------ ~ .. .....,.,. . '.'M.... , .' , . 1 I' . "II' !j: I!I ,. i!ji. :h'l"ilj :in''" 111il.J. 1.' Ii .' l'filll1 Iql'I"., '111,:1 ,I -.t..l! . I #. .~. 1 H . 11 ~. . "., I !f !CJ!hlilliua'hl r , l . I ! . f t. t I, .. ~~,',: .......i:. ~,. } """ .-'. '''''' .~. " -," -- .~ . . \ ..11....'..: "11\ <. ~:C' :.. "~ . ~ ~ 1 ~, \ '1 t~ -- .....n.. .,,0 IIUS H"_"'~ ........ " '" :."-.....,.'"I.,;~ ~i ., I ~ . , I J'. 'Tf ,i).Hi'''' )I"'3i~ ... - ~iOlI0'i "1.a'MOl9 ~-~ _...~ ---- -~ " - y,j 'llIU.U m.t_'':'Yl-1l JVH'~ y - - -Wi. tQJ f' I l I I e . I \ H . "j ! I ~ if ~i . I i / ,. ~ !Jf :p .H I@ I , I ..14 ~ err I I !> z . " I 'j- t , ~-"-'- !IJi1.....'. ....~. '....';......'..'>'.' , " -.,- Of 'ri ' <. ~" ,f.- ..-_. "1",,1:\",:,._. ~ . J} '." '. c0 l' ,~'~" i~ _ .'. .l .--- -~ vi. 'r ......<<... "... on..,o:> ~- """,:,.. -",....,,,,, . ~.; , , 11.'''14' ." .lJ:I1I1) " 9NlGlH1q 11;1;'401'i - ,. ...-.. .-..~... .. - flY !)113IJI Y )!Unl _.- -- --.......1' 'foITj '!)fIt1l-1T..... "1001.. (lWO:;l3.~ 1 i~"'<ii'"~"'-"ii-- -----, I ~ ( I l '" .p- ~ ;. .. 'I 1 -it' ~,\' - j " '. " t, ,- I !,-- I I I.! : III ~..l ' ~i !" ~ ~I I ,...".., );> i; ~ " .. I Q J I - -' 0( ~ u o " .. ',' r , I r L l-l f ;;. ."f.;1>-~' :;~~;, ....d..... ';';.".' .".;.'.; ..,..... ". ....;:....1.. '. . -, :.-;':- ,,~ :.- < :' "-~:-' <.i,' .--:<,'~'.":'; ~, ~. t'i ..~ . '.-4' '-. ,; Iill" 14 ~ .........,...... ... - '/ ~'! --'----- .'""tv __. --... , ... .., -- --'. ........-OIl..,...,. """'" .~; I .., " L"lHil)_" ""'HJ1Inq_ 113/Mllq 'IY lltuU., ~..t': - ..~ I I ~ , , } . r . i ) I I . . ; II , ~, ,." '" (~ ~- tt I , , ~ - --.,.... " t& Illtlll 11"'..1. "U ~NIW"" .. ~.--'-#--' I . 1 ,. " ~' ~ I i I ~ t l ' ~ j l, I ~ ( i ". . i( i}~: t lijlJ- :.: <Ill iii ~ : ,.JII H l: -Ulil ' Il:i:~ ~ hilt \ I \ @J ~ \ ~ I ( , il I -:f\ I ': " i ~ f '~-"--- S Q -; -~. - "",' ;'.gt".r- ,~l<~t;,.., I II ...,., .- ~......," if 'r r"J ~ " =:"':' ~I"""":"" "~_~ - - ~ '""" ,'/- . @ -- . .' \ .r I I ' '- 'Ii""H "... ....0""0 I" I 'c. ~--~ ../ ...n _ u. .. , Cay.....'<7'"? - ~, M ~J.~. - J')JI.,., 91''Ioa11nQ ,"13!ll;<J1Q - ~- -- 'IY DlaUH , ~Ilall~ :nJ . \ It \ II Ii .. . ,1I ,." . 'll 'II I lif I.. .. '~I te ~f / , .' , - .'. !" ! II I I,: ! ~ri' 'OJ It 1 . I ,& I" i, -- ... I' ~ I ' I " 'I Ii, " ... , 11 I', l. ntf t t 'tt II ! ."ni~ ,~ ~I' .. ";' ~~I ~r .. .. r ' " " " , 1(\ :iI:;- 't '; , ' . .~ I IiI ~ j\ l~ (", 11 d I flh jl ~t~ ,: i Ii; ) ). ~ !";,i! " , , ! l!i / : , ill' , II ~.; " \ II , J, . . , . " 1 I d r i , I I ! . , II, ~ , ilL I!! f' III .. i ,.I ~ Ii' ~! ~I +-+ It "il l ri ~ t.i. + .,.-'- -~ - ~ p;1.J ~NOIJ::>'i<; t:t' IL -t : ~: ~ 11 1 lli ~I !i " ~ p ~I ' ., k , 'il "I .. ~!t "1 , , I 1 ! 3> ;, z o ~j' il ',!/II I ""' 'Z , . " > I, lol- I . ' : I . 1 :JI,11 ' , f~~'h 3h '" . ". f , {' 2 " ~ [ I i I I, I: [ i r : IL ), . .' , ,. , @ z o ~ ~ . . II ~,: ::, t. -to I~,', J ~j,1 '( .,',' kt' , . ' , .af . ,u,".u ... IJII'" 'If DIOlIll , )IUfH /"."0) ...... .. ".. ,.{~, lJ 1111) I' -< --. - ~"- <)Nfa'ln<;l 113MQ:<; - - - ~,- -- ,0;\ ..; !;NOiJ.':)3; ~ ~ t t, ;;[ , ~ : ti " i III '1 ~ j II ' , . ti- t + ~~ j , .. t<i: 'I. , 1 ~ i i ~ IiI I ~i c: l~ It: I t!; .~ :'1 .. hi .. t~i I I I I , I , I I " I I I I' .1, l\ r I llf m ! , I Iii ! , ~I t .~ pit If t~ " i'. l' l' !\-! , j I . i JIM f i: ltl, . f- I' i I . ',. f' I . I fl II " j' .1 -, f\ j. . , f . , I,} --~--+-,-, I ' II 1: I " b i--r--- , Jli! :;1, "1,1 -:il !! :1 ji ':ii' ''I )!'!':~d il. , ' := \ 'I' ~ I ) II,. I 'i' ""Ii I 1'1' i; ,!'!>~ ,I I~~ i ~ -, NJ i i ii!'!: i::rjiii , ! i: II I' II II ~,H , , r-1" ,,, !. I !ir! .. I Ii.! ~ ;ii ii ! > I' it I '" i H. I --.lc~r il I' ii: " , i- I I' ; " nil I a! e' i Ii. j" .11 m '" t I I ;: , ~ J I /, , / '. ; Kl .\ n m I f · II' 'II II , f I ~ ;~ if , ~ !i'rA u 'b ;J ,~, I, , .~ : II " ;, -;i {" :: "_f ',1 I: .. r ~ ; I' i I': Ii! I' ,~, ~~ ..~ I r I , z ,t I' j !f 0 , ~ "-I t u j .1 j . " '. ! . t .! . , j t j ! ,-- I , ~ '~ . \ l it' ~ . \ !l + ilo. Ii. . , i Ai " ] ~ r: - i ~{ " . - ~"! ~~ , n / ,h " ::i. j~ l ~r "fl ":, ~ .~~ .ctl - / - / '00. .....,.~ uu... . ~.. IJIII'H .11 !'J.lII)., 'IY DIGlBI , )1143U ~ ~ I . , -~-- ,! In " " '1/ Iii 'I lih Ii ..' II" i!j , : ~ I I:, 11 :e ,['I <) :! c '~i! ~ If .. d fi-l !Il !'r n._it, ,. :11 Ill' ill c{ l'li w ]I ,I " ill if I ill ill " j tl I i, rd' ii ~!i --d~; ... i;i ;tff ~ I;i! I t : \, '.\ ~ . . \</ I " 111".1 II , P1 iii' ~l:t', @ g~ I, . qli , h I it II f! I i t- I: \,lJi J j,~ \'" ,,~i . "fi' . f"" I , , ~ in ( I II - .' t~ ~. ~i =., 4 ':!pjl ~ "' '" -/:-rl'. '." ,. a }\.' ~ :f ,'/" ~"'i!\, ~ ' it -b.. i.e . --,:;. .....-......" !)t"QllnQ .... ..... -- ph' ~l'IgUY"'.'13 t r.-<" j -I ' " ...-:" ~ _._.t~ Ix r.....~ ._l8 ,!' ",,! L....J L"!"'~!!!.~ .......... l~ i tt I ./ i "'r \ I, Pi i ~ll .!I ) ~ -+ v , ^ II , , j j " e ~'~.y Y13.l1.dlt - I c' -( I ~ I ."--t . 'Iii II IIi ;!