The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.council.regular.20070122 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA January 22,2007 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) Minutes - December 12, 2006; January 8,9,2007 b) Resolution #3,2007 - Contract Loris & Associates Burlingame Trail Design c) Resolution #4, 2007 - Contract to Purchase Vehicle Road Graders VII. First Reading of Ordinances a) Ordinance #1, 2007 - Authorization of Lease/Purchase Agreement for Isis VIII. Action Items a) Aspen Country Inn Rent Reduction b) Pedestrian Plan for Park Avenue c) Joining the Chicago Climate Exchange Phase II IX. Public Hearings a) Ordinance #41,2006 - 625 E Main (Stage III) Building Redevelopment b) Ordinance #49,2006 - 307 S. Spring (Wienerstube) Subdivision Review X. Executive Session XI. Adjournment Next Regular Meeting February 12, 2007 COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M. MEMORANDUM Vlb TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Bentley Henderson, Assistant City Manager FROM: John C. Laatsch, Project Manager, Asset Management Department Scott Chism, Parks PlannerlProject Manager, Parks Department DATE: January 8, 2007 RE: Resolution #2007- '3 : Approval of the Engineering Professional Services Contract for the construction documents for the Deer Hill Trail and Burlingame Trail. SUMMARY: The Engineering Consultant, Loris and Associates, Inc., has developed a scope and fee for engineering services that should be acceptable to the City in order to complete construction drawings and specifications necessary for construction of the Deer Hill Trail and Burlingame Trail. Both segments of trail will combine to connect the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing neighborhood to the Aspen Airport Business Center (AABC) and to the greater trail network into town. An Engineering Consultant is required to assist city staff to fully develop the two trail connections to Burlingame. At this time we are requesting you to authorize an Engineering Professional Services Contract for the ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES OF THE DEER HILL TRAIL AND BURLINGAME TRAIL PROJECTS for the amount of $116,460. The Engineering Consultant, Loris and Associates, Inc. is an approved sole-source engineering consultant to the City of Aspen and will provide design and engineering services for these two separate but related trail projects. This contract will cover two individual design efforts: The first will be the design development of the Deer Hill Trail, which will connect the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing neighborhood with the AABC, as well as serve as a dual use corridor for a reuse water service, potable water service and primary electrical service. The second effort will be the final design of the Burlingame Trail, which will connect the AABC Trail to the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing through the Maroon Creek Club and the Double BarlX Ranch. The Engineering Consultant will finalize the documentation and alignment that was developed and negotiated by staff for the Burlingame Trail. BACKGROUND: City Council and the City Open Space and Trails Board have previously given specific direction to staff that the Burlingame and Deer Hill Trail connections are a high priority. As such, staff has been working to develop a Deer Hill Trail connection in conjunction with the establishment of primary utility service connections for the full build-out of the Burlingame Ranch Housing. Utility improvements will include a water system loop for both potable and reuse water, as well as "undergrounding" the power service in order to remove the existing overhead power lines. The Deer Hill Trail corridor will provide an opportunity for these utility improvements to occur and will improve the visual quality of the area with the elimination of overhead power lines. The timely development of the Deer Hill Trail corridor is necessary to provide the space necessary for underground power conduits before the overhead power lines can be removed. The removal of the overhead power lines and poles is necessary prior to the development of Phase II construction of the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing. Staff also initiated negotiations early in 2006 with representatives of the Maroon Creek Club and the owners of the Double Bar/X Ranch to obtain easement access for a public trail, to be known as the Burlingame Trail that would allow for a reasonably direct connection between the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing and the AABC Trail parallel to Highway 82. City staff completed negotiations with the Maroon Creek Club owners in September 2006 to allow trail access on the eastern edge of the golf course. Negotiations for a trail easement with the Double BarlX Ranch owners have been underway since June 2006 and are very near completion. City staff expects to have an easement agreement for Council review in early February for the Burlingame Trail. Simultaneous to the trail easement negotiation efforts with the Double BarlX Ranch owners, staff developed schematic drawings that illustrate the design of the proposed Burlingame Trail. (Refer Attachment C). The easement agreement across Double Bar/X Ranch property identifies an aggressive, accelerated trail construction schedule that the City must agree to in order to be granted the trail easement. The segments of Burlingame Trail to be located on Double Bar/X Ranch property must be substantially built by June 30, 2007. In order to obtain a contractor and allow a reasonable time for the contractor to actually build the trail, an Engineering Consultant is required immediately to assist city staff in the completion of the Burlingame Trail design documentation. DISCUSSION: The two scopes of work that this contract will cover are comprehensive and staff believes the engineering design fees are reasonable given the technical nature of the proposed Deer Hill Trail and Burlingame Trail. This contract covers the conceptual trail development and construction document production for the Deer Hill Trail, as well as the construction documents and engineering design for the Burlingame Trail, which will connect the trail parallel to Harmony Road to the AABC Trail parallel to Highway 82. The contract does not include construction services or right-of-way costs for the Deer Hill Trail. The timing of design completion and construction effort is critical to the City being granted the trail easement for the Burlingame Trail. As a result, the City is utilizing an Engineering Consultant that has previously negotiated an "on-call" professional services agreement with the City in order to maximize the amount of productive design and construction time between mid January and late June 2007. The Double Bar/X Ranch ownership group will grant the trail easement as long as the City can meet the outlined completion date of June 30, 2007. Once the individual lots at the Double BarlX Ranch are sold, the likelihood of the City obtaining a comprehensive trail easement from multiple owners for the proposed Burlingame Trail is much lower than the current proposal. 2 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The Engineering Consultant, Loris and Associates, Inc. will provide the scope of services outlined above for $ I 16,460. This consultant fee as well as the cost of construction for both the Deer Hill Trail and the Burlingame Trail will be sourced from a combination of funds from the Housing, Parks and Water Departments. The disbursement of costs to each one of these funds will approximate previous allocations of; housing 30%, parks 52%, and electric 17%. There may be some redistribution as some water utility funds will be apportioned to reflect the installation of the water reuse line. Although each of these projects were have been contemplated for some time, funding for the design, engineering, and actual construction will require a supplemental appropriation. As indicated above, the design phase will require funding of $1 16,460. Details on construction costs will be available upon completion of the design. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: Council made the request to develop these proposed trail connections presumably to provide trail connections for the residents of Burlingame for commuting and recreational purposes. A convenient trail connection between Burlingame and the AABC, and from Burlingame to town should encourage people to walk or bike instead of drive, more than if no trails existed at all. This improvement to the City's trail network will further enhance the valuable public amenity that the community enjoys. The Deer Hill Trail and Burlingame Trail will provide an excellent alternative transportation opportunity to the residents and visitors of the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing neighborhood and the Double Bar/X Ranch. ALTERNATIVES: Council could choose not to approve this Professional Services Contract, which would delay the design documentation of both the Deer Hill Trail and the Burlingame Trail. The delay to the Burlingame Trail design documentation would delay the anticipated start of construction, which in turn would likely seriously jeopardize a project completion of June 30th, 2007. If the Double Bar/X Ranch owners believe the City could not construct the trail within the planned schedule, they would likely not grant the trail easement to the City. The final end result would be that a one-time opportunity would be lost and the Burlingame Trail would very likely not ever be built. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending Council's approval of the Engineering Professional Services Contract for the ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES OF THE DEER HILL TRAIL AND BURLINGAME TRAIL PROJECTS and supplemental appropriation for the amount of $ I 16,460 in order to allow the design documentation to be completed expediently. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve, I.) the Professional Services Contract between the City of Aspen and the Engineering Consultant, Loris and Associates, Inc. for the Deer Hill Trail and Burlingame Trail design and construction documentation, and 2.) a supplemental appropriation for the amount of One Hundred Sixteen Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Dollars ($116,460) to complete said work. 3 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Attachments: Attachment A- Agreement for Professional Services Attachment B- Project Budget Source Attachment C- Proposed Trail Alignment and Enhancements Plan for Burlingame Trail 4 RESOLUTION #3 (Series of 2007) A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND LORIS AND ASSOCIATES SETTING FORTH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REGARDING CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS CONTRACT FOR BURLINGAME AND DEER HILL TRAILS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and Loris and Associates, a copy of which contract is annexed hereto and made a part thereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section I That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that contract between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and Loris and Associates regarding construction documents contract for Burlingame and Deer Hill Trails, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager of the City of Aspen to execute said contract on behalf of the City of Aspen. Dated: Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held January 22,2007. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement made and entered on January 11th, 2007, between the CITY OF ASPEN, Colorado, ("City") and Loris and Associates, Inc., ("Professional"). For and in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows; Scope of Work. Professional shall perform in a competent and professional manner the Scope of Work as set forth at Exhibit "A" and "Exhibit "B" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. Completion. Professional shall commence work immediately upon receipt ofa written Notice to Proceed from the City and complete all phases of the Scope of Work as expeditiously as is consistent with professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the Work in a timely manner. The parties anticipate that ail work pursuant to this agreement shall be completed no later than October I", 2007. Upon request of the City, Professional shall submit, for the City's approval, a schedule for the performance of Professional's services which shall be adjusted as required as the project proceeds, and which shall include allowances for periods of time required by the City's project engineer for review and approval of submissions and for approvals of authorities having jurisdiction over the project. This schedule, when approved by the City, shall not, except for reasonable cause, be exceeded by the Professional. Payment. In consideration of the work performed, City shall pay Professional on a time and expense basis for all work performed. The hourly rates for work performed by Professional shall not exceed those hourly rates set forth at Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B" appended hereto. Except as otherwise mutually agreed to by the parties the payments made to Professional shall not initially exceed $116,480.00 . Professional shall submit, in timely fashion, invoices for work performed. The City shall review such invoices and, if they are considered incorrect or untimely, the City shall review the matter with Professional within ten days from receipt of the Professional's bill. Non-Assignability. Both parties recognize that this contract is one for personal services and cannot be transferred, assigned, or sublet by either party without prior written consent of the other. Sub-Contracting, if authorized, shall not relieve the Professional of any of the responsibilities or obligations under this agreement. Professional shall be and remain solely responsible to the City for the acts, errors, omissions or neglect of any subcontractors officers, agents and employees, each of whom shall, for this purpose be deemed to be an agent or employee of the Professional to the extent of the subcontract. The City shall not be obligated to payor be liable for payment of any sums due which may be due to any sub-contractor. Termination. The Professional or the City may terminate this Agreement, without specifYing the reason therefore, by giving notice, in writing, addressed to the other party, specifYing the effective date of the termination. No fees shall be earned after the effective date of the termination. Upon any termination, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs, reports or other material prepared by the Professional pursuant to this Agreement shall become the property of the City. Notwithstanding the above, Professional shall not be relieved of any liability to the City for damages sustained by the City by virtue of any breach of this Agreement by the Professional, and the City may withhold any payments to the Professional for the purposes of set-off until such time as the exact amount of damages due the City from the Professional may be determined. Covenant Against Contingent Fees. The Professional warrants that slhe has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working for the Professional, to solicit or secure this contract, that slhe has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts or any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this contract. Independent Contractor Status. It is expressly acknowledged and understood by the parties that nothing contained in this agreement shall result in, or be construed as establishing an employment relationship. Professional shall be, and shall perform as, an independent Contractor who agrees to use his or her best efforts to provide the said services on behalf of the City. No agent, employee, or servant of Professional shall be, or shall be deemed to be, the employee, agent or servant of the City. City is interested only in the results obtained under this contract. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the sole control of Professional. None of the benefits provided by City to its employees including, but not limited to, workers' compensation insurance and unemployment insurance, are available from City to the employees, agents or servants of Professional. Professional shall be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of Professional's agents, employees, servants and subcontractors during the performance of this contract. Professional shall indemnifY City against all liability and loss in connection with, and shall assume full responsibility for payment of all federal, state and local taxes or contributions imposed or required under unemployment insurance, social security and income tax law, with respect to Professional and/or Professional's employees engaged in the performance of the services agreed to herein. Indemnification. Professional agrees to indemnifY and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, insurers, and self-insurance pool, from and against all liability, claims, and demands, on account of injury, loss, or damage, including without limitation claims arising from bodily injury, personal injury, sickness, disease, death, property loss or damage, or any other loss of any kind whatsoever, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with this contract, if such injury, loss, or damage is caused in whole or in part by, or is claimed to be caused in whole or in part by, the act, omission, error, professional error, mistake, negligence, or other fault of the Professional, any subcontractor of the Professional, or any officer, employee, representative, or agent of the Professional or of any subcontractor of the Professional, or which arises out of any workmen's compensation claim of any employee of the Professional or of any employee of any subcontractor of the Professional. The Professional agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, and to provide defense for and defend against, any such liability, claims or demands at the sole expense of the Professional, or at the option of the City, agrees to pay the City or reimburse the City for the defense costs incurred by the City in connection with, any such liability, claims, or demands. If it is determined by the final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction that such injury, loss, or damage was caused in whole or in part by the act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or its employees, the City shaH reimburse the Professional for the portion of the judgment attributable to such act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or employees. Professional's Insurance. (a) Professional agrees to procure and maintain, at its own expense, a policy or policies of insurance sufficient to insure against aH liability, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. Such insurance shall be in addition to any other insurance requirements imposed by this contract or by law. The Professional shaH not be relieved of any liability, claims, demands, or other obligations assumed pursuant to Section 8 above by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance, or by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance in sufficient amounts, duration, or types. (b) Professional shaH procure and maintain, and shall cause any subcontractor of the Professional to procure and maintain, the minimum insurance coverages listed below. Such coverages shall be procured and maintained with forms and insurance acceptable to the City. All coverages shaH be continuously maintained to cover aH liability, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. In the case of any claims-made policy, the necessary retroactive dates and extended reporting periods shaH be procured to maintain such continuous coverage. (i) Workers' Compensation insurance to cover obligations imposed by applicable laws for any employee engaged in the performance of work under this contract, and Employers' Liability insurance with minimum limits of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) for each accident, FIVE HUNDRED THOU- SAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease - policy limit, and FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease - each employee. Evidence of qualified self-insured status may be substituted for the Workers' Compensation requirements of this paragraph. (ii) Commercial General Liability insurance with minimum combined single limits of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) aggregate. The policy shall be applicable to all premises and operations. The policy shaH include coverage for bodily injury, broad form property damage (including completed operations), personal injury (including coverage for contractual and employee acts), blanket contractual, independent contractors, products, and completed operations. The policy shaH contain a severability of interests provision. (iii) Comprehensive Automobile Liability insurance with mlillmum combined single limits for bodily injury and property damage of not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) aggregate with respect to each Professional's owned, hired and non-owned vehicles assigned to or used in performance of the Scope of Work. The policy shall contain a severability of interests provision. If the Professional has no owned automobiles, the requirements of this Section shall be met by each employee of the Professional providing services to the City under this contract. (iv) Professional Liability insurance with the minimum limits of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) each claim and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) aggregate. (c) The policy or policies required above shall be endorsed to include the City and the City's officers and employees as additional insureds. Every policy required above shall be primary insurance, and any insurance carried by the City, its officers or employees, or carried by or provided through any insurance pool of the City, shall be excess and not contributory insurance to that provided by Professional. No additional insured endorsement to the policy required above shall contain any exclusion for bodily injury or property damage arising from completed operations. The Professional shall be solely responsible for any deductible losses under any policy required above. (d) The certificate of insurance provided by the City shall be completed by the Professional's insurance agent as evidence that policies providing the required coverages, conditions, and minimum limits are in full force and effect, and shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to commencement of the contract. No other form of certificate shall be used. The certificate shall identifY this contract and shall provide that the coverages afforded under the policies shall not be canceled, terminated or materially changed until at least thirty (30) days prior written notice has been given to the City. (e) Failure on the part of the Professional to procure or maintain policies providing the required coverages, conditions, and minimum limits shall constitute a material breach of contract upon which City may immediately terminate this contract, or at its discretion City may procure or renew any such policy or any extended reporting period thereto and may pay any and all premiums in connection therewith, and all monies so paid by City shall be repaid by Professional to City upon demand, or City may offset the cost of the premiums against monies due to Professional from City. (f) City reserves the right to request and receive a certified copy of any policy and any endorsement thereto. (g) The parties hereto understand and agree that City is relying on, and does not waive or intend to waive by any provision of this contract, the monetary limitations (presently $150,000.00 per person and $600,000 per occurrence) or any other rights, immunities, and protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24-10-101 et seq., c.R.S., as from time to time amended, or otherwise available to City, its officers, or its employees. City's Insurance. The parties hereto understand that the City is a member of the Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency (CIRSA) and as such participates in the CIRSA Property/Casualty Pool. Copies of the CIRSA policies and manual are kept at the City of Aspen Finance Department and are available to Professional for inspection during normal business hours. City makes no representations whatsoever with respect to specific coverages offered by CIRSA. City shall provide Professional reasonable notice of any changes in its membership or participation in CIRSA. Completeness of Agreement. It is expressly agreed that this agreement contains the entire undertaking of the parties relevant to the subject matter thereof and there are no verbal or written representations, agreements, warranties or promises pertaining to the project matter thereof not expressly incorporated in this writing. Notice. Any written notices as called for herein may be hand delivered to the respective persons and/or addresses listed below or mailed by certified mail return receipt requested, to: City: City Manager City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Professional: Pete Loris Loris & Associates, Inc. 2585 Trail Ridge Drive East Lafayette, Colorado 80026 Non-Discrimination. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry, handicap, or religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform services under this contract. Professional agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, Section 13-98, pertaining to non-discrimination in employment. Waiver. The waiver by the City of any term, covenant, or condition hereof shall not operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term. No term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement can be waived except by the written consent of the City, and forbearance or indulgence by the City in any regard whatsoever shall not constitute a waiver of any term, covenant, or condition to be performed by Professional to which the same may apply and, until complete performance by Professional of said term, covenant or condition, the City shall be entitled to invoke any remedy available to it under this Agreement or by law despite any such forbearance or indulgence. Execution of Agreement by City. This agreement shall be binding upon all parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, this agreement shall not be binding upon the City unless duly executed by the Mayor of the City of Aspen (or a duly authorized official in his absence) following a Motion or Resolution of the Council of the City of Aspen authorizing the Mayor (or a duly authorized official in his absence) to execute the same. General Terms. (a) It is agreed that neither this agreement nor any of its terms, provisions, conditions, representations or covenants can be modified, changed, terminated or amended, waived, superseded or extended except by appropriate written instrument fully executed by the parties. (b) If any of the provisions of this agreement shall be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable it shall not affect or impair the validity, legality or enforceability of any other provision. (c) The parties acknowledge and understand that there are no conditions or limitations to this understanding except those as contained herein at the time of the execution hereof and that after execution no alteration, change or modification shall be made except upon a writing signed by the parties. (d) This agreement shall be govemed by the laws of the State of Colorado as from time to time in effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed, or caused to be executed by their duly authorized officials, this Agreement in three copies each of which shall be deemed an original on the date hereinafter written. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGEl ATTESTED BY: CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO; By: Title: Date; PROFESSIONAL: WITNESSED BY: LORIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. ~~ tJbJ By: tttJ/,X , Title: ft,~;de-tf.. Date: 1.1 Z. ,fJ:1 EXHIBIT "A" to Professional Services Agreement Scope of Work & Rate Schedule Deer Hill Trail Engineering Design Services EXHIBIT "8" to Professional Services Agreement Scope of Services & Rate Schedule Burlingame Trail Engineering Design Services L o R I s January 9, 2007 Mr. Scott Chism, RLA City of Aspen Parks Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 Reference: Burlingame - Double Bar X Trail Design Services Fee Proposal LORIS Proposal No. 138-06897 Dear Scott: Loris and Associates would be delighted to assist the City of Aspen with the design of the Burlingame - Double Bar X Trail. We understand this work will be added to our contract for the AABC to Burlingame Trail. This work will be completed in two phases. Phase 1 will include design of a multi-use trail from the existing AABC Trail east of Maroon Creek to the west end of the Double Bar X Ranch (approximately 3,300 linear feet). Phase 2 will include design of a multi-use trail from the west end of the Double Bar X Ranch to the existing Harmony Place Trail. Attached is LORIS' scope of work and fee proposal to develop construction documents, cost estimate, specifications and construction observation. LORIS proposes to bill the City of Aspen on an hourly basis according to the terms of our on-call services contract. The proposed fee is an estimate based upon our assumed scope of work and the design challenges we anticipate. The actual fee may be more or less depending upon the actual level of effort needed to deliver the product you desire. However, we will not exceed the proposed fee without prior discussions and approval by you. An explanation of our proposed scope of work and assumptions is as follows: Phase 1- Scope of Work .:. Provide 90% review and 100% construction documents for a multi- use trail from AABC Trail to the west side of Double Bar X Ranch. Only two official submittals will be required. Progress plans may also be distributed as needed during the development of the project. .:. Attend two design meetings in Aspen. .:. Provide plan and prof1le design for the trail, including grading, drainage, and erosion control. .:. Provide design and detailing of concrete retaining walls at the approximate locations shown in the conceptual plans provided by the City of Aspen. Detailing will include a stone veneer similar to structures at the Maroon Creek Club. EXHIBIT 'B' Mastering the Art of Engineering Structures' and Infrastructures Burlingame Double Bar X Trail Fee Proposal LORIS PropDsal ND. 138.06897 Januarv 9, 2007- Page 2 ':" Provide design and detailing of rock gravity retaining walls at the approximate locations shown in the conceptual plans provided by the City of Aspen. If is assumed that on-site stone material will be used. -1" Plans will include extensions for drainage culverts to accommodate path construction. ~~~ Provide signing and striping for three at-grade roadway crossings. .:. Provide plan and profile design, grading, and concrete retaining wall design for approximately 100 linear feet of cart path near tee box #4. ~~.. Attend a pre-bid conference, assist in preparing addenda, answer bid questions, and assist the City in evaluating the bids. ~:.. Answer RFIs, review submittals, and perform site visits as needed. Our propose fee assumes 2 site visits at 8 hours each, including travel. This assumes that travel time can be shared between other projects in progress at that rime in the Roaring Fork Valley. This work \cill be billed on a time and material basis. The actual fee will be dependant upon the actual number of site visits required, the appropriate staff required to address the current issues, and our ability to share travel costs with other projects. We will coordinate closely with the City during construction to minimize travel costs and the need for site visits. Phase 1 - Additional Assumptions .:. The path alignment will be based upon a conceptual design provided by the City of Aspen. Minor modifications to the alignment will be made, but no major relocations of the proposed path will be required. . .:. The City of Aspen will provide the topographic mapping, roadway design plans, and landscape design plans for the Double Bar X Ranch. Much of this area is currently under construction. LORlS will show the Stage Road, South Road, and Double Bar X Ranch features and grading currently under construction as existing in the trail plans based upon the design plans provided by the City of Aspen. All grading shown on the trail plans will be designed assuming the proposed roadway grading is already in place. All earthwork quantities will account only for the additional earthwork assuming the proposed roadway and features are already in place. .:. No public meetings will be required. .:. The at-grade crossings will consist of signing and striping and will NOT require "hard" features, such as speed tables, median islands, bulb-outs, etc. .:. No major redesign of irrigation features will be required. We will primarily be designing around the existing drainage structures. .:. Geotechnical investigation for retaining walls will NOT be performed. LORlS will design tetaining walls based upon conservative assumptions. Burlingame Double Bar X Trail Fee Proposal LORIS Proposal No. 138.06897 January 9, 2007- Page 3 .:. LORIS will NOT include construction access / phasing plans in the trail construction documents. .:. Any proposed landscaping will be provided to LORIS in the form of AutoCAD drawings that can be inserted into our drawings. Phase 1 - Schedule .:. The development of rhis project will be aggressive. Substantial construction completion by July 3, 2007 is required. LORIS will provide 90% review plans ro the City of Aspen in early February and fInal construction documents for bidding in early March. We will attempt to complete the plans even earlier if possible. Phase 2 - Scope of Work .:. Provide 500/0, 900/0 review and 100% construction documents for a multi-use trail from the west side of Double Bar X Ranch to the existing rrail along Harmony Place. A conceptual design for this segment has not yet been completed, so three official submittals will be provided. The 90% and 100% construction documents will be combined with the Phase t plans. Progress plans may also be distributed as needed during the development of the project. .:. Provide plan and profile design for the trail, including grading, drainage, and erosion control. Grades appear to be quite steep at the approach to Harmony Place. Acceprable grades should be discussed once the existing topography is reviewed. .:. Provide design and detailing of rock gravity retaining walls as needed. .:. Provide at-grade crossing and path connection design and detailing at the Harmony Place intersection. Providing a safe and usec- friendly crossing and connection to the existing path along Harmony Place will be challenging considering the steep approach grades, roadway super-elevation, and grade difference between the roadway and existing path. Several iterations and collaboration with City of Aspen sraff may be required. ModifIcation to the existing path will likely be needed to develop an acceptable ramp design between the existing path and roadway. The City of Aspen may also wish to include special landscaping or gateway features at the east side of Harmony Place. If so, this will be a collaborative effort between LORIS and the City of Aspen. The City will provide landscape design to be included in the plans. .:. Assist in preparing addenda, answer bid questions, and assist the City in evaluating the bids. We assume that LORIS will not need ro attend the pre-bid meeting. .:. Answer RFls, review submittals, and perform site visits as needed. Our proposed fee assumes only one site visits at 8 hours, including travel. This assumes that travel time can be shared between other projects in progress at thar rime in the Roaring Fork Valley. This work will be billed on a time and material basis. The actual fee will r o :J. en " :J 0. ~ en en o (') ". lD en c 0 C l:I' iD ll:J III ... >< -I !. en n 0 '1:l "QCD ::70 III ... Ul ::e CD ... 0 ... "T1 ~ :i' go !!!. "Tl C CD CD CD Ul "'ll .s' a ::> '1:l 0 UI !!!. < N , , " N 0 0 " en , .... N N co >c Vi ~ - ~ o N o o .... "1l " <0 CD r Q u;" " ::l 0- G" "' o o iij" c; "' ~ ~ o N o o -.j I -0 " <C Cll '" c o c: C' iD 1JI III ... >< -I !. f/l n o "0 -0" ::TO .. ... = :E "'0 ... "Tl~ S'1lO !!!.." 0" .. .. !!!. "'ll lI::l ... ::l 0 "0 o III !!!. < N I N o o en , .... N . N CO >< (jj r Q en. " " a. )> '" '" o " iir It '" ~ - ~ o i\l o o "" I 1J " (Q " c o c cr c;- l:ll III .. >< -l .. !: CIl " o "C CD "tIO ::r.... ll: :E CD 0 ~.. .~ !!!llO Co." "tICD ::rCD ll: "tI CD a "C o III !!!. < N . . N o o ." . .... N . N co >< Vi r- .. Q ;n- O! " ::> c. ~r J> ... '" i c '" ~ 0 " 6' iii- .. .. CD . . '" . I,> c . c 0 3 C . . C' '" 1D < en 1e: l:ll ~ " III ~ ~ >< -I ~ ~ .. .. .. .. '" ... '" '" l!: 8 0 0 .. .. ~ - ~ 0 N 0 0 .... I .. ""-M_~ "'.. " III <C C1l $" .. .. ... l!: "' gl . .... 8; '" '" "'.. 0 0 0 00 '" en n o "C "tICD is. ~ ::e ....0 0* o IlO iil ." -CD 2 CD !l-c o' ... ::l 0 "C o VI !. < N . . N o o Ol . .... N . N co >c iii r Q iii" " :J C. :l> '" '" o " iir Iii '" ~ - ~ o ;;:s o o ..... "ll " '" " c o c a- iD lJl III ~ >< -I ~ !!!. VI l'l "lIO :T"C .. CD ~ 0 ",- ::E "lIO !.~ 3" go :;. "TI .. CD oC! CD c"ll :: 0 -."C ID 0 " Ul !!!. < N . . N o o ~ . .... N ~ co >< Vi r Q in" " ::> Co )> '" '" o o iU" e;; '" ~ - ~ o i'l o o .... -0 " <0 <1> N c o l: C" iii III III .. >< -t .. !!!. CIl n ~O ::r"C .. CD lG 0 N- :E ~O ~ .. !!.~ 3' IlO :i' ." .. CD -< CD c"tl CD .. III 0 -."C lQ 0 ::I Ul !!!. < N I N Cl Cl 01 , .... N , N co >< iii r o :>. "' " :> c. ~ "' o " ii' CD "' '" "'.. ~ - ~ o i\; o o .... -0 " (Q '" h '" l!l ~~i c o c C" CD 1JI III ... >< ..... !. CIl Cl o "C "V CD JO III ... g:~ NO ... ..,~ :i" Qo !.." CCD CD CD Ul "'ll .g'(l "C o 1/1 !!!. < N . . N <:> <:> 0) . .... N N CO >< Vi r Q in' " " c. i:: en o " ir ii en ~ - ~ o j;J o o ..., I "1l " '" '" '" , ... ~"', .. ... " " o o C l:T i;" III III .. >< -l !. tJl n o "tI "OlD ~O .. ... ~ :e NO .. ...,~ S' Qo !!!.." OlD CD lD cS'~ ::l 0 "tI o Ul !!!. < N . . N o o CD . .... N . N CO >< iii" -~~----~~.-.-".._~^,_..+-,-- ... -. '----.-~"-..._- r Q 1);' '" => a. ~ '" o n 0;" ro '" - ~ o j;J o o .... I "ll '" '" " c o c: cr CD 1JI III ... >< -I !. I Ul n o '0 CD ~g, III :e CO 0 N... ~ !!!llO c.." "'lICD ::rCD III "'ll CO a '0 o l/l III I < N . . N o o 0) . ..... N . N co >c Ui r Q (i;' " i: ::> 0. 3' )> ... '" -I c '" 0 [ ~ " 6' iii' ... .. 0' lD : . '" I g~ < " .... C 0 c e- CD en OJ & III ~ ... >< ::;t !!!. en n 0 "0 '1l CD ::r 0 .. ... III ~ CD N , ... 0 ~ 0 Qo ::> "TI III ... CD ... CD c:: !l "tI o' ... 0 ::> "0 0 III III < N , . N 0 0 0) . .... N . N co .. >< .. .. .. .. .. .. iii .. .. .. .. ~ :lit GO l!l '" .. .. ~~ .. .. .. "'.. ~ - ~ e N , . . 0 0 " ~. _~M .. iIot_.."._ '" .. "U S " co " .. ~~ .. .. .. :;! ~i ',,1,' U N" .. GO "' '" "'''' '"' .. .. C> ,,,,, C .. .. Certification and Supplemental Conditions to Contract for Services _ Conformance with ~8-17.5.101. et seq. Puroose. During the 2006 Colorado legislative session, the Legislature passed House Bill 06-1343 that added a new article 17.5 to Title 8 of the Colorado Revised Statutes entitled "Illegal Aliens _ Public Contracts for Services." This new law prohibits all state agencies and political subdivisions, including the City of Aspen, from knowingly employing or contracting with an illegal alien to perform work under a contract, or to knowingly contract with a subcontractor who knowingly employs or contracts with an illegal alien to perform work under the contract. The new law also requires that all contracts for services include certain specific language as set forth in the statutes. This Certification and Supplemental Conditions has been designed to comply with the requirements of this new law. Applicability. The certification and supplemental conditions set forth herein shall be required to be executed by all persons having a public contract for services with the City of Aspen. Definitions. The following terms are defined in the new law and by this reference are incorporated herein and in any contract for services entered into with the City of Aspen. "Basic Pilot Program" means the basic pilot employment verification program created in Public Law 20S, 104'h Congress, as amended, and expanded in Public Law 156, IOS'h Congress, as amended, that is administered by the United States Department of Homeland Security. "Contractor" means a person having a public contract for services with the City of Aspen. "Public Contract for Services" means any type of agreement, regardless of what the agreement may be called, between the City of Aspen and a Contractor for the procurement of services. It specifically means the contract or agreement referenced below. "Services" means the furnishing of labor, time, or effort by a Contractor or a subcontractor not involving the delivery of a specific end product other than reports that are merely incidental to the required performance. PURSUANT TO SECTION 8-17.5-101, C.R.S., et. seq.: By signing this document, Contractor certifies and represents that at this time: (i) Contractor does not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien: and (ii) Contractor has participated or attempted to participate in the Basic Pilot Program in order to verify that it does not employ illegal aliens. The Public Contract for Services referenced below is hereby amended to include the following terms and conditions: 1. Contractor shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under the Public Contract for Services. 2. Contractor shall not enter into a contract with a subcontractor that fails to certify to the Contractor that the subcontractor shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under the Public Contract for Services. 3. Contractor has verified or has attempted to verify through participation in the Federal Basic Pilot Program that Contractor does not employ any illegal aliens; and if Contractor has not been accepted into the Federal Basic Pilot Program prior to entering into the Public Contract for Services, Contractor shall forthwith apply to participate in the Federal Basic Pilot Program and shall in writing verify such application within five (5) days of the date of the Public Contract. Contractor shall continue to apply to participate in the Federal Basic Pilot Program and shall in writing verify same every three (3) calendar months thereafter, until Contractor is accepted or the public contract for services has been completed, whichever is earlier. The requirements of this section shall not be required or effective if the Federal Basic Pilot Program is discontinued. 4. Contractor shall not use the Basic Pilot Program procedures to undertake pre-employment screening of job applicants while the Public Contract for Services is being performed. 5. If Contractor obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing work under the Public Contract for Services knowingly employs or contracts with an illegal alien, Contractor shall: (i) Notify such subcontractor and the City of Aspen within three days that Contractor has actual knowledge that the subcontractor is employing or contracting with an illegal alien; and (ii) Terminate the subcontract with the subcontractor if within three days of receiving the notice required pursuant to this section the subcontractor does not cease employing or contracting with the illegal alien; except that Contractor shall not terminate the Public Contract for Services with the subcontractor if during such three days the subcontractor provides information to establish that the subcontractor has not knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal alien. 6. Contractor shall comply with any reasonable request by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment made in the course of an investigation that the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment undertakes or is undertaking pursuant to the authority established in Subsection 8-17.5- 102 (5), C.R.S. 7. If Contractor violates any provision of the Public Contract for Services pertaining to the duties imposed by Subsection 8-17.5-102, C.R.S. the City of Aspen may terminate the Public Contract for Services. If the Public Contract for Services is so terminated, Contractor shall be liable for actual and consequential damages to the City of Aspen arising out of Contractor's violation of Subsection 8-17.5-102, C.R.S. Public Contract for Services: PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE DEER HILL TRAIL AND BURLINGAME TRAIL PROJECTS Contractor: LORIS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. By: ~/~ Title: fl'eerirf8'lf JPW- saved: 8/312006-867-M:\city\cityatty\contract\forms\certification - hb-06-1343.doc MEMORANDUM VIe. TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jerry Nye, Superintendent of Streets THRU: Randy Ready, Asst. City Manager THRU: Phil Overeynder, Public Works Director DATE: January 11,2007 RE: Contract Approval2007-2FM for the purchase of two (2) Caterpillar Motor Graders for the Street Department. SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval ofthe contract 2007-2FM for the purchase of two (2) Caterpillar Model 143 Motor Graders for the Street Department. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council approved the 2007 Asset Management Plan as part of the 2007 Budget. BACKGROUND: This purchase is the result of sole source procurement through Wagner Equipment Company. DISCUSSION: The Streets Department fleet of heavy equipment is primarily made up of Caterpillar brand equipment. The Caterpillar heavy equipment is set up on a 7 -year guaranteed buy-back plan through Wagner Equipment, the Caterpillar dealer for the State of Colorado. Wagner equipment contracted with the City and set up a guaranteed buy-back plan over I I years ago. This year will be the 7th year for one (I) Motor grader to be traded offfor a new machine on its replacement cycle. Staffreceived approval in the 2006 AMP budget to purchase one (I) new additional motor grader to bring the snowplowing fleet up to four (4) motor graders to cover the new expanded plow routes because of the new annexations into the City Limits. Staff pushed this 2006 motor grader purchase out to 2007 because Burlingame wasn't going to require any snow plowing by the City of Aspen until winter 2007. The City Fleet Department keeps a supply of Caterpillar parts and preventative maintenance service supplies in stock that will interchange with the new equipment along with all the implements that will interchange with this new equipment. Staff has operated and maintained this type of Caterpillar equipment over the past 1 I years and knows what these machines can do. Staff also knows how to properly maintain the Caterpillar equipment without any additional training needs. The total price for both motor graders is $500,872 before the trade-in value is applied. Wagner Equipment is allowing $160,000 for the trade-in on the 7-year replacement motor grader, bringing its total purchase price to $90,436. The additional motor grader for the expanded snow plowing routes will cost $250,436 resulting in the total contract purchase price of $340,872 for both of the new machines. These machines will have a guaranteed buy-back value of at least $ I 50,000 per machine in 7 years with the guaranteed buy-back by Wagner Equipment. Staffrecommends that it is in the City's best interests to remain with the Caterpillar equipment line and to keep the technical support that we receive from Wagner Equipment to fulfill our heavy equipment needs. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The 2007 Asset Management Plan budget contains the approved budget amount for this purchase. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the purchase of two Caterpillar Motor Graders as outlined above. PROPOSED MOTION: PROPOSED MOTION: "1 move to approve Resolution # of 2007 on the consent calendar of Monday, January 22, 2007. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ~".~...~"^.,~-,.....,."--"",,,,-,,".--..,...,.,,,..._,-----^.. RESOLUTION NO. i Series of 2007 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND Wagner EQuioment Comoanv , 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 Wagner Equioment Comoanv 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 Wagner EQuioment Comoanv 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; ,2007. Helen Kalin KIanderud, 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 , 2007. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk SUPPLY PROCUREMENT AGREEMENT CITY OF ASPEN BID NO. 2007 - 2FM THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into, this 11th dav. of' Januarv of 2007, by and between the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereinafter referred to as the "City" and Waaner Eauipment Companv . hereinafter referred to as the "Vendor." WITNESSETH, that whereas the City wishes to purchase~ Two (2) Caterpillar Motoraraders model 143H Hereinafter called theUNIT(Sl,Jn<:!ccordance 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 _ Three Hundred Forty Thousand Eiaht Hundred seventv Two and no cents dollars ($340.872.00 ). 2. Deliverv. (FOB 1080 POWER PLANT RD. ASPEN, CO.) 3. Contract Documents. This Agreement shall include all Contract Documents as the same 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. Aareement 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 construep. 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 Presumotion. 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 Reaardina Debarment. Susoension. Ineliaibilitv. and Voluntary 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 Aaainst Continaent 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 conteni 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 transferrel! 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. Inteoration 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: VU Gl'/ '7 f'~ 6"7 U 'I" yz...,l?......-I-- fa.. ~/ By: ~ / lq .........J I-c,,~-(> c I Title. SC>f (fY ........, 7-PURCH.DOC UJ Wagner Equipment Co. P.O. Box 17620 Denver, CO 80217-0620 (303) 739-3000 http://wagnerequipmentcat.com WAGNER Equipment Quotation for City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611-1975 I -New Caterpillar 143H Motor Grader equipped with the following equipment; Operator Environment Ace:elerator-decelerator Coat hook Control console, adjustable EMS operator warning system Gauges inside the cab (includes fuel, articulation, engine coolant temp and air brake pressure) Hydraulic controls, load sensing (right/left blade lift with float position, blade sideshift and tip, circle drive, centershift, front wheel lean, articulation, and two wing controls) Hour meter Mirror, inside rearview, wide angle Hydraulic power steering ROPS cab, sound suppressed 80 dB(A), low profile Contour seat, suspension, cloth-covered, adjustable Seat belt, retractable 3" Steering wheel, tilt, adjustable Storage area for cooler/lunchbox Hand throttle Lower opening front windows Cab heater with pressurizer, wI AlC Front and rear window defroster fans Radio ready, entertainment. Provides 5 amp, 24V to 12V converter, two mounted speakers, mounted antenna and cable. AM/FM stereo cassette Sliding side windows Communication converter, Converter group for two-way FM communications radio. January 11,2007 Provides 25 amp, 24V to 12V converter and wiring for two-way communications radio. Communications radio not included. Outside mounted mirrors(heated) Intermittent front windshield washer and wiper Rear window washer and wiper SpeedometerlTachometer Rear sunshade Electrical Back-up alarm Alternator, 100 ampere, sealed Batteries, low maintenance, 1300 CCA Electrical system, 24 volt Stop and taillights Starting motor Lights, cab and bar mounted, two hi and two low beam, cab mounted halogen headlights. Turn signal lights mounted on cab and radiator grill. Two bar-mounted halogen work lights. Work lights, Two front-facing halogen work lights mounted on operator's platform. Also includes two rear-facing halogen work lights mounted on the engine side panels. Snow wing light Amber strobe on the left side of cab Blue strobe on the right side of cab Powertrain Air cleaner, dry type radial seal with service Ell WAGNER EQUIPMENT CO.,WAGNER RENTS LOCATIONS COLORADO: AURORA, BUAUNGTON, CARBONDALE, COLORADO SPRINGS, COMMERCE CITY, DENVER, DURANGO, FORT COWNS. GRANDSY, GRANO JUNCTION, GYPSUM, HAYDEN, PUEBLO, SILVERTHORNE. STEAMBOAT SPRINGS NEW MEXICO: ALBUaUERQUE, FARMINGTON. HOBBS. TEXAS: EL PASO indicator and automatic dust ejector Blower fan Brakes, oil disc, four-wheel air actuated Differential, lock-unlock Engine, 3306 mT diesel triple variable horsepower (VHP) Muffler, under hood Parking brake, multi-disc, sealed and oil cooled Prescreener Fuel priming pump Tandem drive Autoshift transmission, 8 speed forward and 6 speed reverse power shift, direct drive with electronic shift control and overspeed protection Air dryer for brake system Engine coolant heater, (and outside engine compartment) Ether starting aid All Wheel Drive System . Hydraulic front wheel drive system with electronic control system; manual and automatic operating mode Motors, front wheel dual displacement Pump, A WD system mounted on transmission FOB Asoen. CO Other Equipment Rear bumper with hitch Cap locks for hydraulic tank, radiator access cover, and fuel tank Cutting edges, 6" x 5/8" (I52mm x 16mm) curved DH-2 steel, 5/8" mounting bolts Locking engine compartment door Drawbar, 6 shoe with replaceable bronze-alloy wear strips Endbits, 5/8" (I6mm) DH-2 steel, 5/8" mounting bolts Frame, articulated with safety lock Fuel tank, 105 gallon (34 I L) Air horn Moldboard, 14' x 27" x I" blade with hydraulic sideshift and tip Tires, I4.00R24 x Snow Plus Michelin Toolbox Blade lift accululators Circle drive slip clutch Tire chain protection. Brake line covers, heavier battery box covers, and a mounting provision for the air dryer inside the fan compartment. Protects against tire chain damage. Balderson 12' direct hydraulic snow wing with manual rear brace height adjustment Front mounted push - block Purchase Price: Less 143H trade: Net Purchase Price: $ 243,648.00 t- o I 60.000.00 $ 83,648.00 Warranties: Standard Warranty is one year total machine with travel time for six months. Optional Extended Warranties: -5 year/5000 hour Total Plus Governmental Warranty- Add $ 6,788.00 * -5 year/5000 hour Powertrain and Hydraulic Warranty- Add $ 4,940.00 -5 year/5000 hour Powertrain Warranty Ad~ $ 3,500.00 - ~aTRelll'Ripper wi 3 shanks: Add $ 9,982.00 I'I() Guaranteed Repurchase: Buy-back - 7years, 5,000 hours $ 150,000.00 Thanks for your interest. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate giving me a call. Prepared by: J.B. "Sandy" Lowell Sales Representative, Wagner Equipment Co. VI' a.", THE CITY OF ASPEN Memornndum To: Aspen City Council From: Paul Menter, Director of Finance and Admi Scott Newman, CF A, Senior Financial Anal Management Date: January 17,2007 AU: Ordinance No.l (Series of2007) Re: Isis Certificate Issue Ordinance, First Reading, January 22, 2007 Summary: Attached please find a copy of the ordinance for Council review on January 22,2007. The primary purpose of the Ordinance is to authorize a Lease Purchase Agreement, an Official Statement and to acknowledge a Mortgage and Indenture of Trust, the issuance of certain Certificates of Participation, a Certificate Purchase Agreement and to delegate authority to the City's Finance Director to determine certain provisions of the Lease Purchase Agreement. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns regarding this information. Background: The City entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) approved by Council on November 29, 2006. The ordinance is signed by and among the City, Independent Films, Inc., a Colorado nonprofit corporation doing business as Aspen FilmFest ("AspenFilm"), and Isis Property Group LLC, a Colorado limited liability company ("Isis Group") in which it has been determined that it is in the best interests of the City and its residents to retain a theater in the downtown area suitable for the exhibition of films to the public. The City of Aspen Public Facilities Authority (the "Corporation") will acquire the Isis Theatre and lease the property to the City pursuant to a Lease Purchase Agreement between the Corporation and the City. The City will then sublease portions of the leased property to the Isis Group and AspenFilm. The Lease will be subject to annual appropriations and will not constitute a mandatory charge or requirement against the City in any ensuing year. January 17, 2007 The Corporation will finance the acquisition and improvement of the Isis with the proceeds of its "City of Aspen Public Facilities Authority Taxable Certificates of Participation (Isis Theatre Project), Series 2007 A which will represent undivided interests in certain payments pursuant to the Lease and will be payable solely from the sources provided in the Lease and the Indenture. They will not constitute multi- year fiscal obligations ofthe City. The City Council desires to delegate the authority to the City Finance Director to determine certain terms of the Lease and subleases. 2 ORDINANCE NO. --L (SERIES OF 2007) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING A LEASE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND OTHER DOCUMENTATION RELATING TO SUCH LEASE PURCHASE AGREEMENT; ACKNOWLEDGING A MORTGAGE AND INDENTURE OF TRUST, CERTAIN CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION ISSUED PURSUANT THERETO, A CERTIFICATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND RELATED DOCUMENTATION; DELEGATING THE AUTHORITY TO THE CITY'S FINANCE DIRECTOR TO DETERMINE CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE LEASE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS; AND PROVIDING OTHER DETAILS IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH LEASE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND RELATED DOCUMENTATION. WHEREAS, the City of Aspen (the "City"), in the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado (the "State"), is a legally and regularly created, established, organized and existing municipal corporation under the provisions of Article XX of the Constitution of the State of Colorado and the home rule charter of the City (the "Charter") (all capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined in the recitals hereof shall have the respective meanings assigned in Section I of this Ordinance); and WHEREAS, under the Charter, the City is possessed of all powers which are necessary, requisite or proper for the government and administration of its local and municipal matters, all powers which are granted to home rule municipalities by the Colorado Constitution, and all rights and powers that now or hereafter may be granted to municipalities by the laws of the State of Colorado; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 1.4 of the Charter, the City is authorized to enter into one .or more leases or lease-purchase agreements for land, buildings, equipment and other property for governmental or proprietary purposes; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City (the "City Council") has, in the Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") by and among the City, Independent Films, Inc., a Colorado nonprofit corporation doing business as Aspen FilmFest ("AspenFilm"), and Isis Property Group LLC, a Colorado limited liability company ("Isis Group"), approved by the City Council in its Resolution No. 99, Series of 2006, expressed its determination that it is the best interests of the City and its inhabitants to retain a theater in the downtown area suitable for the exhibition of films to the public; and WHEREAS, the City' of Aspen Public Facilities Authority, a Colorado nonprofit corporation (the "Corporation"), will acquire certain property within the boundaries of the City, which property contains theaters commonly known as the Isis Theater; and WHEREAS, the Corporation desires to make certain improvements to such property and to lease such improved property (the "Leased Property") to the City pursuant to a Lease Purchase Agreement between the Corporation, as lessor, and the City, as lessee (the "Lease"); and 4843-8602-8801.4 1 WHEREAS, the City has determined in the MOU that the lease by the City of the Leased Property serves a public purpose, and the City consequently desires to lease the Leased Property from the Corporation pursuant to the Lease; and WHEREAS, the Corporation will finance the acquISItIOn of and, pursuant to a Renovation Agreement (the "Renovation Agreement") between the Corporation and the City, the improvement of the Leased Property with the proceeds of its "City of Aspen Public Facilities Authority Taxable Certificates of Participation (Isis Theater Project), Series 2007 A" (the "Certificates"), which Certificates will be delivered pursuant to a Mortgage and Indenture of Trust dated as of the date of the Lease (the "Indenture") between the Corporation and American National Bank, as trustee (the "Trustee"); and WHEREAS, the Lease shall expire on December 31 of any City fiscal year (a "Fiscal Year") if the City has, on such date, failed, for any reason, to appropriate sufficient amounts to pay all Base Rentals (as defined in the Lease) scheduled to be paid and all Additional Rentals (as defined in the Lease) estimated to be payable in the next ensuing Fiscal Year, and in certain other circumstances set forth in the Lease, and shall not constitute a mandatory charge or requirement against the City in any ensuing budget year unless the City decides to renew the Lease by appropriating the necessary such amounts; and WHEREAS, the City currently expects that the Corporation will enter into a commitment (the "Commitment") for the delivery by a AAAI Aaa-rated insurer of municipal obligations (the "Certificate Insurer") of an insurance policy (the "Certificate Insurance Policy") guaranteeing the payment of the principal of and interest on the Certificates when due; and WHEREAS, to further secure the payments to be made on the Certificates, the Corporation may purchase from the Certificate Insurer a surety bond (the "Reserve Fund Surety Bond") to fund the Reserve Fund established by the Indenture for the payment of the Certificates pursuant to the terms and provisions of a guaranty agreement between the Corporation and the Certificate Insurer (the "Financial Guaranty Agreement"); and WHEREAS, the Certificates shall evidence assignments of proportionate undivided interests in certain payments pursuant to the Lease and shall be payable solely from the sources provided in the Lease and the Indenture; and WHEREAS, no provision of the Certificates, the Indenture, the Lease or any other document described herein shall be construed or interpreted (a) to directly or indirectly obligate the City to make any payment in any Fiscal Year in excess of amounts appropriated for such Fiscal Year; (b) as creating a debt or multiple fiscal year direct or indirect debt or other financial obligation whatsoever of the City within the meaning of Article XI, Section 6 or Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution or any other constitutional or statutory limitation or provision; (c) as a delegation of governmental powers by the City; (d) as a loan or pledge of the credit or faith of the City or as creating any responsibility by the City for any debt or liability of any person, company or corporation within the meaning of Article XI, Section I of the Colorado Constitution; or (e) as a donation or grant by the City to, or in aid of, any person, company or corporation within the meaning of Article XI, Section 2 of the Colorado Constitution; and 4843-8602-8801.4 2 WHEREAS, the City has been presented with forms of the Lease, the Indenture, the Renovation Agreement and a Certificate Purchase Agreement (the "Certificate Purchase Agreement") pursuant to which the Certificates are to be sold to Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated (the "Underwriter") and the Preliminary Official Statement relating to the offer and sale of the Certificates (the "Preliminary Official Statement"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 6.8 of the Charter, the City's Director of Finance (the "City Finance Director") shall perform such duties pertaining to the City's department of finance as required by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to delegate the authority to the City Finance Director to determine certain terms of the Lease and other documents as set forth herein, all in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, in order to implement the transactions described above, the City Council desires (a) to authorize and approve the execution and delivery by the City of, and the performance by the City of its obligations under, the Lease and certain other documents described herein; (b) to authorize, and approve the use in the offering and sale of the Certificates of, the Preliminary Official Statement and a final official statement substantially in the form of the Preliminary Official Statement (the "Official Statement"); (c) to authorize the execution of the Official Statement; (d) to acknowledge the Indenture, the Certificates, the Certificate Purchase Agreement, the Commitment and the Financial Guaranty Agreement; and (e) to authorize, approve, ratify, make findings and take other actions with respect to the foregoing and related matters. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO; Section 1. Definitions. All capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined in this Ordinance shall have the respective meanings assigned in the Lease. Section 2. Approval and Authorization of Documents. The City Council hereby approves the following documents, copies of which have been made available to the City Council, authorizes the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem and all other appropriate officers and employees of the City to execute and deliver, and to affix the seal of the City to, such documents in the forms made available to the City Council, with such changes therein, not inconsistent herewith, as are approved by the persons executing the same (whose signature thereon shall constitute conclusive evidence of such approval) and authorizes and directs the performance by the City of its obligations under such documents in the forms in which they are executed and delivered: (a) the Lease; provided that: (I) the Base Rentals payable by the City pursuant to the Lease shall not exceed $700,000 per year; and (2) the Scheduled Lease Term (as defined in the Lease) shall not extend beyond September 1,2038; 4843-8602-8801.4 3 (b) the Renovation Agreement; and (c) the Continuing Disclosure Undertaking of the City (the "Continuing Disclosure Undertaking") dated as of the date of delivery of the Certificates. Section 3. Acknowledgement and Approval of Corporation Documents. The City Council hereby acknowledges and approves the execution and delivery by the Corporation of, and the performance by the Corporation of its obligations under, the following documents, in substantially the forms made available to the City Council; (a) the Indenture; provided that: (I) the aggregate principal amount of the Certificates shall not exceed $ I 0,000,000; (2) the aggregate principal of and interest on the Certificates maturing in any year during the term thereof shall not exceed $700,000; (3) the final maturity of Certificates shall be not later than September 1,2038; and (4) the net effective interest rate shall not exceed 6.375%; (b) the Certificates; provided that the Certificates shall not be inconsistent with the Indenture; and (c) the Certificate Purchase Agreement. Section 4. Certificate Insurance Policy and Reserve Fund Surety Bond Documents. The City Council hereby acknowledges and approves the execution and delivery by the Corporation of, and the performance by the Corporation of its obligations under, the following documents: (a) the Commitment; provided that the Corporation may opt to issue the Bonds without the Certificate Insurance Policy, and may accordingly opt not to enter into the Commitment, if, in the judgment of the City Finance Director, it is not feasible to obtain such a Commitment or the cost of doing so is uneconomic; and (b) the Financial Guaranty Agreement; provided that the Corporation may opt to issue the Bonds without the Reserve Fund Surety Bond, and may accordingly opt not to enter into the Financial Guaranty Agreement, if, in the judgment of the City Finance Director, it is not feasible to obtain such a Reserve Fund Surety Bond or the cost of doing so is uneconomic. Section 5. Approval of Official Statement and Miscellaneous Documents. The City Council hereby: ratifies and approves the distribution and use of the Preliminary Official Statement; authorizes and directs the City staff to prepare the Official Statement for use in connection with the sale of the Certificates in substantially the form thereof presented at or prior 4843-8602-8801.4 4 to the meeting at which this Ordinance is adopted or as otherwise made available to the City Council, with such changes therein, if any, not inconsistent herewith, as are approved by the Mayor, or in the Mayor's absence, the Mayor Pro Tem (whose execution thereof shall constitute conclusive evidence of approval of the City); and authorizes and approves the execution of all documents and certificates necessary or desirable to effectuate the execution and delivery of the Lease, the issuance of the Certificates and the transactions contemplated hereby. The Mayor, or in the Mayor's absence, the Mayor Pro Tem, is hereby authorized and directed to execute the Official Statement and the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem, the City Clerk or, in the absence thereof, the Deputy City Clerk, and all other officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed to execute all of the documents and certificates necessary or desirable to effectuate the execution and delivery of the Lease, the issuance of the Certificates and the transactions contemplated hereby (execution by the parties thereto shall constitute the City Council's approval of such documents and certificates in the form so executed). Section 6. Delegation of Authority to City Finance Director. The City Council hereby delegates to the City Finance Director the authority to determine the terms of the documents set forth in each of the provisos in Sections 2 through 4. hereof, subject to the parameters set forth in each of such provisos. Section 7. Consent to Assignment and Sale of Proportionate Interests. The City Council hereby acknowledges and consents to the assignment by the Corporation of all rights, title and interest of the Corporation in, to and under the Lease to the Trustee, and the delegation by the Corporation of all duties of the Corporation under the Lease to the Trustee. The City Council hereby acknowledges and approves the assignment or sale of proportionate interests in rights to receive certain payments under the Lease. Section 8. Additional Authorizations. The officers, employees and agents of the City are authorized and directed to take all action necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this Ordinance and the documents referred to herein and to carry out the transactions described herein or in such documents, including, without limitation, the execution and delivery of such certificates as may reasonably be required by the Underwriter and the Certificate Insurer, relating, among other matters, to the tenure and identity of the officials of the City and the City Council, the receipt of the purchase price for the Certificates, the absence of litigation, pending or threatened, the sale and delivery of the Certificates and the investment of the proceeds of the Certificates. Section 9. Year to Year Obligations of the City. No provision of this Ordinance, the Lease, the Indenture, the Certificates, or any other document described herein shall be construed or interpreted (a) to directly or indirectly obligate the City to make any payment in any Fiscal Year in excess of amounts appropriated for such Fiscal Year; (b) as creating a debt or multiple fiscal year direct or indirect debt or other financial obligation whatsoever of the City within the meaning of Article XI, Section 6 or Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution or any other constitutional or statutory limitation or provision; (c) as a delegation of governmental powers by the City; (d) as a loan or pledge of the credit or faith of the City or as creating any responsibility by the City for any debt or liability of any person, company or corporation within the meaning of Article XI, Section I of the Colorado Constitution; or (e) as a donation or grant 4843-8602-8801.4 5 by the City to, or in aid of, any person, company or corporation within the meaning of Article XI, Section 2 of the Colorado Constitution. Section 10. Ratification of Prior Actions. All actions heretofore taken (not inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance) by the City Council, the City Finance Director, or the other officers and employees of the City that are directed toward the lease purchase financing for the purposes herein set forth are hereby ratified, approved and confirmed. Section 11. Headings. The headings to the various sections and paragraphs to this Ordinance have been inserted solely for the convenience of the reader, are not a part of this Ordinance, and shall not be used in any manner to interpret this Ordinance. Section 12. Severability. It is hereby expressly declared that all provisions hereof and their application are intended to be and are severable. In order to implement such intent, if any provision hereof or the application thereof is determined by a court or administrative body to be invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, such determination shall not affect, impair or invalidate any other provision hereof or the application of the provision in question to any other situation; and if any provision hereof or the application thereof is determined by a court or administrative body to be valid or enforceable only if its application is limited, its application shall be limited as required to most fully implement its purpose. Section 13. Repealer. All orders, bylaws, ordinances and resolutions of the City, or parts thereof, inconsistent or in conflict with this Ordinance, are hereby repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency or conflict. Section 14. Declaration and Description of Emergency. The City Council hereby declares that, because there is currently an opportunity to issue and sell the Certificates in a favorable interest rate market, and because of the impending scheduled termination of the option to purchase the Leased Property, an emergency exists. The City Council herby further declares that, due to such emergency, this Ordinance is necessary to the immediate preservation of the public property, health, peace and safety of the residents of the City and is being adopted as an emergency ordinance pursuant to Section 4.1 1 of the Charter. [remainder of page intentionally left blank] 4843-8602-8801.4 6 INTRODUCED at a regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 22nd day of January, 2007, AND PASSED ON FIRST READING by a vote of FOR and AGAINST. ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR FINALLY PASSED on second and final reading at a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Aspen on the _ day of , 2007, by a vote of _ FOR and AGAINST; and ordered published within ten days of such final passage. ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR 4843-8602-8801.4 7 ,.,-->,- .; VH'~ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Bentley Henderson, Paul Menter, Tom McCabe, Scott Newman THRU: Steve Barwick DATE OF MEMO: 1-10-07 MEETING DATE: 1-22-07 RE: Aspen Country Inn rent issue SUMMARY: At the final budget hearing, staff was directed to devise a means by which rents at Aspen Country Inn (ACI), primarily for seniors, could be more effectively managed. Provided for your review are the most viable alternatives. BACKGROUND: Aspen Country Inn is an AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority managed affordable housing complex that has been established to meet the housing needs of the senior population within the county. The property while not exclusively dedicated as senior housing has as part of its tenant "ranking" process a senior citizen priority. ACI is not "owned" by the City. The property is a self sustaining entity meaning the rent that is collected has to both operate the facility and satisfY the debt obligation. As such, in order to ensure that the facility can meet all of its obligations annual rent increases are necessary. The challenge associated with these increases is that they can sometimes create a hardship for the fixed income tenants. In the past, the City Council has elected to offset the increases to the senior tenants by subsidizing the necessary rent increase through an annual deferment. Following the request by the City Council, staff has considered several options that would either perpetuate the subsidy or establish a means by which the management of ACI could better manage the entire rent assessment process. DISCUSSION: Staff has determined that the following options represent the best alternatives in resolving the ACI rent challenge. . Establish an endowment. a. This is by far the easiest method, with the only requirement being the appropriation of funding adequate to ensure that monies are in place for an extended period of time. While this approach is the quickest and easiest it does not provided for much flexibility when looking at the facility as a whole, and realistically does not address the problem in the long term. Further, if the choice is to freeze the rents the long term impact become much greater as the regular increases will be compounded. . Payoff the existing debt in full a. Pay the loan in full, with an interfund loan that essentially reflects the terms of the original note. b. Gift the payment ofthe penalty portion of the existing loan with repayment of the principle and interest. c. Pay the loan in full with an interfund loan at below market rates d. Pay the loan in full changing the term of the note. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Each scenario identified above carries with it a financial impact. The magnitude of each varies greatly. I. Endowment - Approx. $2500, annually adjusted for CPI driven increases. This results in essentially no change to the operations of ACI. 2. Payment of existing debt and penalties (through an interfund loan) at market rate, maintaining existing term to ACI with penalties - $1.9 million. The savings to ACI: a. Monthly $430.96 b. Annually $5, I 71.55 3. Payment of existing debt, (through interfund loan) with city gifting the amount ofthe penalty to ACI, ACI repays principle and interest to the city at a market rate maintaining existing terms. Savings to ACI: a. Monthly $2,808.62 b. Annually $33,703.39 4. Payment of existing debt (through interfund loan) at a below market rate with no change in term ofIoan. Savings to ACI: a. Monthly $2,552.39 b. Annually $30,628.68 5. Payment of existing debt (through interfund loan) at a market rate refinancing the term of the loan to include a balloon payment in 23 years. Savings to ACI: a. Monthly $1,973.60 b. Annually $23,683. I 7 c. Balloon payment $28,970.00 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends creating an interfund loan to Aspen Country Inn to pay in full the outstanding debt. Staff recommends a below market rate to ACl as described in scenario 4 above. This is the most cost effective means to stabilize both the operations of the organization, and provide for addressing, long term, capital maintenance issues. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Attachments: Repayment scenarios A - Full repayment B - Repayment with gift C - Repayment at below market rates D - Repayment with balloon --------..",,"_.,.