~ ~ ii: ::. ill ;1j i' f;: I" z Ili ~ !i ~ i:! ~ "' Ii; -_._~ ~ !i; 0 )" z II: iq " , " ji " " " " " I IL lid: , I +11 ~ . @ j " ii @ --' ~ ^ .' "- 0 J '. < 0' I ~ I u n i J U " n z t: !l l " ~ II - ... , r- :....-.--.- -.\ t'- I' -d lr"~- -: \ i' i~ Il . ! ,Ii ~ , . ~ ~I m ~ ~. " , ~ll 1 f l I i :~ .j r "2 ." ;, It! ~r' ", I ., ~ I !!~ tllli, 1ft .' " ';1;'" dll - ..If ... - :' u Q >- Z 0 U J l\ '. , .~ b-,--u :' 1 I Uil - 1 lid I I U I III I I , e ! I . f l~fTo ; 1 'II ; ~i lid . . ' ! t; " ,. ! I ...~ I \ \ ~'.' " i', " , '. i I ~--- . -- ;;.;~- I q 5/ I ! 'I'f! :~ ~ , }hln tlr.m / I I !Jlfi U 11 I I II' . 1 . , , : i I (l I il 1\ I. /' r . , ,..,-," "'. "... .u....~ III.". t.T 'If oun,. , ...... .110_. .1) J!lI).' )lllill iiii ~_ "T .....i),... I ' " - .. , \ I '... ~: _ ; ..~, ...1 : I '~! r II ~--- - ~ · I :i f.....~~! 31 I ~ " ~ n t " ,. - - ,,' t;L.,j ~' i '" z o " < ~j,' "il~~ .. : 4-- ' -----,-.- -J :s $: i. : ! 1- " ~ ;;, J ~ u o J :; If g ! ~ f' ~ :I -~ ~ ~,...~ ....y.<"T'<= "..... ,,';,'tIdiQ ""- 9Nldllfl'il -- -- ~'!"'..t= I ~~/ \ ! I" I i H rlr I } ~ ,I. . ~: ~, i -: i i -ti ; ., ~ " J *- J .- . '.L. €J! Q ~ '" I ~::! " .' J z"' :5 it: "::5;; ~ ol!'l @H J ~ ~ 8 ~ -, , jf ~ ~ . , , 1 j , " ~'",.",i~l!~ i fi -.,'" ~~ ! __ I !::!..::J If ~ II ii I I ,! II ~ ~ I ~ "1- J iI:>' ~l ,-- f ~: i'i , . j. ! ~ \ ~ ' I ~ i , ';!' 1-- '->-, ! 1 :-n , '1-1 .' : > < SANBORN MAP, 1904 ~. - /Jo, .. -..... ... - DJt ~'''''''r · ="" = ""- ..... - - - -..-.... - - - - - .. - ~ - - ... , ~:;:Il" .' 10 'aI ...:..I --' : 89 ,. , o ~ , ,~ ~ , " .. ;r :t " . ;; ~ ~ .," ,"'GzN-o aq- ,.. := __+ ____ __ __ _ ___..c.rr~...... __ _ ___ PRISERV ATlON P ARTNERSHlP '1:.. eu ~ ~~ ! C!J 'l r ---liI!Ir.r.J----~--.------.-..--.-~----.~:-..t-- - - !-~- -- .c~_ _____________1_ ------L.H:tDI.f.:N--9-- --- -----Nlr- ----r- ...._--..,~. _.....a_...fIM .. L 3 - - ~ '. -. _ .". _. @h. lI!~ fJ ,;:, : . ~ .. ... .. .-:- .... - f . U j . .. ; ~ , i i ' " ~ I, . 1 i . ~ ~. :.I' #' '1 -.........-....--u-...----.-.---__n_..."""l:!._..l._ __+ ______ __ _ ___oC"t........ _ __ _ ___~___ __&..QQQ.P~_______ _ ~"..___~..._ '" '''"' , ~ , :\:1 ~ I .!~. : ! . , : : w"l : : , I ." ' , ~, :.' i i ~ s m ; . , , : ---.......--.,1. I' If : . e . ------------.;..--------.r/l,.,-----.N-~-----________.cFJl<.. _ f J:..Elll8&fjT A.V. e: o !.. .. -- ---f- ----- --_______________L.__ .. 7" ~ , ,. ~ . . :r ~ ~ o '" ui ;. --~ -~ - - - - ~ , PRESERVATION PARTNERSHIP SANBORN MAP, 1904 @ _ E-HCekUlS -Qo"D'! _ _ MI_ _ @ . o' ". Tompkins Hardware Building, looking south from Coop_ 74.110321.jpg Tompkins Hardware Building. looking south from Cooper Avenue 74.110.44Jpg HISTORIC PHOTOS Cooper Avenue looking west from Hunter Street (circa 1893) 74.6939.jpg Tompkins Hardware Building. comer of Galena Street and Cooper Avenue (clrca_ 74.6953.jpg PRfSIRV ATlON P ARTNIRSHIP Tompkins Hardware Building looking southwest from Galena Street (circa 1963) 70.2.21.jpg HISTORIC PHOTOS 7S.S.13SJpg PRESERVATION PARTNERSHIP 3/6/2006 Aspen-043_edited~ 1 JPG ~ -""""=-'~'~,'':--' .,-,'''"".;--- " ."."'-' ,.'.~ . . .:~>' """;""',....:::.', ':Fi~..:::::'~", 3/61200<> Aspen-{}51 JPG HISTORIC DISTRICT PHOTOS 3/6/2006 Aspen-04] JPG 3/6/2006 Aspen~058JPG PRESERVATION P ARTNIRSHIP 3/ti12006 Aspen-063JPG = -::..::1 3f6l2006 Aspen-066_edited-l JPG HISTORIC DISTRICT PHOTOS ~ ,-.--., 316!J:006 Aspen-065JPG 316/2006 Aspen-Q68_edited-l JPG PRESERVATION PARTNERSHIP 31612006 Aspen-<l72_edited-lJPG 316/2006 Aspen~074_edited-1JPG HISTORIC DISTRICT PHOTOS '1 3/612006 Aspen-073_edited-l JPG" 31612006 Aspen-<l75_edited-lJPG PRISERV ATlON PARTNERSHIP 3161:l006 Aspen-077 JPG 3/612006 Aspen-078JPG HISTORIC DISTRICT PHOTOS 316nOO6 Aspen"'{)79_edited-l JPG PRESERVATION PARTNERSHIP 9/612005 leftJPG ---) 9/612005 Best.jpg BIDWELL BUILDING 91612005 sideJP~ 31612006 Aspen-ol0JPG PRfSERV ATION PARTNERSHIP ,ton"'" Aspen-019JPG ,_"'~~:~~~~;rJ]f~\~~~1i~~t~~~t{-~~ "LLJ. [11 ~\\\\':~~,~_~~ 31612006 Aspen-025JPG BIDWELL BUILDING '16J2006 Aspen-020JPG 316/2006 Aspen-027 JPG PRESERVATION PARTNERSHIP '1612006 Aspen-028JPG 31612006 Aspen-030JPG BIDWELL BUILDING 3/6/2006 Aspen-029JPG 31612006 Aspen-Q31JPG PRfSERV ATION PARTNERSHIP 316/2006 Aspen-032JPG --'1 BIDWELL BUILDING 3/612006 Aspen-033JPG A 4-", ~.~ ""~.,,, " :~ .:!