> Blue = Inputs Principal Outstanding 1,514,900.13 Annual Yield Differential 54,021.34 Loan Rate 8.246% End YM May-15 T 11.25% 2/15 4.680% Today Jan-07 Difference 3.566% Months of YM Remaining 8.33 PV Factor 7.097006889 Prepayment Premium Payable 383,389.81 Cost to Prepay 1,898,289.94 Principal - Outstanding & Peanlty Interest Rate = Market Principal $ 1,898,290 Term (Months) 280 Monthly Savings 430.96 Interest Rate (Annual) 5.25% Annual Savings 5,171.55 Interfund Loan Remaining Balance Interest Principal Payment Year 1 1,855,664 98,644 42,626 141,271 Year 2 1,810,745 96,352 44,919 Year 3 1,763,410 93,936 47,335 Year4 1,713,530 91,390 49,880 Year 5 1,660,966 88,707 52,563 Year 6 1,605,576 85,881 55,390 Year 7 1,547,207 82,902 58,369 Year 8 1,485,699 79,762 61,508 Year 9 1,420,883 76,454 64,816 Year 10 1,352,581 72,968 68,302 Year 11 1,280,605 69,295 71,976 Year 12 1,204,759 65,424 75,847 Year 13 1,124,833 61,345 79,926 Year 14 1,040,608 57,046 84,224 Year 15 951,854 52,516 88,754 Year 16 858,327 47,743 93,527 Year 17 759,769 42,713 98,558 Year 18 655,911 37,412 103,858 Year 19 546,467 31,827 109,444 Year 20 431,138 25,941 115,330 Year 21 309,605 19,738 121,533 Year 22 181,536 13,202 128,069 Year 23 46,580 6,314 134,957 Year 24 511 46,580 1,398,023 Principal - Outstanding Interest Rate = Market City pays penalty. Cost $383,389.81 Principal $ Term (Months) Interest Rate (Annual) 1,514,900 280 5.25% Monthly Savings 2,808.62 Annual Savings 33,703.39 Interfund Loan Remaining Balance Interest Principal Payment Year 1 1,480,883 78,721 34,017 112,739 Year 2 1,445,036 76,892 35,847 Year 3 1,407,261 74,964 37,775 Year 4 1,367,455 72,932 39,806 Year 5 1,325,508 70,792 41,947 Year 6 1,281,305 68,536 44,203 Year 7 1,234,724 66,158 46,580 Year 8 1,185,639 63,653 49,086 Year 9 1,133,913 61,013 51,726 Year 10 1,079,406 58,231 54,507 Year 11 1,021,967 55,300 57,439 Year 12 961,438 52,211 60,528 Year 13 897,655 48,955 63,783 Year 14 830,441 45,525 67,214 Year 15 759,612 41,910 70,829 Year 16 684,974 38,101 74,638 Year 17 606,322 34,086 78,652 Year 18 523,440 29,856 82,882 Year 19 436,100 25,399 87,340 Year 20 344,063 20,702 92,037 Year 21 247,075 15,752 96,987 Year 22 144,872 10,535 102,203 Year 23 37,172 5,039 107,700 Year 24 407 37,172 1,115,670 Below Market Interest Rate NPV $383,269.52 Principal $ 1,898,290 Term (Months) 280 Monthly Savings 2,552.39 Interest Rate (Annual) 3.220% Annual Savings 30,628.68 Interfund Loan Remaining Balance Interest Principal Payment Year 1 1,842,787 60,311 55,503 115,813 Year 2 1,785,470 58,497 57,317 Year 3 1,726,281 56,624 59,190 Year 4 1,665,157 54,689 61,124 Year 5 1,602,035 52,692 63,122 Year 6 1,536,851 50,629 65,184 Year 7 1,469,536 48,499 67,315 Year 8 1,400,022 46,299 69,514 Year 9 1,328,236 44,027 71,786 Year 10 1,254,104 41,681 74,132 Year 11 1,177,549 39,259 76,555 Year 12 1,098,493 36,757 79,056 Year 13 1,016,853 34,174 81,640 Year 14 932,545 31,506 84,308 Year 15 845,482 28,751 87,063 Year 16 755,574 25,905 89,908 Year 17 662,728 22,967 92,846 Year 18 566,848 19,933 95,880 Year 19 467,834 16,800 99,014 Year 20 365,584 13,564 102,249 Year 21 259,993 10,223 105,591 Year 22 150,952 6,772 109,042 Year 23 38,347 3,208 112,605 Year 24 258 38,347 Balloon in Year 23 Principal $ Term (Months) Interest Rate (Annual) 1,898,290 360 5.034% Interfund Loan Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year 20 Year 21 Year 22 Year 23 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 Year 24 Remaining Balance 1,870,454 1,841,185 1,810,408 1,778,045 1,744,014 1,708,231 1,670,604 1,631,039 1,589,435 1,545,688 1,499,688 1,451,317 1,400,454 1,346,972 1,290,733 1,231,598 1,169,416 1,104,030 1,035,276 962,980 886,960 807,023 722,968 722,968 715,771 708,543 701,286 693,998 Interest 94,924 93,489 91,982 90,396 88,729 86,976 85,132 83,194 81,155 79,012 76,758 74,388 71,896 69,276 66,521 63,623 60,577 57,373 54,005 50,463 46,738 42,822 38,704 3,033 3,003 2,972 2,942 11,950 1,660,083 Principal 27,835 29,269 30,777 32,363 34,030 35,783 37,627 39,565 41,604 43,747 46,001 48,371 50,863 53,483 56,238 59,135 62,182 65,385 68,754 72,296 76,021 79,937 84,055 7,197 7,227 7,258 7,288 28,970 N PV $383,460.49 Monthly Savings Annual Savings Payment 122,759 1,973.60 23,683.17 MEMORANDUM VII. b TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager Bentley Henderson, Assistant City Manager DATE OF MEMO: January 12,2007 MEETING DATE: January 22,2007 RE: Pedestrian Plan for Park Avenue SUMMARY: This memo summarizes options for pedestrian safety on Park Avenue. BACKGROUND: According to Ordinance No. 25 (series of 2004) sidewalk, curb and gutter shall be provided across the Park Avenue frontage of 308 and 310 Park Avenue. The challenge is that the paved road surface is approximately 18 to 2 I feet wide (minimum 24 feet is recommended) and is located on the edge of the right of way (ROW). As a result, one option fQr the proposed sidewalk at 308 and 310 Park Avenue includes having it installed on private property (Option I) to achieve the intent of the Ordinance. Below are all of the options that are being considered for pedestrian access along Park Avenue: Option 1: Require properties on east side of Park A venue to install sidewalk with out impacting the width of Park A venue, essentially placing the sidewalk on private property. Option 2: Install sidewalk on West side of Park Avenue. Option 3: Shift Park Avenue to the West to allow space for a sidewalk on the East Side of Park Avenue. Option 4: Make Midland A venue and Park A venue one way streets to allow space for a sidewalk along Park Avenue. Mayor and Members of City Council January 12, 2007 Page 2 DISCUSSION: Option 1: Option 2: Option 3: Option 4: PRO: Since the sidewalk has already been installed on a portion of Park Avenue at this location approx. 170 feet of sidewalk is needed to complete the sidewalk on this side. Each property owner without sidewalk would install the sidewalk at the time of redevelopment at no cost to the City. CON: The current roadway is approx. 18 to 2 I feet wide and is already close to the (ROW) as a result sidewalk on the east side would require easements on private property. PRO: There is enough ROW on the west side of Park Avenue for a sidewalk. CON: Since there is no sidewalk on this side of Park Avenue approx. 350 feet of sidewalk is needed to complete the sidewalk on this side. Additionally due to severe grade changes on this side of Park Avenue, the estimated cost for this sidewalk is approximately $250,000. PRO: There is enough ROW on the west side of Park Avenue to shift the road to allow for sidewalk on the East side. CON: Due to the severe grade changes on this side of Park Avenue the estimated cost for this road is approximately $250,000. PRO: By having Park and Midland one way streets it would allow enough space in the ROW to install sidewalk on Park Avenue. CON: At this time Staff cannot determine the feasibility of this option until a study is performed. The study is expected to cost $10,000. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Option I: Option 2: Option 3: Option 4: No cost to city, cost is borne by private property owners Approximately $250,000 if City installs sidewalk on West side of Park Avenue. Approximately $250,000 if City shifts Park Avenue to the West. $10,000 for Study plus additional costs for signage and any other structural reconfigurations. ,..---., Mayor and Members of City Council January 12, 2007 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Option I which maintains the intent of the Ordinance and will provide a needed step in achieving pedestrian access along Park Avenue. AL TERNA TIVES: Council could approve any Option listed above. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Attachment A: Ordinance 25 (series 2004) Attachment B: Pedestrian Plan Options for Park Avenue . . ,1.I"lI1JII".=~*:".,:." '....... ..' ORDINANCE NO~ 25 (SERIEs OF 20'04) . AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCILA:i'PR.O~G A SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR A HISTOmCLANl>MA.<<K LOT'SPLtt AT . 308 PARK A VENUE,ASP:EN, PJ.'tKIN COUNTY; COl;OlUlnJ . .(\\( '1 \ rd{f S ). Parcel No. 2737~181-30~047 WHEREAs, the subject property is 308 Park Avenue, Lot 1, Block 2, Riverside Addition, and aU that part <if ll.egent Street lying Southerly of and adjacent to said Lot I projected Southerly to the Southerly line of Regent street. Also the Northerly 15 feet of Lots 9,10,11 ana the Northerly 15 feet of the Westerly hili of Lot 12, Block:2 of the Ri.verside Addition, City and ToWnsite of Aspen, P'itkin Comity, Colorado; and, WHEREAS,. the CommUnity Development Department received an. application from Tim Mooney, owner, represented by Alan Richman Planning Services aild Al Seyer Design, for a Historic Landmark Lot Split for said property; and, . . . . . WHEREAS, pursUant to .Sections i6A15~II0, 26.470.070(C),. and 26.480.030(A)(i) imd; (4) of the Municip81 Code, ihe City COWlCii ~ay approve a . Historic Landmark Lot Split'Subdivision Exempuonduring lidlilYnoticed pliblicheanng after taking and considering comments from the general public and recommendations from the HistoricPreseniaticin Commission (hereinafter l:tPC) ..nd. CoinmUnity Development Director; imd WHEREAS, the Commu;nity. Development Director reviewed and recommended approv81 of the application, finding that the applicable review stand8rds have been met; . and, . WHEREAS, during a dl.liy noticed puolic hearingori July 14, 2004 HPC approved Resolution No. 22, Series of 2004, by a four to one (4-0) vote, recommending . that City Council approve the request for a Historic Landmark Lot Split; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City CoUncil has reviewed arid Considered the development proposal under the applica1>le provisions of the M~cip81 Code as identifiCfl herein, has' . reviewed and considered the recommendation oithe HPC and the CommuiutyDevelopment Pirector and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City CoUncil finds that the development proposal meets 0; exceeds .. all applicable development standards and. that the approval of the develojiment proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area CommUnity Plan; and, . . WHEREAS, the City COWl~il finds thai this Ordinan~e furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety,. and welfare: .. '1IIIIu~mml~UIIII~III~II~111111I1 ~~d~~: ~0:16A ,~ILVIA DAVIS PITKItf CO~y C.O, , . R: .:?1..~0 .' D 0.00. .(. NOW, THEREFORE, BE'IT ORDAINrn DY'l1lJfCtrYt'OWcn:'6F'fIiECITY OF ASl'EN,COLORADOTIlA1': .' '. ......... . . .. ...... '. . ...... .. Section 1 . . . Pursuant to Sectioris' 26.480.030(A)(2) imd (4), Section 26,470:070(C); and Section 26.4IS.010(D) of the MunicipiU Code, and subject to those conditions of approval as spedfied herein, the City Council finds .as followS in regard to the'subdivision exemption: 1. The applicant's submission is complete' and suffiCient to affo,d review and evaluation for approval; and 2. The subdivision exemption is consistent with the purposes of subdivision as outlined in Section 26.480 of the Municipal Code, which purposes include: aSsist in the orderly and efficient development ofthiCi1Y; ensUre the proper distrihution of development; encourage the. weIl'plimned subdivision of land by establishing standards for the deSign of a subdivisiori; improve land records and survey monuments by establishing standards for surveys and plats; coordillate the construction of public .facilities With the need for public facilities; safeguard the interests of the public and the sulxilvider and provide cODSmnerprotection'for. the purchaser; acquire and ensure the maintenance of public open spaces and parks, provide procedures so that development encourages' the preservation of important and umque natural or scenic features, including but not limited to mature trees or indigenous vegetation, bluff, hillsides, or similar geologic featUres, or edges of riversllDd other bodies of water, and, promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen. . Section 2 '. . .' . . .. . . Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section I, allove, the City COut'J.ciIdcieshereby grant . Historic Desi~ation and a Historic Landmark 1,ot SpllfSiihdiVislon :ExemPtion for 308 Park Avenue, Lot I, Block 2, Riverside Addition, and all thatpart of Regent Street lying Southerly of and adjaCent to said LOt I projected Southerly to the Southerly line of Regent Street. Also the Northerly IS'feei of Lots 9,10,1 rima the Northeiiy IS feei of the Westerly half of Lot 12, Block 2 of the Riverside Addition, CitY imd Townsite of Aspen, . Pitkin County, Colorado with the following conditions: . I; A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Comrnumty Development Department and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and' Recorder Within one hundrid eighty (180) days of firialapproval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the specified tinie limit shall render the plat invalid and recoJ:1Sideration of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall; . . . .' . . \ . a.Meet the requirements of Section 26.480 of the Aspen Municipal Code; 1IIIIIIUjUIIIUUIIIII~UIIIIUII ~~~~! 1':16A _.SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 21... D 0 ee " ' '. . , ..... . -' ,~. ,i.' '.,.-. b. Contain a plat note stating that no further sUbdivision may be 'granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to the' provisions of the Land Use Code in effect i1t the time of application; c. Contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lotS will conform to the dimensional requirements Oithe R-6 zone district, except for any variances approved by the HPC; and d. Be labeled to indicate that this proposal wil create a North Lot of 4,803 square feet in size with 2,493 square fi et of floor area, and a , South Lot of 3,010 square feei insi:ze with 1,500 square feet of floor area. e. Contain a plat note stating that a: sidewalk, cui-b, and gutter must be provided across the Park A venue frontage of both lots at the time of final inspection for the first property to be developed. Section 4: This Ordinance shil!l not,effect any.existing litigation and s'haIJ. 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 conslrued and concluded under such prior ordinances. . Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. ' Section 6: " ' A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held oil. the 23M day of August, 2004, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. Section 7: This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following ffual passage. INTRODUCED, READ ANI) ORDErot'DJ.>tJllLiSm:n as pro' . ' Council of the City of Aspenon the 26th day of July, 2004. Attes Kathryn S. ch, City Clerk II"~ III' HIIIIIII IIIIIIIf IIII~IIIIII =~d~~! :0: 16A ,SILVIA DAVIS PITkIN COUI:l,TY 09 ".' .. R.21.00 .00,00 ",,',. PfNALLY'-_"'_,,"23"''''Of~~t, '.' . . . . '. ~- =... -ltI~'/ . ain aIin d. d, Mayor "\ Approved as to form: ~rb'/~' . . . orcellter, City Attorney , ',;"" :..; (: "i.. ~,., . ., '~~.'''' ".-'.'. '., 'f'" ';:1 .~;:)" .' - - Tr.h _Ellisli:lgSidew.lk Prloritiz.dSi....welkUnks _ Options lor Perk & Mldl.ndAve -Ro.ds '~JWeter P.rc.ls : '? '':' ~ ,~ ll"."'liP"oi"......'9'l"'.~...wllphi representlltion dlh'_feldepided.,d' "eg.' re~llttIon.Th.ItCC,"cymll'fch.nge daperdi"\lontha&rl~""orredudlon. MEMORANDUM VII c-. TO: Mayor and Council CC: THRU: Steve Barwick, John Worcester, Randy Ready Phil Overeynder FROM: Dan Richardson, Global Warming Project Manager DATE: January 16th, 2007 MEETING DATE: January 22nd, 2007 RE: Joining the Chicago Climate Exchange - Phase II ATTACHMENTS: Draft membership renewal resol]Jtion (Attachment A) 'NRDC on CCX' Letter (Attachment B) Statement of Principles (Attachment C) Original CCX memo (Attachment D) SUMMARY: The purpose of this memo is twofold. The first issue is a recommendation from staff to renew the City's membership in the Chicago Climate Exchange - Phase II (2007- 2010). The second issue is to recommend endorsing the 'Statement of Principles' that was jointly drafted by the municipal members of Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), including Aspen, in response to public criticism about CCX* . *NOTE: This document may be slightly revised after receiving City Council direction, due to lingering edits from other governments. Staff requests the ability to have the Mayor review minor changes. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council approved Resolution 90 Series 2005 on November 28th, 2005, authorizing staff to join the Chicago Climate Exchange - Phase I (2003 - 2006). Staff presented this memo to City Council several weeks ago and the direction from City Council and Mayor Klanderud was to put this on a consent agenda. BACKGROUND: Although I believe the above mentioned resolution passed unanimously, I believe there may have been some reservations about CCX and whether the City should join. Therefore staff thought addressing any issues at this time would be beneficial. DISCUSSION: Before considering membership renewal, it's important to recognize a letter written by a group of regional environmental advocacy organizations, urging cities and states not to join CCX (Attachment B). This letter identified some valid concerns, thus prompting member 1 cities to brainstorm them and come up with a response. The consensus of the group is that the concerns identified in the letter do not warrant withdrawing from CCX, but do warrant a statement to CCX clarifying why we joined and what improvements we would like to see in the future. The 'Statement of Principles' was drafted for this purpose (Attachment C). Rather than re-hash all of the points and counterpoints, below is a summary of the issues raised in the NRDC letter and staff's thoughts. These issues are also addressed in the 'Statement of Principles.' "CCX rules have loopholes that do not warrant government support" This has been true but I) it's a voluntary program so it's a balancing act between recruitment and enforcement. Staff believes CCX has begun to address these loopholes, partly because of our effort to craft the' Statement of Principles. ' "Governments should not participate in programs developed through a closed, non- transparent process." CCX has since begun to address this through a more open dialogue. "Participation in CCX may limit the options for participation in other programs" Considering there are no other options available right now, this is not an issue for Aspen. "States and cities can achieve their climate goals without joining CCX" Absolutely true. However only through CCX can we participate in shaping perhaps the most significant tool to reduce emissions - carbon trading. CCX also offers third party validation. "Voluntary programs are not the solution" True, however the intent behind CCX is to develop a program that works so that when the federal government does regulate carbon emissions, a functional tool is available. Staff believes it was productive for NRDC to raise these issues, but the overarching benefits of CCX outweigh the negatives. The merits are outlined in the original memo dated September 12th, 2005 (Attachment D). FINANCIAL IMPLICA nONS: The Membership fees for Phase II have been waived for existing members. As before, if the City does not meet it obligations of reducing its GHG emissions .5% per year for the next 4 years, it will need to buy carbon financial instruments (credits). Although staff cannot predict if or what the City will owe, for a frame of reference, this will amount to less than $3,000 for Phase I. RECOMMENDA nON: Staff is recommending that the City of Aspen renew its membership in the Chicago Climate Exchange. Staff believes that CCX membership is still a sound method of setting a greenhouse gas reduction target, tracking our progress, and ensuring the public verifiable results. Staff also believes that having a legally binding commitment to reduce emissions has played a role in engaging other departments to reduce emissions. 2 Staff is also recommending that City Council endorse the 'Statement of Principles.' ALTERNATIVES: Again, the purpose of joining the Chicago Climate Exchange is twofold. (Please refer to "Benefits to CCX Membership. . . " on Attachment A for more information.) The first reason is to commit to a legally binding carbon reduction target. The second is to join, and therefore support, the world's first greenhouse gas trading and reduction (aka 'cap and trade') program. Joining CCX is the only alternative to accomplish the latter. To accomplish the first reason mentioned, options are as follows: I. The Mayor signed the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement (Attachment B), which also binds the City to a carbon reduction target, in addition to 12 other action items (the first 9 of which are met by joining CCX). This target is the same as the Kyoto Protocol. Although this is a good target, it uses a different baseline year than what the City has data on. This would likely entail staff either doing another inventory for the year 1990 (because that's the year the Kyoto Protocol uses) or staff could try extrapolating current data, back to 1990, which would likely be time consuming and less accurate than the CCX alternative. Staff is pleased that this agreement was signed; however we feel from a data perspective, CCX's targets will be easier to track. 2. The City could use the baseline established through the GHG Budget outcome measure and continue to set internal reduction goals. This option would cost less money but would be lacking the legal teeth and third-party verification offered by CCX. Also missing would be a least-cost alternative in reducing emissions (by purchasing offsets). It would cost the City more money to buy fewer greenhouse gas emissions reductions. PROPOSED MOTION: No motion requested. Staffrequests direction from Council about how to proceed. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: 3 @ RESOLUTION NO. Series of 2007 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING THE CITY OF ASPEN'S MEMBERSHIP IN THE CHICAGO CLlMA TE EXCHANGE PHASE II. WHEREAS, climate change could be the most critical current threat to Aspen's way of life, health, and economy; and WHEREAS, local actions can help to pave the way for national and international leadership; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that addressing the potentially adverse affects of global warming upon the health and economic well-being of its citizens and guests is, and should be, of the highest priority for the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that more should be done to address the potential risks associated with the phenomenon of global warming, including, but not necessarily limited to, greenhouse gas reduction activities, energy security and cost reduction; affordable housing; mobility and, transportation choices; solid waste reduction and recycling; reliable, affordable water supply; urban and rural forest protection; sustainable economic development; and, clean air. WHEREAS, the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX@) is the world's first and North America's only voluntary, legally binding, pilot greenhouse gas reduction and trading program for emission sources and offset projects. WHEREAS, membership means a legally binding commitment to reduce the city government's greenhouse gas emissions by 1/4% per year from 2007-2008; 1/2% per year in 2009; and I % per year in 2010 below the below an average baseline of 1998- 2001. NOW, WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section One. The City Council ofthe City of Aspen hereby authorizes the mayor to sign the 'CCX Commitment Letter' provided in the 'CCX Membership Application, thereby officially requesting membership in Phase II of the Chicago Climate Exchange. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of ,2007. 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 ,2007. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk DJR~ saved: 1/212007.G:\globalwanning\CCX\CCX Resolution Phase II.doc @ Clean Water Action Alliance of Massachnsetts . Clean Water Action Chesapeake' Clean Water Action Connecticut. Clean Water Action New Hampshire' Clean Water Rhode Island' Conservation Law Foundation' Environment Maine' Environment Maryland' Environmental Defense' Massachusetts Climate Action Network' Montana Environmental Information Center' Natural Resources Council of Maine . Natural Resources Defense Council' New Hampshire Public Interest Research Group' New Jersey Public Interest Research Group' New York Public Interest Research Gronp . Renewable Northwest Project. Rhode Island Pnhlic Interest Research Gronp . Vermont Public Interest Research Group States and Cities Should Not Join the Chicago Climate Exchange The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) is a voluntary cap-and-trade program in which private companies can learn about carbon management in a low-risk environment. While we do not oppose CCX's efforts to recruit companies to their program as a learning experience, we urge state and municipal governments not to take part in CCX. Here's why: CCX rules have loopholes that do not w.arrant government support - Various loopholes- such as allowing companies to exempt emissions from new units - could allow companies to meet their greenhouse gas emissions targets on paper without actually delivering new emission reductions, above and beyond the business-as-usual scenario. Such provisions allow CCX companies to "comply" with their emissions caps even if, in reality, they are emitting far morc pollution than permitted by the cap. The CCX rules governing emissions "offsets" are also of concern. We are not confident that CCX offset investments will deliver real greenhouse gas reductions that compensate for the extra emissions allowed at CCX company facilities. The CCX rules do not include an "additionality" requirement that would ensure that they deliver environmental benefits above and beyond the business as usual scenario. This provision provides another opportunity for companies to technically "comply" with their "caps" without actually reducing pollution. In light of the modest emission reductions that CCX requires -I % per year from baselinc levels - these loopholes could easily result in a program that does not deliver any emission reductions relative to a business as usual scenario. We are also concerned about the prospect of states selling offsets through CCX that they have created with public funds, such as energy efficiency investments supported by ratepayer- funded system benefit charges. The emission reductions that result from these investments are public goods, secured through the implementation of public policies designed at least in part to providc cnvironmental benefits, all of which could be negated if states sell the reductions to CCX companies that consequently increase their emissions. Governments should not participate in programs developed through a closed, non- transparent process - CCX was created in a closed process with little input from the environmental community or government. The expertise and personal integrity of individuals involved in CCX as staff or advisors is not in question, but that is not an adequate substitute for August I, 2006 an open process in which stakeholders can contribute to the development of the program and fully understand the tradeoffs agreed to in the rule development process. Participation in CCX may limit the options for participation in other programs. Once a city or state joins CCX, other trading programs are likcly to preclude consideration of any carbon reductions the city or state accomplishes and registers or trades within CCX. For cxample, the northeast states' Regional Oreenhouse Oas Initiative (ROGI) will not permit a reduction project to qualify as an offset credit if the sponsor has registered the emission reduction in CCX. Emerging market-based programs are likely to include similar restrictions, since no program wants to allow any reduction to get credit twice. A decision to join CCX, therefore, will preclude a city or state from participating in and benefiting from real mandatory cap-and-trade programs like ROGI, or seriously disadvantage it if it does join. States and cities can achieve their climate goals without joining CCX - If states are interested in recording their emissions over time and demonstrating net reductions across all state facilities and vehicles they can do so without joining CCX. The northeast states are developing an Eastern Climate Registry and, in collaboration with the California Climate Action Registry, a Registry Alliance that any state can join. If states are interested in third party certification they can directly contract with tirms to certify emissions reports. We support every state and city's interest in learning more about measurement and reporting of emissions and emissions trading. However, they should do so by hearing from a variety of individuals and organizations working in this arena, in the context of developing their own climate policies rather than by participating in private sector initiatives. We strongly encourage CCX to participate in these efforts and help states learn from their experience. We recognize that CCX is a pilot program that provides a platform for learning about carbon caps and trading, and that as such it is not going to be perfect. However, if a state joins CCX notwithstanding all of the questions and concerns that remain unresolved we believe it will be under tremendous pressure to accept CCX rules and procedures in the context of future regulatory programs, and this would be a terrible detriment to state and local policy. Voluntary programs are not the solution - The history and features of the marketplace demonstrate that mandatory requirements are necessary if we are to reduce global warming pollution to the extent necessary to avoid catastrophic climate disruption. Businesses in all sectors of the economy have had access to a variety of voluntary programs for well over a decade, and these programs have afforded ample opportunities for educational experiences over the years. It is now time for action. State or municipal participation in CCX would imply approval of voluntary approaches to combating global warming pollution and is likely to be used to support those who contend that voluntary efforts alone are sufficient. Leading states and cities are focused on developing mandatory policies. Eight northeast and mid- Atlantic states have joined ROGI, committing to develop the nation's first cap-and-trade program to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. California has adopted its landmark limits on greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, and 10 other states have followed suit - together they represent one third of the nation's automobile market. New Mexico, Arizona, Montana and North August I, 2006 Carolina have launched statewide initiatives to develop specific policy proposals to reduce global warming pollution, and several other states are expected to do so shortly. Many states are considering mandatory reporting of global warming emissions. And more than 270 mayors have signed the Climate Protection Agreement, committing to meet or beat the Kyoto Protocol pollution reduction targets in their own communities, through actions ranging from anti-sprawl land-use policies to urban forest restoration projects to high-efficiency requirements for new buildings. AUl,'llst I, 2006 Statement of Principles on the Chicaqo Climate Exchanoe Bv All State and Local Government Members of the Exchanoe @ Public agency members of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) are frequently asked about their reasons for participating in CCX. Each of the member cities, counties and states recently worked together on the following Statement of Principles: 1. Membership in CCX enables jurisdictions to have independently verified emissions inventories. The CCX provides a platform for tracking, reporting and stringent third party verification of emissions that enables governments to use credible data as we plan ahead. 2. CCX is a laboratory, offering unique and tangible opportunities to actively engage in carbon market development. They are exploring and validating carbon markets as a part of a solution to global warming. Meaningful aspects of this membership for local and regional jurisdictions include: a. Preparing our data, and participating in detailed audits, tests our assumptions and gives each participant very practical experience to inform our positions and actions. b. Undertaking a legally binding contract to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. c. Gaining experience with cap and trade systems, and offset markets. 3. Participating in CCX gives governments access to rule-making experiences that we will need to participate constructively in the national debate and legislative decisions, and policies associated with a federal cap and trading program in the United States. 4. Membership in CCX is a significant opportunity for dialogue between public and private organizations in the development of global warming mitigation solutions. 5. CCX is one of the leaders in creating practical solutions to greenhouse gas emissions issues. We are eager to continue working with the CCX in an environment of continuous improvement. 6. We are also committed to supporting a comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory, market based limits and incentives on emissions of greenhouse gases that slow, stop and reverse the growth of such emissions. @ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Dan Richardson, Global Warming Project Manager DATE: September 12'\ 2005(for the worksession on September 19th) RE: Benefits and Costs of the City Joining the Chicago Climate Exchange (as part of the Canary Initiative) ATTACHMENT: Chicago Climate Exchange Summary (Attachment A) U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement (Attachment B) SUMMARY: The purpose of this work session is to discuss membership in the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) as directed by City Council. The intent is to discuss the concept of membership and if City Council desires to pursue membership, staff will present more specific information (if desired) at a regular meeting in the future. Staff requests direction from Council about whether to come back to Council with an agreement to join CCX. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council adopted the Canary Initiative by Resolution #18, Series of2005, on March 16th, 2005. This resolution directs staff to do several action items, including the following: Section Two. The City Manager is hereby directed to: 4. Negotiate and present to City Council for its consideration a membership agreement with the Chicago Climate Exchange, a voluntary, legally binding pilot greenhouse trading program for emission sources and offset projects in North America. BACKGROUND: No formal discussion between City Council and staff has taken place on CCX membership. DISCUSSION: Please note that a general description of CCX and their concept of emissions trading is attached (Attachment A). The information in this attachment will hopefully provide more clarity on what CCX is and how it works. It is recommended that this attachment be read at this time. A diagram and pros and cons are provided below. 1 Pros I. Joining CCX uses a market-based approach to set a legally binding, certified cap on the City government's greenhouse gas emissions (aka global warming pollutants). Staff believes this approach will help build department 'buy-in' for the need to reduce our emissions so the city government can set the best example for the community. A 'cap' example: Buying wind power essentially 'cleans up' the electricity we use, but it does not limit how much electricity we can use. An analogy is if you want to lose weight, supplementing 10% of your food (fossil fuels) with vegetables (wind power) is a good idea. However if you continue to increase your total food intake by an additional 10%, you're not gaining any ground. So you must also limit your total food intake. CCX limits how much food (fossil fuels) the City eats. 2. Reducing the City's greenhouse gas emissions is going to take a menu of items - there is no silver bullet. CCX offers the City more options for emissions reductions by purchasing 'offsets' or 'credits'. These options will most likely provide more cost-effective emissions reduction opportunities, such as the example below. Or put another way, purchasing emissions offsets is a way to get the most emissions reductions for the dollars Aspen has available. However I want to reiterate that it is the City's choice whether to purchase emissions reduction offsets or to make the reductions 'in-house' and not purchase offsets. An 'offset' example - City of Aspen in-house reduction vs. purchasing emissions offsets: The City could replace an old heating system in a City building with a more energy efficient system, for $50,000 and could offset 150,000 lbs worth of emissions, but it is likely that we could spend less money and offset more emissions by purchasing emissions offsets. It's also important to point out that in-house reductions will continue to get more expensive as we continue to pick the low hanging fruit. Based on the analysis provided by CCX, if the City chose to purchase emissions offsets, we would pay $2,000 spread over four years to offset approximately 200,000 lbs of greenhouse gas emissions. 3. Perhaps the most compelling reason to join CCX is that by doing so; Aspen is participating in building an institution necessary to solve global warming. CCX is the United States' only carbon dioxide cap and trade system. Such a program is required under the Kyoto agreement and under the McCain Lieberman bill, which was supported by City Council. Experts believe that such a program will be essential in effectively reducing greenhouse gas emissions and we believe that Aspen's support can help accelerate that effect. If the City of Aspen would like to be a local model for being proactive at addressing global warming, staff believes that CCX membership should be a piece in the puzzle. It is important to note that existing CCX members represent approximately 5% - 8% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. By 2006 they will have reduced their emissions by 4% below their baseline. By 2010 they will have reduced their emissions by 6%. This is very significant and speaks to the positive effect CCX is having on emissions reductions. 4. CCX membership includes careful auditing and certification of our emissions by a national firm, providing credibility for Aspen's data. The assistance and auditing appears, in staff's opinion, to be of high value for the $5,000 cost, again spread over four years. 5. The City can decide in 2006 if it wishes to renew its CCX membership for the next period (2007 - 2010). 2 Cons I. The main disadvantage to joining CCX is the $5,000 membership fee. Instead of joining CCX, that money could be spent on emission reduction projects. * Another disadvantage that could be stated is the additional staff time required for compliance. However the City has committed to reducing our emissions, and therefore stafftime will need to be spent on monitoring our progress, regardless of the method. Staff believes that because of the resources available to us from CCX, that staff time will more than likely be less with CCX than without them. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The Membership fees are $5,000 total for the I st phase of the program (2003 through 2006). Analysis of the City's greenhouse gas emissions compared to the baseline (1998-2003, averaged) shows that the City's emissions are higher than CCX's I %/year emissions reduction target. Therefore the City would need to make those emission reductions, in order achieve compliance. If we choose to make those reductions 'in-house', then the $5,000 is all we owe CCX. Ifwe choose to purchase emissions reduction offsets instead, we would owe an additional $2,000, which would cover our emissions reduction offsets from 2003 through 2006 at current costs. This figure is based on how much we exceed the emissions reduction targets. Come 2007, when phase II of the program begins, the emission reduction targets continue to drop, and therefore the City will again need to either further reduce emissions or purchase more emissions reduction offsets. The $5,000 has been included in the 2006 Environmental Health Department budget request. If Council decides to join, city management will work to develop an equitable way to apportion costs among departments. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the City of Aspen join the Chicago Climate Exchange. Staff believes that joining CCX is an efficient method of setting a greenhouse gas reduction target, tracking our progress, and ensuring the public verifiable results. The Chicago Climate Exchange is North America's only carbon trading operation and has already established a solid reputation. It is widely accepted that such a cap & trade system is not only the best, but perhaps the only way the U. S. can make reductions anywhere close to what is necessary to make a dent in global warming. So timinf! is the issue". We (global citizens) have reached a point where leveling off greenhouse gas emissions, and then beginning to reduce them is urgent. The atmosphere doesn't care if those reductions happen in Aspen or Timbuktu; the important thing is that they happen soon. A fair assumption is that the most cost-effective reductions will happen first. This is where a market-based cap & trade program (and therefore membership in a program such as CCX) earns its keep. It would likely be less expensive for the City of Aspen to purchase emissions reduction offsets than to make the equivalent reductions locally. The bottom line is that with that purchase, less greenhouse emissions reach the atmosphere. Therefore we also believe that ifthe City wishes to be a leader in emissions reduction, joining CCX needs to be part ofthe package. 3 AL TERNA TIVES: Again, the purpose of joining the Chicago Climate Exchange is twofold. (Please refer to "Benefits to CCX Membership..." on Attachment A for more information.) The first reason is to commit to a legally binding carbon reduction target. The second is to join, and therefore support, the world's first greenhouse gas trading and reduction (aka 'cap and trade') program. Joining CCX is the only alternative to accomplish the latter. To accomplish the first reason mentioned, options are as follows: I. The Mayor signed the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement (Attachment B), which also binds the City to a carbon reduction target, in addition to 12 other action items (the first 9 of which are met by joining CCX). This target is the same as the Kyoto Protocol. Although this is a good target, it uses a different baseline year than what the City has data on. This would likely entail staff either doing another inventory for the year 1990 (because that's the year the Kyoto Protocol uses) or staff could try extrapolating current data, back to 1990, which would likely be time consuming and less accurate than the CCX alternative. Staff is pleased that this agreement was signed; however we feel from a data perspective, CCX's targets will be easier to track. 2. The City could use the baseline that CCX helped us create and adopt our own internal reduction target. This option would cost less money but would be lacking the legal teeth and third-party verification offered by CCX. Also missing would be a least-cost alternative in reducing emissions (by purchasing offsets). It would cost the City more money to buy fewer greenhouse gas emissions reductions. PROPOSED MOTION: No motion requested. Staff requests direction from Council about how to proceed. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: 4 OR (Alternatives 1 & 2 as listed above) . . - .. . City could join CCX for a cost of $5,000, and committoreducing greenhouse gases by 1 % per year, (recently completed by CCX) If we're under the baseline CCX and the City review our baseline emissions to ..~. ,JL determine if our current .r;;' ~. .... emissions exceed or fall\~ t"'1.. . below the baseline. (CCX \;"- . would then audit the City each year thereafter.) If we're ~ the baseline (which is the case) OR Compliance choices remain the same for every year thereafter 5 MEMORANDUM \~& FROM: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ~ Jessica Garrow, Planne'\J~ 307 S. Spring Street Subdivision, Growth Management Review - Second Reading of Ordinance No. 49, Series of 2006 TO: THRU: RE: DATE: January 22, 2007 ApPLICANT /OWNER: 633 Spring 11, LLC CURRENT ZONING: C-l (Commercial) Zone District REPRESENTATIVE: Stan Clauson Associates, lnc LOCATION: 307 S. Spring Street (Wienerstube Property) SUMMARY: The Applicant requests subdivision, and growth management review to construct a new mixed use building on the property located at 307 S. Spring Street, where the Wienerstube currently exists. Photo Above: Existing Wienerstube Restaurant and neighboring parking lot. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the project. Staff feels the design is heading in the right direction following some changes at Planning and Zoning, and feels this is an area for discussion by Council. LAND USE REQUESTS: The Applicant has requested the following land use approvals to redevelop the site: . A growth management review for a multi-year development allotment of free market residential allotments in the C- I zone district pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.040(D)(I), Exceptional Project or Multi-Year Development Allotment (City Council is final review authoritv after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). . Subdivision for the construction of multiple dwelling units in a mixed use building pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision (City Council is final review authoritv after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). . Commercial design standards review for the development of a new mixed use development with a commercial component pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412, Commercial Design Standards (Planning and Zoning Commission approved with conditions pursuant to Resolution No. 28, Series of 2006). . A growth management exemption for the replacement of commercial development pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.040(A)(7), Remodeling or replacement of existing commercial or lodge development (A determination was made bv the Communitv Development Zoning Officer outlining the existing net leasable square footage; only the amount of the existing square footage is exempt from growth management). . A growth management review for the development of a new mixed use building pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.040(C)(2), Expansion/New Commercial, Lodge, or Mixed Use Development (Planning and Zoning Commission approved with conditions pursuant to Resolution No. 28, Series of 2006). . 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. 28, 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. 28, 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). REVIEW PROCEDURE: A growth management application for the use of Multi- Year Allotments 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 26.470.040(D)(I), Exceptional Project or Multi-Year Development Allotment. 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. Wienerstube Redevelopment Subdivision and Growth Management Review Staff Memo Page 2 of 10 The Community Development Director shall review a condominium plat upon substantial completion of construction on the development if it is approved. PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant, 633 Spring II, LLC, has requested approval to construct a new Mixed Use building at the corner of Spring and Hyman. The Applicant has already obtained approval of growth management reviews for commercial space in a new mixed use building, free market residential space, and affordable housing space from the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to P&Z Resolution No. 28, Series of 2006 (attached as Exhibit E). The Applicant has also received approval of Commercial Design Standard review from the Planning and Zoning Commission in the above mentioned Resolution. The property subject to this application is 18,000 square feet and currently contains a commercial building of 6,222 square feet of floor area and a parking lot with thirty-seven (37) parking spaces. The proposed development is to contain the following program: . Basement- 3,380 square feet of storage, mechanical area, and laundry facilities for the affordable housing units; 47 parking spaces to be dedicated to the affordable housing units and other uses in the building. . First Floor- Approximately 12,167 square feet of commercial space. . Second Floor- Split level floor containing twelve 2-bedroom affordable housing units (six as Category 3 and six as Category 4) and 10,678 square feet of commercial/office space. . Third Floor- Four 2,000 square foot free-market residential units and two (2) studio free-market residential units of 1,235 square feet and 1,570 square feet, respectively. The project has been designed to comply with the dimensional requirements permitted in the C-! Zone District in which it is located. The chart below compares the proposed dimensional requirements with the allowable dimensional requirements in the underlying zone district. Dimensional Proposed Underlying C-l Requirement Dimensional Zone District Requirements ReQuiremen.ts Minimum Lot Size 18,000 SF No Reauirement Minimum Lot Width 100 Feet No Reauirement Minimum Lot Area 1 Unit per 1,000 SF of No Requirement Per Dwelling Unit Lot Area Minimum Front Adjacent to Hyman- 0 No Requirement Yard Setback Feet Adjacent to Spring St.- o Feet Dimensional Proposed Underlying C-t Requirement Dimensional Zo!leiDistrIct Reouirements . Requirements Wienerstube Redevelopment Subdivision and Growth Management Review Staff Memo Page 3 of 10 Minimum Side Yard o Feet No Requirement Setback Minimum Rear Yard o Feet No Requirement Setback Maximum Height 42 Feet 38 Feet for Sloped Roofs, 42 Feet for Flat Roofs Allowable External Total- 2.58: I Total- 3:1 FAR Commercial- 1.2: 1 Commercial- 1.5: I FM Multi-f<llT1i1y- .6:1 FM Multi-familv- 1:1 Minimum Off-Street Total: 47 on-site parking Total: 19.7 Spaces Parking spaces Required Commercial- 1 Space per 1,000 SF Affordable Housing- No Spaces in C-I Zone District FM Residential- No Spaces in C-l Zone District Open 10% (1,800 SF) through 10% because existing Space/Pedestrian cash-in-lieu building does not contain Amenity more than 10%* see discussion about Open Space/Pedestrian Amenity in Staff Comments below. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REVIEW: Parkini!: The Application before the City Council includes some significant changes that were a result of the Planning and Zoning Commission's review of the project. Specifically, the Commission requested the Applicant examine the amount of parking proposed for the site. The Commission stated concerns that the original proposal for fourteen (14) on-site parking spaces and a cash-in-lieu payment for 5.7 spaces was not providing the site with adequate parking. The Applicant examined different parking schemes, and in response to the Planning and Zoning Commission's comments placed two levels of underground parking with a total of forty seven (47) parking spaces on-site. Pursuant to Resolution 28, Series 2006, the affordable housing units each have one parking space reserved for their use, while the remaining parking spaces will be for use of the commercial spaces and free market residential units in the building. The Planning and Zoning Commission expressed concern that parking spaces would be able to be sold to individuals that do not live in the building or do not use the building. The above mentioned condition includes a provision that would prevent this from occurring. Desii!n: Staff recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission ask the Applicant to examine the design elements of the building, specifically the massing, modulation, roof line, and the transition between the modern corner element and the more traditional building elements along Hyman. Staff also expressed concern over the arcade that was originally proposed along Hyman. Wienerstube Redevelopment Subdivision and Growth Management Review Staff Memo Page 4 of 10 The design changed somewhat between the first Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on October 17, 2006 and the second on November 7, 2006. With the parking addition discussed above, the building design was also altered to eliminate the recessed arcade and bring the building to the lot line. Staff was supportive of this change, and with the Applicant's decision to provide streetscape amenities and outdoor amenities to the proposed restaurant along Spring. Specifically, the Applicant proposed a covered outdoor eating area that would bring some vitality to the street and would create interest for diners as well as pedestrian passers-by. Despite these changes, Staff expressed continued concern over the design elements to the Planning and Zoning Commission at the November 7, 2006 hearing. In particular, Staff recommended the Applicant re-examine the building's roof line to find ways to provide more visual relief and to ensure the building did not look too massive. Staff also felt the building was struggling for an architectural identify. Specifically that the modem comer piece and the more traditional piece along Hyman did not respond to each other well and did not create a convincing dialogue. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the design and determined that it satisfied both the Commercial Design Standards and the architecture requirements in the Multi-Year Allotment Growth Management Review. The Commission liked the design and felt the building was appropriately broken into modules representative of the traditional thirty and sixty foot buildings found in Aspen. The Commission also found that the proposed design included appropriate visual relief due to the step-backs found on the upper floor and the different materials used in the modules. Given the changes made during the Planning and Zoning Commission review and the Commission's comments, Staff finds that the design is moving in the correct direction, and is improved from the original submittal. More elaboration on these points can be found below in the Staff Comments, Growth Management Review for Multi-Year Allotments, Architecture section (Page 8). ExceTJIional Proiect Criteria: The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed the criteria for a project to receive a Multi- Year Development Allotment growth management review. The review criteria for a Multi- Year Allotment and an Exceptional Project is the same. The Planning and Zoning Commission found the project met all of the applicable criteria, and was especially supportive of the efforts to provide more than required affordable housing and to create a building that would exceed green energy requirements by 50%. Staff was also supportive of these aspects, and the ability of the project to support the Economic Sustainability of the city by providing commercial space, restaurant space for the current Wienerstube, and by providing space for residents to live in town. STAFF COMMENTS: Subdivision: The Applicant requires subdivision review because the proposal contains free-market residential dwelling units in a mixed use development. The Applicant has expressed that they believe the application meets the subdivision review standards and is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) in that it creates a high quality of design, develops affordable housing within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), is mixed use development in Wienerstube Redevelopment Subdivision and Growth Management Review Staff Memo Page 5 of 10 close proximity to a transit and the commercial core of town, and is visually compatible with the surrounding area. Staff finds that the project meets many of the goals of the AACP. Additionally, Staff finds that the land subject to the application is suitable for development in that it already contains a commercial building and is served by the necessary utilities to support the proposed development. Staff has fully analyzed the application's compliance with these review criteria as part of Exhibit B. Growth Manaf!ement Review for Multi-Year Allotments: The Applicant has requested five (5) multi-year free-market residential growth management allotments for five (5) out of the six (6) proposed free-market residential units in the development. If the Applicant were to receive approval of the proposed multi-year allotments, five (5) out of the six (6) free-market residential allotments in the Commercial Core and C- I Zone District allowed for the 2007 growth management year would be used up. Land Use Code Section 26.470.040(D)(I), Exceptional Project or Multi-Year Development Allotment, requires that a project requesting multi-year development allotments. The review criteria for an Exceptional Project include eleven (I I) specific criteria a project should include in order to be deemed "exceptional" and thus qualify for a multi-year allotment. The code states a project does not need to meet each of the criteria, but that a project must meet enough of the criteria "to be sufficiently considered 'exceptional'." There are two (2) "exceptional" project criteria that are similar to criteria in other growth management sections - these deal with the Aspen Area Community Plan and public infrastructure impacts. In both cases, the "exceptional" project standards require the applicant to go farther than is required in the other Growth Management reviews. The review criteria for an Exceptional Project include: a. Advancing the vision, goal, or specific action items ofthe AACP b. Exceeding the minimum affordable housing required for a standard project c. Representing an excellent historic preservation accomplishment (Not applicable here) d. Furthering the affordable housing goals by providing units established as a priority, and providing a mix of unit types e. Minimizing impacts on public infrastructure by incorporating innovative, energy-saving techniques f. Minimizing construction impacts as possible during and following construction g. Maximizing potential public transit usage and minimizing reliance on the automobile h. Exceeding minimum requirements for the Efficient Building Code, or for LEEDS 1. Promoting sustainability of the local economy j. Representing a desirable site plan and an architectural design solution k. Being compatible with the character of the existing land uses in the surrounding area and the purpose of the underlying zoning. Wienerstube Redevelopment Subdivision and Growth Management Review Staff Memo Page 6 of 10 Staff has fully analyzed the application's compliance with these review criteria as part of Exhibit A. Compliance with key elements of creating an exceptional project is also discussed in the following paragraphs. Economic Sustainabilitv: Staff finds that the Applicant has proposed a project that would help maintain a sustainable economy by providing a considerable amount of commercial space to fill in a vacant commercial parking area that does not currently contribute to the City's streetscape. The twelve (12) units of affordable housing consisting of approximately 14,000 square feet would also help in creating a significant mass of year-round residents that are called for as one of the major objectives in the AACP and which is needed to help sustain the community's locally-serving businesses. Staff believes that the proposed use program of this development embodies the programming visions that were sought by the adopted infill legislation. Affordable Housing: The Applicant has proposed twelve (12) 2-bedroom affordable housing units for the project. These will be "for sale" units and are divided evenly between Category 4 and Category 3. In total, there is 13,960 square feet of floor area dedicated to the Affordable Housing units, while there is 10,805 square feet of Free Market Residential space proposed. This exceeds the mitigation requirement by 10,7 I 9 square feet. In the original Application, the project would have required a cash-in-lieu payment for 7.8 employees generated by the commercial space. The revised application (attached as Exhibit C) decreased some of the commercial space to ensure that the Affordable Housing provided on-site exceeded what was required by code. As now proposed, the project provides housing for 27 FTEs, when housing for 25.9 FTEs is required. Staff finds this aspect of the Application contributes to the project meeting the review criteria for an Exceptional Project. Green Building: The Applicant has proposed to construct an environmentally building by providing energy efficient design and mechanical systems. The addendum to the original application proposes that the building will exceed the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) requirements by 50% since they are going to purchase wind powered electric energy, provide solar hot water heaters in the residential units, integrate photovoltaic technology, use efficient HV AC systems and use zero VOC finishes (attached as Exhibit I). Staff feels that this is an important aspect to their proposal and has consulted with the Building Department about how to insure that these representations are followed through with in developing the project if it is approved. The Building Department suggested that the development be subject to an energy audit after it has been occupied for three (3) years to verify that it is exceeding the 2006 IECC requirements by 50% as has been proposed. Therefore, Staff has included a condition of approval in the proposed ordinance that requires the Applicant to commission an energy Wienerstube Redevelopment Subdivision and Growth Management Review Staff Memo Page 7 of 10 audit by an energy consultant to be selected by the City of Aspen Building Department after three (3) years of occupation. The proposed condition further requires that if the audit shows that building is not meeting the standard that has been proposed, that the building would have to be upgraded to exceed the IECC requirements by 50% at the Applicant's expense. If the property owner fails to bring the building into compliance, enforcement would take the form of a zoning code violation. Should the property owner continue to fail to comply with the energy requirements, the owner would be taken to court to ensure the building comes into compliance with the requirement. At that point a lien could be placed on the property until it comes into compliance. Attached as Exhibit J is a sheet outlining how the new Doerr-Hosier building at the Aspen Institute will use roughly 50% less energy than if the building were built with standard Aspen/Pitkin building codes. It should be noted that Aspen currently has one of the strictest building codes in the country in terms of energy efficiency, so achieving 50% better than existing codes is significant. The systems outlined in Exhibit I will not necessarily be used in this proj ect, but similar systems will likely be employed to achieve the same results. Staff would encourage the Applicant to examine the use of a green roof or a roof garden. This will decrease the impermeable surface on the lot and can help the building achieve greater energy efficiency. Additionally, Staff would like to see this green rooftop have the ability to be used by the occupants of the residential units (including the affordable housing units) or look at increasing the size of the decks that are available to the occupants of the affordable housing units. Architecture, Scale, Massing, and Site Planning: Architecturally, Staff feels that components of the design are compatible with the downtown streetscape such as the punched window openings, the way the building addresses the street, and the pedestrian amenities including the covered outdoor patio and streetscape improvements. Staff also believes that it is important for the commercial core and surrounding areas to have a variety of architectural styles as is embodied in the proposed design. Currently there is much discussion in the community about what constitutes appropriate and good design. At the same time, there are many discussions revolving around Aspen's history and what constitutes appropriate scale, massing, and design in relation to our history. Specifically, there is an extensive dialogue revolving around how new buildings "fit" into the community - should they clearly differentiate themselves from the past, try to replicate the past, or attempt to have an architectural dialogue between the past, present, and future. The proposed development is on a site of 18,000 square feet, with a 180 foot lot line along Hyman Ave and a 100 foot lot line along Spring Street. On a site of this size, the design difficulties are often greater than on a smaller site because it is more difficult to create a design that does not feel like a large monolithic mass. In other words, it is difficult to create one large building that matches the smaller scale that has historically Wienerstube Redevelopment Subdivision and Growth Management Review Staff Memo Page 8 of 10 occurred in Aspen without feeling like there is a fake history being created. Staff feels these concerns should be discussed at City Council as this is a larger community discussion. Staff finds that there have been many positive changes to the design through the Planning and Zoning Commission review and that the design has many positive aspects. These include the covered outdoor seating along Spring Street, the attempt to respect the traditional 30 and 60 foot building modules, the proposed streetscape improvements, the way the building appropriately addresses Hyman Avenue without a recessed arcade, the variety of architectural styles included in the building, and the way the building respects the adjacent building's entrance by providing a slight setback on the western-most wall of the building. For these reasons staff is supportive of the project in terms of design. However, Staff continues to have some concerns about the design that staff feels should be discussed at City Council. These include the lack of visual communication between the modern corner piece and the traditional fayade along Hyman Avenue, the lack of differentiation between materials in the modules along Hyman Avenue, and the consistent roof height on the building. Off-Street Parkin!!.: As noted in the section describing the Planning and Zoning Commission's review of the Application, the proposal now calls for forty-seven (47) parking spaces in a below grade garage. For this project twenty (20) on-site parking spaces are required by the code. What the Applicant is providing on-site is twenty-seven (27) more spaces than is required by the Land Use Code. Staff is in support of the additional parking spaces, and finds that it enhances the Application's conformity with the Exceptional Project criteria. School Land Dedication: The application is subject to school land dedication for the addition of the residential units to be developed within the proposed subdivision pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.620, School Lands Dedication. The Applicant has proposed to pay cash-in-lieu of dedicating land. The Applicant has consented to paying the applicable school land dedication fee at the time of building permit issuance for the development. Staff has proposed a condition of approval, ensuring that the school lands dedication fee will be paid. Thus, Staff believes that the proposal will meet the land dedication standard. Park Develooment Imoact Fee: Development within the subdivision is subject to a park development impact fee upon construction of new residential bedrooms or commercial/office space pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Impact Fees. Staff has included a proposed condition of approval requiring that the applicable park development impact fee be paid prior to obtaining a building permit for new development within the subdivision based on the fee schedule established in Land Use Code Section 26.610.030 at the time of building permit issuance. Wienerstube Redevelopment Subdivision and Growth Management Review Staff Memo Page 9 of 10 REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: The City Engineer, Fire Marshall, Water Department, Aspen Sanitation District, Streets Department, and the Parks Department have all reviewed the proposed subdivision and their comments have been included as conditions of approval as deemed appropriate. Comments from these organizations are attached as Exhibits F - H. RECOMMENDATION: Staff feels that there are many positive aspects to the use programming of this application that are also consistent with the goals of the AACP. Additionally, Staff is very supportive of the energy, economic sustain ability, and affordable housing aspects of the Application. Staff feels the design is heading in the right direction following changes made at the Planning and Zoning Commission review, and feels this is an area for further discussion by Council. Staff finds that the Application meets the review criteria for Subdivision and a Multi-Year Development Allotment. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE MADE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Ordinance No. 49, Series of2006, upon second reading." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Attachments: EXHIBIT A -- Multi-Year Growth Management Allotment Review Criteria and Staff Findings EXHIBIT B -- Subdivision Review Criteria and Staff Findings EXHIBIT C -- Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 28, Series 2006 EXHIBIT D -- Planning and Zoning Commission minutes dates October 17, 2006 EXHIBIT E -- Planning and Zoning Commission minutes dates November 7, 2006 EXHIBIT F -- DRC Comments, from June 7, 2006 EXHIBIT G -- Comments from Environmental Health, dated June 9, 2006 EXHIBIT H -- Comments from Housing, dated August 22,2006 EXHIBIT 1 -- Doerr-Hosier energy efficiency information Wienerstube Redevelopment Subdivision and Growth Management Review Staff Memo Page 10 of 10 ORDINANCE NO. 49 (SERIES OF 2006) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A SUBDIVISION AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR MUL TI- YEAR ALLOTMENTS FOR THE 307 S. SPRING STREET SUBDIVISION, LOTS D-I, BLOCK 100, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Parcel No. 2737-182-25-003 Parcel No. 2737-182-25-004 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from 633 Spring II, LLC, represented by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc, requesting approval of Commercial Design Review, Growth Management Reviews, Multi-year Development Allotments, Condominiumization, and Subdivision to construct a three- story mixed use building on the properties located at 307 S. Spring Street and 625 E. Hyman Avenue, Lots D-I, Block 100, City and Townsite of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned C- I (Commercial); and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended denial ofthe multi-year development allotments, finding that the current design and massing does not meet the standards for an exceptional project necessary to obtain multi-year development allotments; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on November 7, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 28, Series of2006, by a three to zero (3-0) vote, approving with conditions, a Commercial Design Review, a Growth Management Review for Mixed-Use Development, a Growth Management Review for Free-Market Residential Units in a Mixed Use Development, a Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing, and recommending that City Council approve Multi-Year Development Allotments, and Subdivision for the development of a three-story, mixed use building on Lots D-l, Block 100, City and Townsite of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, on December I I th, 2006 the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No.4 I, Series 2006, on First Reading by a four to zero (4-0) vote, approving with conditions .the Subdivision and Condominiumization of 625 E. Main Street, Lots E, F, G, easterly 10 feet of Lot D, Block 98, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on January 22nd, 2007, the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. 49, Series 2006, by a _ to _ L---> vote, approving with conditions Multi-Year Development Allotments, and Subdivision for the development of a three-story, mixed use building on Lots D-I, Block 100, 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 Ordinance No. 49 Series 2006 Page I 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 RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the Aspen City Council hereby approves Multi-Year Development Allotments and a Subdivision for the development of a three-story, mixed use building on Lots D-I, Block 100, City and Townsite of Aspen, subject to the conditions contained herein. Section 2: Plat and Al!reement Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the Applicant shall record a subdivision agreement that meets the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision, within 180 days of such approval. The Subdivision Agreement shall also include a commitment to satisfy all conditions of Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Number 28, Series of 2006 as well as all conditions of this Ordinance. A final Condominium Plat may be approved and signed by the Community Development Director upon substantial completion of construction and prior to transfer of ownership of individual units within the project. Section 3: BuiIdinl! Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final Ordinance and P&Z Resolution. a. The conditions 9f approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. b. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. c. A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department and any approval from the Parks Department Director for off-site replacement or mitigation of any removed trees. The tree removal permit application shall be accompanied by a detailed landscape plan indicating which trees are to be removed and new plantings proposed on the site. Ordinance No. 49 Series 2006 Page 2 d. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan and snow storage runoff 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 final construction management plan pursuant to the requirements described in Section 6 of this ordinance. f. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department. g. An excavation/stabilization plan prepared by a licensed Engineer. h. Proof of energy efficiency requirement being placed on the property. Section 4: Dimensional Requirements The dimensional requirements approved for this development are as follows: Dimensional Requirement Minimum Lot Size Minimum Lot Width Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit Minimum Front Yard Setback Minimum Side Yard Setback Minimum Rear Yard Setback Maximum Height Allowable External FAR Minimum Off-Street Parkin Open Space/Pedestrian Amenity ennmts. 18,000 SF 100 Feet I Unit per 1,000 SF of Lot Area Adjacent to Hyman- 0 Feet Adjacent to Spring St.- o Feet o Feet o Feet 42 Feet Total- 2.58: 1 Commercial- 1.2: I FM Multi-family- .6:1 Total: 47 Spaces Pro osed On-site 10% (1,800 SF) * provided by paying cash-in-lieu Section 5: Open SpacelPedestrian Amenity The property is required to either provide open space satisfying the definition open space/pedestrian amenity equal to 10% of the property or pay cash-in-lieu thereof. If Ordinance No. 49 Series 2006 Page 3 providing cash-in-lieu, cash-in-lieu shall be provided in full based on the calculation methodology set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.575.030, Pedestrian Amenity. Section 6: Construction Manal!:ement A construction management plan shall be submitted with the building permit application that meets the requirements of the current "Components of a Construction Management Plan" handout that is available in the City of Aspen Building Department. The construction management plan shall include at a minimum, a construction parking plan, a construction staging and phasing plan, a construction worker transportation plan, a plan for accepting major construction-related deliveries with estimated delivery schedule, the designation of haul routes, and an agreement with the City to participate with other neighboring developments under construction to limit the impacts of construction. This agreement shall be prepared by the developer and accepted by the Community Development Director. As part of the construction management plan, the developer shall agree to require all dump trucks hauling to and from the site to cover their loads and meet the emission requirements of the Colorado Smoking Vehicle Law. Any regulations regarding construction management that may be adopted by the City of Aspen prior to application for a building permit for this project shall be applicable. The construction management plan shall also include a fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed by the City Engineering Department that includes watering of disturbed areas (including haul routes, where necessary), perimeter silt fencing, as-needed cleaning of adjacent right-of-ways, and a representation that the City has the ability to request additional measures to prevent a nuisance during construction. A temporary encroachment license is required for use of the City's right-of-way for construction purposes. The Applicant shall also provide phone contact information for on-site project management to address construction impacts to: The City of Aspen, the Victorian Square Condominiums, the owners of the Hannah Dustin Building, the Chateau Aspen Condominiums, and the owners of the Hunter Plaza Building. Section 7: Pre-Construction Meetinl!: The Applicant shall conduct a pre-construction meeting with the City Community Development Staff prior to submittal for a building permit application. This meeting shall include the general contractor, the architect producing the construction drawings, the Community Development Engineer, a representative of the City Building Department, and the Community Development Department's case planner. Section 8: Fire Mitil!:ation The Applicant shall install a fire sprinkler system and alarm system that meets the requirements of the Fire Marshall. The water service line shall be sized appropriately to accommodate the required Fire Sprinkler System. Ordinance No. 49 Series 2006 Page 4 Section 9: Water Department Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. The Applicant shall also enter into a water service agreement with the City and complete a common service line agreement for the residential units. Each residential unit shall have an individual water meters. A single water service line penetration into the building shall be allowed. The Applicant shall abandon the existing water service line and excavate it prior to installation of a new water service line. Section 10: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations. The Applicant shall fund the replacement of 300 feet the main sewer line located in the alley adjacent to the project. No clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter drains) to ACSD lines shall be allowed. The driveway entrance drains shall drain to drywells and elevator shaft drains shall drain through an oil and sand separator. One tap to the main sanitary line is allowed. No soil nails shall be allowed in the public right-of-way above ACSD main sewer lines. The Applicant shall enter into a shared service line agreement. Glycol and snowmelt shall have containment areas approved by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. Service lines being abandoned shall be abandoned from the main sewer line and excavated. Section 11: Electrical Department Requirements The Applicant shall have an electric connect load summary conducted by a licensed electrician in order to determine if the existing transformer on the neighboring property has sufficient capacity for the redevelopment. If a new supplemental transformer is required to be installed on the subject property, the Applicant shall provide for a new transformer and its location shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior to installation. The Applicant shall dedicate an easement to allow for City Utility Personnel to access the supplemental transformer for maintenance purposes, if a supplemental transformer is installed. If after the subdivision plat is recorded and in the event an easement is required, then the Community Development Director shall review and approve the easement on the condominium plat. Section 12: EnerlIT Efficiency The development shall exceed the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) requirements for energy usage by 50%. An energy audit shall be conducted on the development at the property owner's expense after three (3) years of occupancy. The energy audit shall be conducted by an energy consultant selected by the City of Aspen Building Department. If the audit determines that the development does not exceed the 2006 IECC requirements for energy usage by 50% or more, then the building shall be upgraded to meet this requirement. Prior to the building's occupation, a the building shall be commissioned to determine the energy efficiency prior to use. This shall be conducted by an energy consultant selected by the City of Aspen Building Department and shall be conducted at the expense of the Applicant. Ordinance