- \, 3/1512006 Aspen-035JPG PRESERVATION P ARTNERSHlP BIDWELL BUILDING Interview Notes Phone interview, 3/8/06 Elenor (Ellie) Brickham PO Box 167 Aspen, CO 81612 970-925-7508 rifref@rof.net Currently lives in Starwood She initially came to Aspen in 1951 to learn to ski. She had been working for an architect in Denver, Gordon Leigh. Fritz asked her to work with him and she did so from 1951 to 1957. In 1955, she built a house for herself on Red Mountain, that was the 7th house built there (now very built up). She had her office in her house. In total, she designed 7 houses in Starwood, including a house for Edgar Stem. Ellie, along with Herbert Bayer and Fritz did the mural at Seminar Building at the Institute in the 1950s, which is still there and is an important building at the Institute. She designed a house for a Kansas City couple at 4th & Bleeker that was designated historic, but demolished none the less. The owners (now deceased) owned the whole block. The wife was not well toward the end of her life and had talked of leaving the house to Ellie, but that never happened. She was on the COU!lty Planning a.'1d Zoning board for 5 years. She questions whether they are doing a very good job now. She follows their meetings on TV. Characterization of Fritz's work: definitely influenced by Wright, organic. Re the Bidwell building: Yes, it is representative of his work. Re Jesse Bidwell: She and her husband, John, have a summer house in Twin Lakes as well as an apartment in the Benedict Building, designed by Fritz. They often spend winters in Mexico. She could not remember John's last name. PhonelnterviewNotes.doc Preservation Partnership Page 1 of3 Phone interview, 3/8/06 Robert (Bob) Sterling Box 6025 Battlement Mesa, CO 81636 970-285-1218 970-285-1010 He worked in Fritzs office 1963- I 967. He took over as project architect on the Bidwell Building from Jack Campbell who did the preliminary design. Jack and Bert Bidwell had a falling out. Bert was a friend Fritz and Bob. His program was to do the building inexpensively and drove many decisions. The building was built at a cost of$180,000, $9 .63/SF. Bert wanted heavy timber, rather than steel, and flat roofs. The building was constructed as a Type III Heavy Timber with no concealed spaces (that would be a hazard), but they went in and added lots of partitions soon after they got the CO. He considers the building fIre trap now. The sunken area on the comer was designed tenant. driven, an accommodation for a nightclub that Sonny, a future tenant wanted to have. The structure (timber columns) is possibly failing at this point, potential buckling of columns. Bob questions that the building could not take an additional floor. Better to demo and start over. The contractor was Bill Chamberlain, Chamberlain Construction (the least expensive contractor in town, hired by Bert). Bob sent letter to Amy with a full description of this background and also a follow up to her. Bob does not view the Bidwell building as emblematic of Fritz Benedicts's work. [More representative would be the houses that he actually did design, but the best is lost.] Re Fritz: He was well liked, very personable. He was not directly involved with the design of most of the building that came out of his office, except for residences. He generally passed off the design to others in this office. His office was the training ground for many architects starting out. He considered himself an architect, but really he was more a developer, a land baron. He was a very important figure in this period of the City of Aspen. As an architect, one of his contributions was the cold roof, which he invented. They were struggling at the time with the flat roofs that clients wanted and the problem of ice dams. First they came up with doing pitched roofs with flat eaves (like on the Aspen Alps at the Stillwater Ranch property along Ute), but then moved to the cold roof as a better solution (that is still used today). They really did contribute to the development of a local vernacular. Re City regs: Bob is of the opinion that the City is just looking at the tax base value of rebuilding the Bidwell building. He thinks they should save as many of the Benedict buildings as possible, although the best (e.g. Waterfall) have already been demolished. The postwar era is a very important part of the Aspen story, according to Bob, and the City should designate buildings to represent this period. The City's regulations have not worked well. In 1968, Bob (and others) developed a proposal for underground parking and a program for higher density buildings surrounded by open space. Aspen hired a planner who took off from this program to develop open space and view plane requirements, but without increasing the density (FAR). This was a bastardization of the PhonelnterviewNotes.doc Preservation Partnership Page 2 of 3 prior concept, in Bob's view, and resulted in a lot of bad design. Design by committee is not always best. [The story of Fritz Benedict is about the new Aspen of the 1950s -1970's - and his role in shaping the new development. The 1960s were a time when no one had much money and they were long on vision and enthusiasm. The buildings constructed at this time may not be the best way to recall this period. A better way might be to complete research, including interviews of people who were there at this time and compilation of the drawings (done by many hands) to tell the story of this period.] Re original construction drawings: he may have a set, or partial set, of the Bidwell drawings. Jesse may also have drawings. Fritz saved everything. Bob is currently working on restoration ofthe Battlement Mesa School (1897) in Parachute; a SHF project. PhonelnterviewNotes.doc Preservation Partnership Page 3 of3 "~.~' ',~i:"'A.:, '_ , ,<'." ':"J~ , '....' , " EJ:~.i., , 1947 Cabin, 1947, 835 Main St. 835wmain.jpg 1956 Bank of Aspen (Wells Fargo), 1195. MilISt... 1956 Aspen-070JPG OTHER BENEDICT BUILDINGS 1954 Copper Kettle, 845 Meadows Rd, 1954 845 Meadows Rd.jpg 1957 Usonian House, 615 Gillespie St. (demolished), 1957 625gillespie.jpg PRESERVATION PARTNERSHIP 1957 Usonian House, 615 Gillespie St.. 1957 615gillespie.jpg '96' Waterfall House, 1961, 202 Midnight Mine Rd. (demolished) waterfallhouseJpg OTHER BENEDICT BUILDINGS '96' Pitkin County Library, 120 E. Main St.. 1960 Asperr009JPG '96' Aspen Alps, 777 Ute Ave., 1963 Aspen-Q03JPG PRESERVATION PARTNERSHIP "" Aspen Alps,. 777 Ute Ave.. 1963 Aspen-004JPG "" Aspen Square, 617 Hopkins, 1969 Aspen-oS6_edited-l.jpg OTHER BENEDICT BUILDINGS ,,., Aspen Square, 617 Hopkins, 1969 Aspen-{)S3JPG 1972 The Gant, 610 West End St.. 1972 Aspen-QOSJPG PRESERVATION PARTNERSHIP ~ 1976 The Benedict Building (Stillwataer Ranch), 1280 Ute Ave.., 1976 Aspen-Q06JPG = , , OTHER BENEDICT BUILDINGS 1978 Pitkin County Bank. 534 E. Hyman Ave., 1978 Aspen-OOlJPG PRESERVATION PARTNERSHIP _J A~RIAL MAP, 2005 PRESERVATION P ARTNERSHlP EXISTING MAP, 2005 :c ~ 0:: 0 Z w 0::: w I- ~ ...J Z Z ~ :::l 0 (!) :c :?: C/) en C/) E. HYMAN AVENUE ~ C:J E. DURANT AVENUE PRESERVATION PARTNERSHIP 'f)<hl~lt L-- . RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION OF THE BUILDING LOCATED AT 434 E. COOPER AVENUE, LOTS Q, R, AND S, BLOCK 89, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 14, SERIES OF 2006 PARCEL ID: 2737-182-16-011 WHEREAS, the applicant, Bert Bidwell Investment Company, represented by Haas Land Planning and Rowland + Broughton Architects, has requested approval to demolish the structure located at 434 E. Cooper Avenue, Lots Q,R, and S, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, in order to authorize a demolition, according to Section 26.415.080, Demolition of designated historic properties, it must be demonstrated that the application meets anyone of the following criteria: a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen, or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and Additionallv, for approval to demolish, all of the followiue criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located, and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated May 24, 2006, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines were not met, and recommended denial; and i 1-< [,_ ( x~ WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on May 24, 2006, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application by a vote on to 2. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: HPC grants approval for Demolition of the structure located at 434 E. Cooper Avenue, Lots Q,R, and S, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 24th day of May, 2006. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERV A nON COMMISSION Jeffrey Halferty, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk T:> ).'~ ~ht~t 1) . ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2006 434 E. COOPER AVE. - DEMOLITION, CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Sarah recused herself. Amy stated that 434 E. Cooper is in the Commercial Core District. The board and staff ultimately guided the applicant that they should simply submit their demolition request and have a public hearing format to respond to the criteria. The proposal is not to necessarily tear the building to the ground but what they are doing will meet the City's definition of demolition. There is enough removal of skin, fabric etc, that we call demolition. The building will be remodeled beyond what we know it today. Staffs memo indicated that letter C of the criteria has been met (the structure cannot be moved to another location). The second group of standards talks about the significance of the building. The building was built in 1965. It is more than 40 years old. The applicant is not offering to designate this building. The core is mostly influenced by Victorian architecture; however, there was nothing said or done at that time that excluded a more modem building being contributing to the district. On Main St. there are a number of modem buildings and lodges. Part of our finding is that the building doesn't meet the criteria for demolition. It could in fact be a contributing building consequential to the preservation needs of the Commercial Core Historic District. One of the papers written by a consultant explains that in the context of the buildings that remain, this building is an interesting example of Benedict's architecture responding to the contest of the downtown