No. 49 Series 2006 Page 5 Section 13: Growth Manal!:ement Imolications and Emolovee Housinl!: Mitil!:ation The Applicant shall provide twelve (12) deed-restricted, two-bedroom affordable housing units, to fully mitigate for the 25.9 full time employees (FTEs) required to be mitigated for. The affordable housing units shall also contain 13,960 square feet of floor area as was proposed in the application. Section 14: Affordable Housinl!: The Applicant shall record a deed restriction on each of the twelve (12) affordable housing units in conjunction with filing a condominium plat for the property and prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy on the affordable housing units. Six (6) of the affordable housing units shall be Category 3 units and six (6) of the affordable housing units shall be Category 4 units. All of the affordable housing units shall be "for sale" units and sold through the APCHA lottery process. A separate Homeowner's Association shall be established for the affordable housing units. The affordable housing homeowners' association dues shall be a percentage of the free-market residential development's dues equal to the affordable housing's market value compared to that of the free-market residential component's market value in the complex. Section 15: Landscaoinl!: The Applicant shall submit a detailed landscaping plan as part of the building permit application. This landscaping plan shall include a plan for right-of-way landscaping and irrigation. The plan shall also include a parkway landscaping strip adjacent to all abutting public streets of at least five (5) feet in width. Appropriate street tree plantings are required along all streets adjacent to the property and shall be spaced according to the recommendation of the City of Aspen Parks Department. Section 16: Sidewalk, Curb, and Gutter Existing sidewalk, curb, and gutter adjacent to the project shall be replaced and upgraded to meet the City Engineer's design requirements. The sidewalk locations shall be in substantially the same location as is depicted on the site plan in the subdivision application. If the adjacent sidewalks are to be snowmelted, the Applicant shall also snowmelt the curb and gutter adjacent to the property. Section 17: Park Develooment Imoact Fees Park Development Impact Fees shall be assessed at the time of building permit issuance on both the new residential bedrooms and the commercial/office space to be added to the subject properties pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fees. The Park Development Impact Fees shall be calculated by the City of Aspen Zoning Officer using the fee schedule in place at the time of building permit issuance. Section 18: School Land Dedication Fees School Land Dedication Fees shall be assessed on the proposal at the time of building permit issuance pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School Lands Dedication, because subdivision approval is required for the development of the multi-family residential units per the definition of subdivision in the land use code. The school lands dedication fees shall be calculated by the City of Aspen Zoning Officer using the fee schedule in place at the time of building permit issuance. Ordinance No. 49 Series 2006 Page 6 Section 19: Exterior Li!!:htin!!: All exterior lighting shall meet the City's Lighting Code Requirements pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575. I 50, Outdoor Lighting. Section 20: Wildlife Trash Containers The Applicant shall install a wildlife-proof trash container that meets the requirements of the Environmental Health Department. Section 21: Food Service Facilities Food service plans meeting the requirements of the City of Aspen Environmental Health Department shall be submitted and approved prior to serving food and prior to obtaining a Colorado Food Service License for any of the commercial space that is to be used as restaurant space. An oil and grease interceptor approved by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District shall be installed in any space that is to be used as a restaurant. Section 22: Off-Street Parkin!!: The Applicant shall provide forty-seven (47) sub-grade parking spaces to be accessed from the alleyway. The affordable housing units shall each have one (I) dedicated parking space in the below grade garage. The remaining spaces shall be for use by the free-market units, and the commercial/office space. At no time shall the parking structure or spaces be condominiumized other than to delineate ownership of parking spaces for the owners of the residential units and commercial/office space within the subject building. Section 23: Development Timin!!: The Applicant shall obtain a certificate of occupancy on all of the affordable housing units prior to obtaining a certificate of occupancy on any other part of the building. Section 24: 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 25: 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. Ordinance No. 49 Series 2006 Page 7 Section 26: 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 27: Vested Ril!:hts The development approvals granted pursuant to Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Number 28, Series of 2006 and herein shall be vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of the development order. No later than fourteen (14) days following the 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 properties: 307 S. Spring Street and 625 E. Hyman Avenue, Lots D-I, Block 100, City and Townsite of Aspen, by Ordinance No. 49, Series of 2006, of the Aspen City Council. Section 28: A public hearing on the ordinance was held on the 11 th day of December, 2006, 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. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 11th day of December, 2006. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 22nd day of January, 2007. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Ordinance No. 49 Series 2006 Page 8 ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: John P. Worcester, City Attorney G: \city\Jessica\Cases\ Wienerstube\Counci 1\ Wienerstube first reading.doc Ordinance No. 49 Series 2006 Page 9 Exhibit A, Growth Management: Multi-Year Allotments REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS Exceptional Project or Multi-Year Development Allotment. The City Council, upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an exceptional project or a multi-year development allotment request based on the following criteria: The proposed multi-year or exceptional development is considered "exceptional" considering the following criteria: (Note - A project need not meet all of the following criteria, only enough to be sufficiently considered "exceptional. '? 1. The proposed project advances the visions, goals or specific action items of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: Staff does believe that the proposed project furthers some of the goals and objectives set forth in the AACP. As was discussed in the staff memorandum, Staff feels that the project develops affordable housing within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), is mixed use development in close proximity to a transit station and the commercial core of town, and is compatible with the uses in the immediate neighborhood. Staff does not disagree with the assertions made by the Applicant about compliance with the AACP requirements. Additionally, Staff does believe that the land subject to the application is suitable for development in that it already contains a commercial building and is served by the necessary utilities to support the proposed development. 2. The proposal exceeds the minimum affordable housing requiredfor a standard project. Staff Finding: The application meets the minimum affordable housing mitigation requirements related to employees required to be housed and well exceeds the amount of affordable housing square footage needed to satisfy the mitigation required for the free-market residential component of the development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed project represents an excellent historic preservation accomplishment. A recommendation from the Historic Preservation Officer shall be considered for this standard. Staff Finding: The property subject to the application is not designated historic. 4. The proposal furthers affordable housing goals by providing units established as priority through the current Guidelines of the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority, and provides a desirable mix of affordable unit types, economic levels, and lifestyles (e.g. singles, seniors, families, etc.). A recommendation from the AspenlPiktin County Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard. Staff Finding: The Applicant has proposed all two (2) bedroom units, but has also proposed a variety of categories. The Housing Authority has indicated that they are happy with the mix and Wienerstube Redevelopment Multi-Year Allotment Review Criteria, Exhibit A Page 1 of 4 type of units being proposed and believe that they satisfy their largest demand category. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. The proposal minimizes impacts on public infrastructure by incorporating innovative, energy-saving techniques. Staff Finding: The application proposes to exceed the 2006 IECC energy code requirements by more than 50% through purchasing wind power for a portion of the electric needs of the building, installing solar hot water systems in the residential units, and integrating photovoltaic and efficient HV AC systems in the building. 6. The proposal minimizes construction impacts to the extent practicable both during and after construction. Staff Finding: The application does not address how it will mmlmlze construction impacts on the community. 7. The proposal maximizes potential public transit usage and minimizes reliance on the automobile. Staff Finding: The application suggests that the location of the proposed development is in close proximity to Aspen Mountain, is on a bus route, and is close to a major grocery store, which would encourage pedestrian and public transit use rather than individual automobile use. Staff would also note that the building provides significant storage areas for the affordable housing unit owners, which could easily be used for accessible bicycle storage. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 8. The proposal exceeds minimum requirements of the Efficient Building Code or for LEEDS certification, as applicable. A recommendation from the Building Department shall be consideredfor this standard. Staff Finding: The application proposes to follow the LEEDS commercial and residential standards, but there is not currently a certification category for mixed use buildings. As was discussed in Staffs response to Criterion No.5 above, the application proposes to exceed the 2006 IECC energy code requirements by more than 50% through purchasing wind power for a portion of the electric needs of the building, installing solar hot water systems in the residential units, and integrating photovoltaic and efficient HV AC systems in the building. Staff finds this criterion to be met with the condition in the proposed resolution requiring that the Applicant exceed the 2006 IECC by at least 50% and that an energy audit be conducted after three (3) years of occupation to verify this proposed condition. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Wienerstube Redevelopment Multi-Year Allotment Review Criteria, Exhibit A Page 2 of 4 9. The proposal promotes sustainability of the local economy. Staff Finding: Staff does believe the proposal promotes a sustainable local economy by providing a significant amount of retail space and by filling in a significant gap in the retail streetscape by developing the existing gravel parking lot with a mixed use development. Staff also feels that the proposed commercial space is designed in a manner to contain significant display windows at streetscape to provide a good retail environment. The development also proposes a significant amount of "for sale" affordable housing to help provide a permanent critical mass of local residents to help support local businesses during the off-seasons. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 10. The proposal represents a desirable site plan and an architectural design solution. Staff Finding: As has been discussed throughout the Staff memorandum, Staff is concerned that the proposed design is lacking an architectural identity and creates an abrupt transition from traditional to modem architecture. However, staff finds that the design meets the requirements of this criterion through the covered outdoor seating along Spring Street, the attempt to respect the traditional 30 and 60 foot building modules, the proposed streetscape improvements, the way the building appropriately addresses Hyman Avenue without a recessed arcade, the variety of architectural styles included in the building, and the way the building respects the adjacent building's entrance by providing a slight setback on the western-most wall of the building. For these reasons staff is supportive of the project in terms of design. 11. The proposed development is compatible with the character of the existing land uses in the surrounding area and the purpose of the underlying zone district. Staff Finding: Staff does believe that the proposed uses are consistent with the character of the existing uses in the immediate vicinity and is consistent with the purpose of the underlying zone district. The purpose of the underlying C-l Zone District as described in the land use code is to provide for mixed use development with commercial uses on the ground floor and residential density, which this proposal provides. Additionally, the majority of the buildings in the immediate vicinity contain a mix retail/office space and residential units as is described in the application. Wienerstube Redevelopment Multi-Year Allotment Review Criteria, Exhibit A Page 3 of 4 12. The project complies with all other provisions of the Land Use Code and has obtained all necessary approvals from the Historic Preservation Commission, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the City Council, as applicable. Staff Finding: The property subject to the application is not designated to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures and is not located within a Historic District and does not require review by the Historic Preservation Commission. Additionally, the Applicant has applied for all of the necessary land use reviews to develop the proposed project. 13. For multi-year development allotments, the Community Development Director shall be directed to reduce the applicable Annual Development Allotments, as provided in Section 26.470.030(D), in subsequent year(s) as determined appropriate by the City Council. Staff Finding: If City Council approves the multi-year development allotment request, the Community Development Director will remove five (5) free-market residential development allotments from next year's allotment pool. Wienerstube Redevelopment Multi-Year Allotment Review Criteria, Exhibit A Page 4 of 4 Exhibit B, Subdivision REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS Section 26.480 of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for Subdivision must comply with the following standards and requirements. AI. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed subdivision is consistent with many aspects of the Aspen Area Community Plan. The properties to be subdivided are located close to the core area of town, which should encourage the residents of the free-market residential units and the affordable housing units to use alternative means of transportation such as walking and riding their bicycles as is encouraged by the AACP. Staff also finds that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) in that this proposal would provide a great deal of addition commercial/office space as specified in the AACP action item related to stemming the loss of commercial and office space to other uses. The project also would provide a dense development where there is currently an underutilized vacant lot in the downtown core area as is consistent with the infill goals. 2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. Staff Finding Staff does believe that the uses proposed in the subdivision are consistent with the character of the existing land uses in the immediate vicinity. The majority of the development in the immediate vicinity consists of mixed-use or commercial/office buildings. The Hannah Dustin building located across Spring Street from the proposed development is currently an office building that has approval for the creation of several additional residential units. The Patio building, which contains commercial and office space is located directly across E. Hyman Avenue from the proposed development and the Victorian Square office building is located directly to the west of the proposed development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Staff Finding Staff does not feel that the proposed subdivision will adversely affect the future development of surrounding properties. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. Staff Finding As has been discussed throughout this memorandum, Staff does not believe that the proposed application meets the growth management requirements to obtain multi-year development allotments because of the design and massing issues that have been identified in the staff memorandum. Staff finds this criterion not to be satisfied by the proposal. Wienerstube Redevelopment Subdivision Review Criteria, Exhibit B Page 1 of3 B. Suitability of Landfor Subdivision a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. Staff Finding Staff believes that the properties are suitable for subdivision and development. There are no known geologic hazards on the site and the Wienerstube property currently contains an existing commercial building. Staff further feels that sufficient infrastructure exists to accommodate the proposed development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Improvements. The improvements setforth at Chapter 26.580 shall be providedfor the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and/or the goals of the community. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. Staff Finding The Applicant has consented in the application to meet the applicable required improvements pursuant to Section 26.580. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. Staff Finding The application does not propose to replace any existing dwelling units on the site. The application has further requested the necessary growth management allocations for the proposed development. However, Staff does not believe that the review standards are satisfied for granting approval of the requested multi-year growth management allotments because of the design and massing issues that Staff has expressed throughout this memorandum. Staff does not find this criterion to be met. Wienerstube Redevelopment Subdivision Review Criteria, Exhibit B Page 2 of3 E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. Staff Finding The proposed subdivision is required to meet the School Land Dedication Standards pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630. The Applicant has proposed to pay cash-in-lieu of providing land. The Applicant has consented to paying the applicable school land dedication fee at the time of building permit issuance for development within the subdivision. Staff finds this criterion to be met. F. Growth Management Approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development (AH-PUD) without first obtaining growth management approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney. (Ord. No. 44-2001, ~ 2) Staff Finding The application has requested the necessary growth management allocations for the proposed development. Growth management allotments for the commercial space, the affordable housing units, and one (I) free-market unit were granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission in Resolution 28, Series 2006. The Applicant is requesting Multi-Year Growth Management Allotments for the remaining free-market residential units, which is a City Council review. Staff finds this criterion to be met if these allotments are granted by the City Council. If the Multi-Year Growth Management Allotments are not granted, Staff does not find this criterion to be met by the proposal. Wienerstube Redevelopment Subdivision Review Criteria, Exhibit B Page 3 of3 t=xhib,"t0 RESOLUTION NO. 28 (SERIES OF 2006) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING A COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, A GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, A GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR FREE-MARKET RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, A GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A SUBDIVISION AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR MULTI-YEAR ALLOTMENTS FOR THE 307 S. SPRING STREET SUBDIVISION, LOTS D-I, BLOCK 100, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Parcel No. 2737-182-25-003 Parcel No. 2737-182-25-004 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from 633 Spring II, LLC, represented by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc, requesting approval of Commercial Design Review, Growth Management Reviews, Multi-year Development Allotments, Condominiumization, and Subdivision to construct a three- story mixed use building on the properties located at 307 S. Spring Street and 625 E. Hyman Avenue, Lots D-I, Block 100, City and Townsite of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, the subject properties contain approximately 18,000 total square feet and are located in the Commercial (C-I) Zone District; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director reviewed the application and recommended denial of the multi-year development allotments, finding that the current design and massing does not meet the standards for an exceptional project necessary to obtain multi-year development allotments; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on November 7, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 28, Series of2006, by a three to zero (3-0) vote, approving with conditions, a Commercial Design Review, a Growth Management Review for Mixed-Use Development, a Growth Management Review for Free-Market Residential Units in a Mixed Use Development, a Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing, and recommending that City Council approve Multi-Year Development Allotments, and Subdivision for the development of a three-story, mixed use building on Lots D-I, Block 100, City and Townsite of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, G:\city\J essica\Cases\ Wienerstube\PnZ\ Wienerstube ResoREVISED .doc WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section I Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 ofthe Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves a Commercial Design Review, a Growth Management Review for Mixed-Use Development, a Growth Management Review for Free-Market Residential Units in a Mixed Use Development, a Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing, and recommending that City Council approve Multi-Year Development Allotments, and Subdivision for the development of a three-story, mixed use building on Lots D-I, Block 100, City and Townsite of Aspen, subject to the conditions contained herein. Section 2: Subdivision/PUD Plat and Al!:reement The Applicant shall record a subdivision agreement that meets the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.480 within 180 days of approval. Additionally, a final subdivision plat 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 final plat meeting the requirements of the City Engineer and showing: the proposed building footprint, easements, encroachment agreements and licenses (with the reception numbers) for physical improvements, and location of utility pedestals. Section 3: Buildin!! Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final Ordinance and P&Z Resolution. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. d. A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department and any approval from the Parks Department Director for off-site replacement or mitigation of any removed trees. The tree removal permit application shall be accompanied by a detailed landscape plan indicating which trees are to be removed and new plantings proposed on the site. G:\city\Jessica\Cases\ Wienerstube\PnZ\ Wienerstube ResoREVISED .doc e. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan and snow storage runoff 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. f. A final construction management plan pursuant to the requirements described In Section 6 ofthis resolution. g. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department. h. An excavation/stabilization plan prepared by a licensed Engineer. 1. Proof of energy efficiency requirement being placed on the property. Section 4: Dimensional Requirements The dimensional requirements approved for this development are as follows: ))imensionaI Proposed >< .Jlequirement2t.. Dimensional .> .. Reauirements Minimum Lot Size 18,000 SF Minimum Lot Width 100 Feet Minimum Lot Area 1 Unit per 1,000 SF of Per Dwelling Unit Lot Area Minimum Front Adjacent to Hyman- 0 Yard Setback Feet Adjacent to Spring St.