and doing it in a different way than the Victorian buildings did. There are still massing relationships, fenestration, flat roof form and a variety of things that are in some ways a very creative twist on patterns that were developed by the Victorians and it is certainly-a unique building. This building has a lot of integrity and there is nothing to staffs knowledge that has been done to change it since its construction in 1965 other than basic maintenance. Staff finds that the demolition criteria are not met and the building contributes to the significance of the historic district and the loss of the building would adversely affect the integrity of the district. Fritz Benedict was an architect that contributed to town and is part of the history of our town. This is a fine building that remains of his body of work and it should not be demolished. The applicant has hired a consultant that views the preservation of the building in a different way. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2006 Mitch Haas, Land Planning John Rowland, Architect Mitch said they can understand and sympathize where staff is coming from and the position they are in with this building, and it is not an easy one. One thing that he can't get past; is this the building we really want to say has to be there from this day forward in this form. He has a hard time thinking that anyone would think this building should stay here forever. Another question, how can it be that a building which ignores, as our guidelines point out, all the character defining patterns of a Historic District contribute to the significance and integrity of that district. The guidelines for the core talk about several patterns that are defining, things such as open space on the property. Open space is occurred as accents along the street usually where a house existed in an historic context or a lot that is temporary vacant. While some open spaces may occur it should be subordinate to .the traditional character of the street. In this case our open space erodes the streetscape and the pattern of our traditional Historic District. With regard to building setbacks, buildings pull up to the street on the sidewalk edges and in this case the building setback at the comer which is the most prominent important part of the building which should address the street and pedestrians. It is setback and also provides an impediment to getting to the building, a sunken courtyard with walls around it. The building forms here are not consistent with the Commercial Core. It is an L shape away from the comer lot line with decks facing the street and arcades over the sidewalks. There are also large overhangs that are inconsistent with the Commercial Core. The pedestrian engagement and storefront character is an important designing feature in the Commercial Core Historic District. On this property it turns inside out and detracts from these defining features. This building detracts from the integrity of the historic district. It recedes away from the street and does not have an inviting entry or prevalent store front windows. The windows that exist are severely shaded and darkened by overhangs and arcades which are inconsistent with the historic district. The sunken courtyard impedes pedestrian and visual access to the building. The post war buildings that have been considered in Aspen or designated or of interest tend to be either, pan abodes, cabins or chalet buildings. None of these styles are in the Commercial Core Historic District. I think everyone would agree that the Design Workshop building, the old Pitkin County Library is the best remaining sample of a commercial Benedict designed building that we have. It only means to me that the Mountain Plaza bldg. is not nearly as good an example of Fritz Benedict's work and is considerably 6 ASPEN mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2006 less significant. The Historic Preservation Design Guidelines provide several architectural styles that are import toward Aspen's historic context. This building does not fit into any of those styles. The closest local influence besides landscape is the Independence Bldg, Red Onion and Aspen Block, all Victorian era buildings. This building ignores those other buildings and their shape and form. It is unsuccessful in addressing property edges. It addresses them in a manner that is inconsistent with the historic resources and the alignments ofthe Historic District. Overall, we have found that the building has survived to present day without alterations. There is no question about that. The question is whether that is a testament of the value and integrity of the building or is it a testament to the fact that the building has never been sold and never been worthy of sinking additional funds into. It stayed in the hands of a property owner who built it as cheaply as he could. The building is not structurally sound and does not meet most of today' s building codes. It could not possibly be redesigned to meet today's ADA requirements. Tom Bracewell from the Sanitation District told him every time we have a lot of rain fall in town all the toilets in this building overflow and backup as the connections to the Sand District were done improperly and there is no way to fix it unless the building down is tom down because the pipes are well below the building. In the end I can't believe that this is a building that we want to see stay here forever. It is not an historic building and never has been designated. The only reason we are discussion it is because it is in the district. The more important question would be what would go in its place and that would be decided by this comrmSSlOn. Nancy Lyons, Historic Preservation Partnership stated that she submitted a report on her findings. She has been an historic preservation architect for 25 years. There is the issue as to how we deal with the 50's, 60's 70's architectural buildings. Then we need to look at the urban design interests as they dovetail historic preservation. She looked at the background information and the different styles of architecture and architects that played important rolls in Aspen's history. She tried to get into the 50's to determine what the atmosphere here was. What was the design that was going on. This building was client driven and Bidwell wanted to keep the costs down. Architecturally it is clear that Fritz Benedict made a contribution to the development of the mountain vernacular. He didn't have direct interest in the design of this building. The through that she drew together in the report were: 7 ASPEN mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2006 Is this building important as an historic resource to the course of history? We don't' really have the district defined with the context that includes buildings like the Bidwell bldg. My conclusions are based on imagining what is going to be there. Does the building have something to say about the history and development of the story of Aspen. In the 60's we had urban renewal and in the 70's historic preservation came into play. What are the buildings that are good to represent the story of the 60's. The Bidwell building does not have a lot to tell. It is represented in a time of the 60's that buildings were just blown up. This building is very market driven. You can't fix the structural without taking the thing apart. The building is not representative of any style. Nancy feels she would not put the building in the list of buildings to be represented ofthe 60's in Aspen. This building has no partners. The question would be does this building have to be designated because it is related to Fritz Benedict. Everything that she could get her hands on made her feel that the building does not say much about his work. Mitch said Fritz Benedict is one of the founding fathers of Aspen. If Fritz's name was not attached to this building we would not be discussing it. This is not one of the better examples of his work and this is not the building that should be an important part of his legacy. Amy indicated that the applicant can pursue the application if the demolition is resolved. Mitch said the code changed and they will have to restudy the application. Should this commission approve the demolition request we are perfectly find with the condition that we have a year or so to have a conceptual plan at least submitted. The building will sit there until we have a plan that will replace it. Michael asked ifthe plan is to demolish 40% of the building? Mitch said we know that more than 40% of the building will be demolished but it will not be tom down to the ground. Amy said they are not asking for demolition except if they demolish at least 40%. If they aren't going cross that threshold all they need to get is conceptual approval from HPC. Once it has been triggered as demolition then they arrive to this process. Michael clarified that they can demolish up to 39% or less with conceptual approval. If you go over 40% then it is considered demolition and then we come to the issue of whether we are taking away something significant. 8 ASPEN mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2006 Mitch said we didn't want to go through the process with some members of HPC feeling like we were dealing with an historic building and some not. If you approve demolition, that question is answered and we go on to conceptual approval. Derek said one of the arguments was that the building has to go because of the toilets and that everything is so far below the building. How far below the building if you aren't going to tear it down. Mitch said we will be doing excavation in the basement. How much of the building will remain we don't know. We just have a strong feeling that it is going beyond the 40%. Even ifit doesn't go beyond the 40% we want to set aside the issue of whether or not we are dealing with an historic building. If you grant demolition then we aren't dealing with an historic building. John Rowland said to be clear on what demolition is, it is only the skin of the building. The interior slab in the basement will be completely demolished and lowered. Michael requested clarification of demolition. John said when you go to measure a demolition you take the surfaces of the exterior of the building and the roof so that is the calculation we are measuring against, 40%. Jeffrey said the code is based on a aggregate sum of the exterior surfaces including the roof. So, whatever they do in the inside as long as it falls in the 40% criteria it conforms. Jeffrey said Nancy talked about Benedict's contributions to an evolution of a local vernacular. This new style influenced by Wrightian principles was adaptive for the mountain region. Jeffrey asked Nancy to clarify the style and why this building does not satisfy her own description of Fritz Benedict's work. Nancy said her decision came mostly from conversations with Bob Sterling. The residential structures done by Benedict had much more to do with taking the Wrightian approach architecture which involves the landscape. The design fits with the land. When she looked at the Bidwell building, 9 ASPEN mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2006 which has a flat roof, it doesn't fit in. Conversations with Bob Sterling indicated that they didn't want a flat roof and wanted the building to be "mountainey" and woody. Alison stated the criteria for demolition. a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic District in which it is located. b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties. c. Demolition ofthe structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. Nancy said a and b are similar, and as she said before she does not see a pattern. On criteria C she feels demolition will be consequential in that it has done a lot in bringing the HPC together to help define what it is, and it would resulted in everyone taking a hard look at something as to how this building has changed and how any new infill goes in there. It would be consequential and a positive impact as to what goes in. Alison asked Mitch and John to respond to her question. Ifthis is not a good example from that era in the commercial core are there any other buildings that you think are? Mitch said with regard to Benedict's buildings we are looking at the Wells Fargo building, Aspen Square Condominiums and this building. Perhaps commercial design was not their forte. Alison said her concern is that we have the Victorian era and that is great and historic preservation was built on that. Ifthis building isn't kept, what other buildings in the historic core maybe kept from that era? Is this building the best of the worst? Does it mean that everything else from that time period goes away and then we have a void? It says in our guidelines that that was a period in our history. I am trying to think ahead. Mitch said he can't think off the top of his head of other buildings from that era, 50's through the 60's. Amy pointed out that we already lost some buildings that predate this building, The Prospector Lodge and the Guido's building has been 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2006 remodeled beyond recognition. There aren't many modem buildings from the 50's through the 60's that exist today at all. The Vectra Bank is also a Fritz Benedict building. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Ruth Kruger, broker. Ruth said in the past she was hired by the Bidwell family to lease the spaces in this building. This is an A plus comer and a very critical comer in Aspen and this building is a D-minus. It has been extremely difficult to lease because of the big mote that detracts from the accessibility of retail spaces. The building has plumbing and mechanical problems. This is an opportunity to put a nicer building on a prime location which is now a detriment. The board needs to look at what needs preserved, just because buildings were from a certain era doesn't mean they need preserved. This is not a building that Fritz Benedict wanted to preserve. James from Kemo Sabe said buildings have a life span and then it is time to move on. James said the building is a failure, the roofleaks when it rains or the snow melts. No tenant has made it in that building for more than 18 months other than ourselves at ground level. If it were the last building in town from the 1960's I don't think 1 would say save it because it was from the 1960's. Buildings have a life span and it is time to move on. The general public now or in the future would not think this building is that significant. Why does Paradise Bakery work? Look at that great open space. The sunken hole in the ground that we have doesn't work. Georgia Hanson said she talked to Fritz Benedict at one point about this building and buildings he was proud of and the ones he wasn't particular proud of. This building was one that Fritz was not so proud of. Amy said a letter from Tom Yoder, owner of Kemo Sabe was in the HPC packet, basically saying a lot of what has been said. He doesn't feel the building has continued value. Chairperson, Jeffery Halferty closed the public hearing. Commissioner comments: Derek said he has studied this project and interviewed every tenant in the building. There is not a cut and dry answer here. You can argue this building to go either way. He is looking at the project from a preservation 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2006 standpoint. As somebody who is in this profession oflongevity and doing something that is a lasting statement, he understands the idea of a record. At some time there is a very critical point when you have to look at function and success of the space. The tenant list over the years has been quite long. That tells me that the building is not functioning properly. There are mechanical, electrical and functional failures in the building. Regarding this whole thing, some of the ideas that came out of the Bidwell building that are interesting could be carried into the next phase of the building's design. If the decision goes into a new building proposal it should carry the essence of the Bidwell building. It has been said that we are getting a consistency of brick lumps in town. Some of those reason are due to our guidelines. Jason said if we removed the name from this building we would have a different decision. Fritz Benedict wasn't the primary designer building this building. The courtyard is not used and just a hole in the ground. We need to look at what was there before. I'm looking at this purely as a building and try not to associates Fritz with it. It is a non-functional piece of architecture that is not generating any business or interest on that comer. It pushes people away. Jason said it is tough to say this but he is in favor of demolition. Alison said she also spent time talking to people and found no one who wanted to keep the building which is something to take into consideration. Everyone has feelings on this building. She is very interested in the time line of history through the core of Aspen. HPC as a body has no incentives to give to a commercial building to stay in its historic state. I have a problem telling the Bidwell family that you have to keep this building that nobody loves because it is part of history but I can't give you incentives. Michael said the first set of criteria 26.415.080A-4 is the only thing that is met. The structure cannot be practically moved. Chapter 13 talks about the commercial core historic district and the character. Michael feels the commercial core is a Victorian district. There is no vitality on that street. He agreed with Alison that the building is not that significant of a building. He feels that the preservation needs of this district will not be damaged and that the demolition will be inconsequential to the historic nature of the Commercial Core. He is very concerned about what goes in next. He could approve demolition with the condition of approval of a subsequent plan. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2006 Jeffrey said if this was a Fritz Benedict structure we wouldn't be discussing it. That being said the criteria for demolition item C, the structure cannot be moved to another appropriate location. He would agree with that condition. Jeffrey said he is a big proponent for the Post Second World War period as a very influential period that helped create the environment that we live in now. He can't come to terms with the demolition. He could perhaps see major renovation. There are hand drawn details that had Benedict's influence. He would like to see some change of balance. He also wishes HPC and the City had more incentives to help improve a design. He also understands.the economic pressures. He almost wishes we continue to visit the project and come up with something that works. Mitch Haas said Fritz was a capitalist in this building. It was built for a client. It is not the legacy we want to attach Fritz too. Nancy Lyons, preservationist said it might be a good idea to get a collection of photos ofthis building to make sure it is all documented. MOTION: Michael moved to approve demolition of 434 E. Cooper, resolution #14 provided, however that no demolition permit will be issued until a conceptual plan for the replacement structure has been approved by this commission; second by Derek. Roll call vote: Jason, yes; Derek, yes; Alison, no; Michael, yes; Jeffrey, no. Motion carried 3-2. Derek said Michael's condition is very reasonable and he supports it. 13