- o Feet Minimum Side Yard o Feet Setback Minimum Rear Yard o Feet Setback Maximum Height 42 Feet Allowable Extemal Total- 2.58: 1 FAR Commercial- 1.2: 1 FM Multi-familv- .6: I Minimum Off-Street Total: 47 Spaces Parking Prooosed On-site Open 10% (1,800 SF) . Space/Pedestrian provided by paying Amenitv cash-in-lieu G:\cityVessica\Cases\ Wienerstube\PnZ\ Wienerstube ResoREVISED.doc Section 5: Open Space/Pedestrian Amenity The property is required to either provide open space satisfying the definition open space/pedestrian amenity equal to 10% of the property or pay cash-in-lieu thereof. If providing cash-in-lieu, cash-in-lieu shall be provided in full based on the calculation methodology set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.575.030, Pedestrian Amenity. Section 6: Construction Manal!:cment A construction management plan shall be submitted with the building permit application that meets the requirements of the current "Components of a Construction Management Plan" handout that is available in the City of Aspen Building Department. The construction management plan shall include at a minimum, a construction parking plan, a construction staging and phasing plan, a construction worker transportation plan, a plan for accepting major construction-related deliveries with estimated delivery schedule, the designation of haul routes, and an agreement with the City to participate with other neighboring developments under construction to limit the impacts of construction. This agreement shall be prepared by the developer and accepted by the Community Development Director. As part of the construction management plan, the developer shall agree to require all dump trucks hauling to and from the site to cover their loads and meet the emission requirements of the Colorado Smoking Vehicle Law. Any regulations regarding construction management that may be adopted by the City of Aspen prior to application for a building permit for this project shall be applicable. The construction management plan shall also include a fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed by the City Engineering Department that includes watering of disturbed areas (including haul routes, where necessary), perimeter silt fencing, as-needed cleaning of adjacent right-of-ways, and a representation that the City has the ability to request additional measures to prevent a nuisance during construction. A temporary encroachment license is required for use of the City's right-of-way for construction purposes. The Applicant shall also provide phone contact information for on-site project management to address construction impacts to: The City of Aspen, the Victorian Square Condominiums, the owners of the Hannah Dustin Building, the Chateau Aspen Condominiums, and the owners of the Hunter Plaza Building. Section 7: Pre-Construction Mcetinl!: The Applicant shall conduct a pre-construction meeting with the City Community Development Staff prior to submittal for a building permit application. This meeting shall include the general contractor, the architect producing the construction drawings, the Community Development Engineer, a representative of the City Building Department, and the Community Development Department's case planner. G:lcitylJessicalCasesl WienerstubelPnZl Wienerstube ResoREVISED.doc Section 8: Fire Mitil!:ation The Applicant shall install a fire sprinkler system and alarm system that meets the requirements of the Fire Marshall. The water service line shall be sized appropriately to accommodate the required Fire Sprinkler System. Section 9: Water Department Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. The Applicant shall also enter into a water service agreement with the City and complete a common service line agreement for the residential units. Each residential unit shall have an individual water meters. A single water service line penetration into the building shall be allowed. The Applicant shall abandon the existing water service line and excavate it prior to installation of a new water service line. Section 10: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations. The Applicant shall fund the replacement of 300 feet the main sewer line located in the alley adjacent to the project. No clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter drains) to ACSD lines shall be allowed. The driveway entrance drains shall drain to drywells and elevator shaft drains shall drain through an oil and sand separator. One tap to the main sanitary line is allowed. No soil nails shall be allowed in the public right-of-way above ACSD main sewer lines. The Applicant shall enter into a shared service line agreement. Glycol and snowmelt shall have containment areas approved by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. Service lines being abandoned shall be abandoned from the main sewer line and excavated. Section 11: Electrical Department Requirements The Applicant shall have an electric connect load summary conducted by a licensed electrician in order to determine if the existing transformer on the neighboring property has sufficient capacity for the redevelopment. If a new supplemental transformer is required to be installed on the subject property, the Applicant shall provide for a new transformer and its location shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior to installation. The Applicant shall dedicate an easement to allow for City Utility Personnel to access the supplemental transformer for maintenance purposes, if a supplemental transformer is installed. If after the subdivision plat is recorded and in the event an easement is required, then the Community Development Director shall review and approve the easement on the condominium plat. Section 12: Enerl!:V Efficiencv The development shall exceed the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) requirements for energy usage by 50%. An energy audit shall be conducted on the development at the property' owner's expense after three (3) years of occupancy. The energy audit shall be conducted by an energy consultant selected by the City of Aspen Building Department. If the audit determines that the development does not exceed the G:lcityVessicalCasesl WienerstubelPnZI Wienerstube ResoREVISED .doc 2006 IECC requirements for energy usage by 50% or more, then the building shall be upgraded to meet this requirement. Prior to the building's occupation, a the building shall be commissioned to determine the energy efficiency prior to use. This shall be conducted by an energy consultant selected by the City of Aspen Building Department and shall be conducted at the expense of the Applicant. Section 13: Growth Manal!:ement Implications and Emplovee Housinl!: Mitil!:ation The Applicant shall provide twelve (\2) deed-restricted, two-bedroom affordable housing units, to fully mitigate for the 25.9 full time employees (FTEs) required to be mitigated for. The affordable housing units shall also contain 13,960 square feet of floor area as was proposed in the application. Section 14: Affordable Housinl!: The Applicant shall record a deed restnctlOn on each of the twelve (12) affordable housing units in conjunction with filing a condominium plat for the property and prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy on the affordable housing units. Six (6) of the affordable housing units shall be Category 3 units and six (6) of the affordable housing units shall be Category 4 units. All of the affordable housing units shall be "for sale" units and sold through the APCHA lottery process. A separate Homeowner's Association shall be established for the affordable housing units. The affordable housing homeowners' association dues shall be a percentage of the free-market residential development's dues equal to the affordable housing's market value compared to that of the free-market residential component's market value in the complex. Section 15: Landscapinl!: The Applicant shall submit a detailed landscaping plan as part of the building permit application. This landscaping plan shall include a plan for right-of-way landscaping and irrigation. The plan shall also include a parkway landscaping strip adjacent to all abutting public streets of at least five (5) feet in width. Appropriate street tree plantings are required along all streets adjacent to the property and shall be spaced according to the recommendation of the City of Aspen Parks Department. Section 16: Sidewalk, Curb, and Gutter Existing sidewalk, curb, and gutter adjacent to the project shall be replaced and upgraded to meet the City Engineer's design requirements. The sidewalk locations shall be in substantially the same location as is depicted on the site plan in the subdivision application. If the adjacent sidewalks are to be snowmelted, the Applicant shall also snowmelt the curb and gutter adjacent to the property. Section 17: Park Development Impact Fees Park Development Impact Fees shall be assessed at the time of building permit issuance on both the new residential bedrooms and the commercial/office space to be added to the subject properties pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact G:lcitylJessicalCasesl WienerstubelPnZl Wienerstube ResoREVISED .doc Fees. The Park Development Impact Fees shall be calculated by the City of Aspen Zoning Officer using the fee schedule in place at the time of building permit issuance. Section 18: School Land Dedication Fees School Land Dedication Fees shall be assessed on the proposal at the time of building permit issuance pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School Lands Dedication, because subdivision approval is required for the development of the multi-family residential units per the definition of subdivision in the land use code. The school lands dedication fees shall be calculated by the City of Aspen Zoning Officer using the fee schedule in place at the time of building permit issuance. Section 19: ImTlact 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 20: Exterior Lil!:htinl!: All exterior lighting shall meet the City's Lighting Code Requirements pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting. Section 21: Wildlife Trash Containers The Applicant shall install a wildlife-proof trash container that meets the requirements of the Environmental Health Department. Section 22: Food Service Facilities Food service plans meeting the requirements of the City of Aspen Environmental Health Department shall be submitted and approved prior to serving food and prior to obtaining a Colorado Food Service License for any of the commercial space that is to be used as restaurant space. An oil and grease interceptor approved by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District shall be installed in any space that is to be used as a restaurant. Section 23: Off-Street Parkinl!: The Applicant shall provide forty-seven (47) sub-grade parking spaces to be accessed from the alleyway. The affordable housing units shall each have one (I) dedicated parking space in the below grade garage. The remaining spaces shall be for use by the free-market units, and the commercial/office space. At no time shall the parking structure or spaces be condominiumized other than to delineate ownership of parking spaces for the owners of the residential units and commercial/office space within the subject building. Section 24: Development Timinl!: The Applicant shall obtain a certificate of occupancy on all of the affordable housing units prior to obtaining a certificate of occupancy on any other part of the building. Section 25: 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 G:lcitylJessicalCasesl WienerstubelPnZI Wieners tube ResoREVISED .doc hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 26: 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 27: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen by a _ to _ L---.J vote on this 5th day of September, 2006. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk G:lcitylJessicalCasesl WienerstubelPnZI Wienerstube ResoREVISED.doc E><hiolt D_ Aspen Plannin!! & ZoniD!! Commission Meetinl! Minutes October 17. 2006 COMMENTS ............................................................................................................2 MINUTES ................ ................. ................................................................................ 2 DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................................. 2 ASPEN HIGHLANDS VILLAGE ...........................................................................3 WEINERSTUBE REDEVELOPMENT...................................................................3 1150 CEMETERY LANE.........................................................................................7 1 Aspen Planninl!: & Zoninl!: Commission Meetinl!: Minutes October 17. 2006 Jasmine Tygre opened the regular Planning & Zoning Meeting in the Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:35 pm. Commissioners Ruth Kruger, Steve Skadron Brian Speck and Jasmine Tygre were present. John Rowland and Dylan Johns were excused. Staff in attendance were Joyce Allgaier, Jessica Garrow, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Ruth Kruger inquired about the weed control policy. Joyce Allgaier replied that she informed the Parks Department about the spot next to the Holland House and on Main Street that Ruth spoke about previously. Kruger voiced concern for the Puppy Smith COWOP. Allgaier responded there was an appeal to the City Council decision to consider the Puppy Smith COWOP eligible. Kruger asked that the commission receive a memo regarding the preparedness of P&Z for public hearings. Kruger stated the communication between Council and P&Z was of great importance and suggested a lunch meeting. Jasmine Tygre said as part of the original Rio Grande Master Plan it was stated that the vistas from the top of the steps be open to views of Aspen Mountain and Rio Grande Park; currently the blue roof cover going down the Rio Grande steps, which takes away the Rio Grand Park view. Tygre noted in cities there were clear covers on stairways to subways. Tygre said that Ron Erickson always asked about the covering over the Caribou Alley, which was now a roof and she asked what happened in this case. Allgaier stated there were a series ofletters that have gone out to the estate and manager of the club and community development was pursuing as a zoning violation. Allgaier announced a work session following their regular meeting with Mark White, a consultant, and a lodging consultant. MINUTES MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve the minutes from July 1 Flh, August 1s/, 15th, September 5th and 19'\' seconded by Steve Skadron. All in favor, APPROVED. DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Dylan Johns was conflicted on the Weinerstube Redevelopment. -2 Asoen Planninl! & ZoniD!!: Commission Meetin!!: Minutes October 17. 2006 PUBLIC HEARING: ASPEN IDGHLANDS VILLAGE Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing. Jessica Garrow provided the proof of notice. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue Aspen Highlands to November 21st; seconded by Steve Skadron. All infavor, APPROVED. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (09/19/06; 10/03): WEINERSTUBE REDEVELOPMENT Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on the Weinerstube Redevelopment. Jessica Garrow stated the applicant was 633 Spring Street LLC represented by Stan Clauson. The application required Growth Management for mixed use development, for free market units in a mixed use development, for affordable housing in a mixed use development, replacement of commercial floor area, multi- year development allotments; Commercial Design Review and Subdivision. Planning & Zoning was the final review for the Commercial Design Review and Growth Management Reviews with the exception of the multi-year development allotments and Subdivision. Garrow explained the property was located at the comer of Hyman and Spring, 18,000 square feet covering 6 townsite lots. The existing property contained a 37 space gravel parking lot and a 6,000 square foot building in the Cl zone district. The proposed building included a 151 floor of 12,000 square feet for commercial and restaurant space and 14 surface parking spaces along the alley. The proposed second floor contained 10,670 square feet of commercial office space and 12 two- bedroom affordable housing units (6 units were category 3 and 6 units were category 4 at 950 square feet each). The third floor proposal contained 10,805 square feet of multi-family units (4 two bedroom units at 2,000 square feet each) and two studios (1200 and 1500 square feet). The basement proposal contained storage for the affordable housing and commercial uses. Garrow said the dimensional requirements were 42 feet in height with a total FAR of 2.58 to 1; the proposed development met all underlying zoning requirements. There will be cash-in-lieu for the remaining required 5.7 parking spaces. Garrow said the project met all subdivision standards and currently served by utilities; affordable housing, free market units and commercial uses were consistent with the neighborhood and were permitted uses in the Cl zone district. 3 Aspen Planninl! & Zoninl!: Commission Meetinl!: Minutes October 17, 2006 Garrow said there were 5 Growth Management Reviews. Garrow said the project meets minimum mitigation requirements; there were 25.9 FTEs generated by the commercial uses and the 12 two-bedroom units mitigate for 27 FTEs. 30% of the free-market floor area must be mitigated through employee housing and they were providing 13,000 square feet, which exceeds the requirement. Garrow said the applicant needs a multi-year allotment for free-market housing. The project called for 6 free market units and there was only 1 allotment left for the 2006 year so they will need 5 from next year's multi-year allotment. Multi- year allotments require compliance with exceptional project criteria; the categories were to assist a sustainable economy, mitigation for affordable housing, green building and architecture and design. Staff felt that the project met a majority of these but not all. Garrow stated the project provided a significant amount of office and commercial space, which was consistent with the AACP and will help lead to a sustainable economy. It exceeds the affordable mitigation requirement and provides all affordable housing on site. The applicant has pledged to exceed the green building requirements by 15%. Staff recommended a condition for an energy audit to insure that this has occurred. Staff felt the applicant was deficient in the design and mass; there was an abrupt change in architecture and staff would like the applicant to re-study and make changes to this transition. Staff believed the project met many of the project goals but would like Planning & Zoning to recommend that the applicant look at the massing and design before it can be deemed an exceptional project for the multi-year allotments. Garrow said the project met all the commercial design standards; it was parallel to adjacent streets; commercial space was at sidewalk grade; it satisfied the window fenestration requirements and trash and utility areas will be walled and located appropriately in the alley. The building was not setback more than the average setbacks on the block. Garrow said the required pedestrian amenity was 1600 square feet and the applicant proposed 1060 square feet of pedestrian amenity space along Spring Street, which would allow for outdoor seating for the Weinerstube Restaurant and the rest would be paid through cash-in-lieu. Stan Clauson thanked Jessica for an excellent presentation; all of the significant aspects from the unit count and the site. Clauson utilized drawings for the depiction ofthe fist floor with the entrances of the commercial spaces onto the street and the new proposed Weinerstube. The parking lot next door was private and the driveway cut would be restored to street parking. Clauson said the replacement development will have a valuable effect on the street. 4 Asoen PIanninl! & Zoninl! Commission Meeonl! Minutes October 17. 2006 Clauson introduced Andy Weisnowski and Bill Poss the architects for the building. Clauson said the design was an enhancement to the location and complimented the existing streetscape elements and provides an exciting fusion of historical and contemporary elements. Clauson said this was entirely within the code from a parameter standpoint; it meets the height requirements and was below the allowable FAR. A!ldy Weisnowski said they broke down the building into masses that correlate with the grid of the city (30 foot or 60 foot masses), which was the traditional development pattern throughout Aspen. Weisnowski noted the comer related to Spring and Hyman with a reduced mass to a two story structure and to introduce some interest to that comer and the higher points of the building were generally set back from 8 to 10 to 15 feet. A model was presented for the sense of the scale of the project. Weisnowski said there were distinct massing breaks to scale to the town and not read as one block building. The outdoor seating for the restaurant was covered. Weisnowski said the affordable housing will have great views to Aspen Mountain and morning sun. Bill Poss said that this building has an iconic comer of interest similar to other buildings in town; there was a lot of interest and vitality in this building. Poss said they met with HPC staff and the renderings did not show all the street trees. Steve Skadron asked the height from the street to the ceiling on the outdoor portion where the Weinerstube Restaurant would be located. Weisnowski said the smaller section was 8 to 9 foot high but the majority was about 13 feet. Ruth Kruger asked the size of the restaurant. Weisnowski replied about 3500 square feet. Skadron asked for an explanation of multi-year allotments. Garrow responded that there were certain allotments available each year; the C I and CC zone districts 6 free market units available. Stage III took 5 of those units for 2006 so the allotments needed are borrowed from 2007; next year that would leave I available. Tygre said that she understood that a certain number of allotments had to be available for future years. Garrow said it was Ordinance 12 that amended this. Clauson said that Ordinance 12 amended this and reduced the growth rate by about half; the 2000 square foot limit on free market residential units. The commission and staff had different interpretations of the evaluation for the allocation process. The commission wanted to make sure they were using the same criteria. Clauson stated that this was an exceptional project and determined the allocation process. Kruger asked if the open space requirement was required to be open to the public. Garrow answered staff understood that the open space seating was for the 5 ASDen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! Minutes October 17. 2006 Weinerstube was open to air, which would qualify for pedestrian amenity; with this design it does not comply with a roof; the applicant would have to pay cash-in-lieu. Kruger said an audit was required in 3 years (staff memo page 5) to see if they were exceeding the international energy conservation code by 50%; how was this enforceable. Garrow said it was in the Resolution as well and at 3 years the building department would choose an energy consultant that knows how to do the audit at the expense ofthe applicant and ifit does not meet the requirements the applicant would be required to upgrade to those standards. Kruger said that "exceptional building" was a nebulous term and how it was defined; she said that responsible builders should be building a "green building" anyway and that should not make it exceptional but other qualities should make it exceptional. Allgaier responded that the application itemized how they attain greater than the code requirements. Kruger asked what was in the front of the building on the second floor. Poss replied that it was commercial, office and residential. Poss utilized drawings to show the levels for the employee housing, floor to floor at 10 feet and floor to floor for the retail was 13.6 feet. Poss said that they were meeting everything that staff asked them to do to make this an exceptional project. Brian Speck asked how they viewed the pedestrian amenity. Clauson replied there was no pedestrian amenity, the requirement was 10% that they would pay cash-in- lieu for the pedestrian amenity. Clauson noted the overhang was a pedestrian amenity. Poss stated there was angle parking right there. Speck asked if they felt they addressed the breaking up of the massing through the design of the building and asked if that was their representation for the comer being an anchor. Poss replied that was the contemporary comer on the building. Speck asked how this was an exceptional building. Clauson said there were specific criteria for an exceptional building; the criteria include affordable housing, the green building techniques, design, and under the FAR. Poss said that when the plan was submitted there was a form to fill out for the green building specifically, which was judged by points. Clauson said there were 8 criteria for exceptional building and I did not apply; the AACP goal advances, it exceeds minimum affordable housing requirements, historic (does not apply), provide the appropriate categories from APCHA, maximizes public transit uses, promotes sustainability of the local economy, locating employees within the infill area, design elementsofa desirable site plan and compatible with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Tygre asked if the retail uses would be limited to those uses that were allowed under CI zoning unless they came in for special review. Garrow replied that was correct. Tygre asked where the cash-in-lieu would be used for the pedestrian amenity. Garrow replied that the money went into a fund and determined by City Council where the pedestrian amenity or streetscape improvements would take 6 Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! Minutes October 17.2006 place. Tygre asked ifthere was a location established for the cash-in-lieu for the parking spaces. Garrow replied there was not a specific location for the money. Kruger asked if the affordable housing was for sale. Garrow replied yes for sale, category 3 and 4. No public comments. Dan Mysko sent a letter against the project. PUBLIC HEARING: 1150 CEMETERY LANE Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the public hearing for 1150 Cemetery Lane to November th; seconded by Steve Skadron. All infavor. APPROVED. Resume public hearing on 307 South Spring Street. Skadron asked for more clarification on the dramatic architectural transition from the traditional component to the more modern component. Weisnowski replied the transitions occur at the corner, which was the most active part of the project and the other more modern occur on the third floor setback were more subdued. Weisnowski said the appropriateness comes from the materials, scale, and respond to the context of the neighbors. Poss said the downtown guidelines ask for contemporary buildings so this design has the more contemporary statement on the end and the more traditional towards the mall. Tygre said there were questions of the design standards. Tygre stated that the CI zone districts had problems with high end restaurants; she said that a list of allowed uses in the C I zone would be helpful to this discussion. Tygre requested the differences between CI and CC Zone Districts; the current CI uses and the current CC. Skadron requested further explanation for the recessed walkway along the north fal(ade does not create dead space. Clauson replied it was only a slight recess (7 feet), which allows people to look into store windows and more variegation to the front fal(ade and at the same time keeps the store windows right at the street but provides a small sheltered area. Kruger expressed concern for the process. Kruger said she liked the architectural masses being broken up. Kruger felt the consumer experience was diminished by setting the windows back and she said that retailers did not like it either so this 7 Asoen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! Minutes October 17. 2006 probably was not where the high end retailers would be going. Kruger said the list for exceptional project was nothing less than what a project should be anyway; there was nothing exceptional on the list. Kruger said this was a perfect place for more parking and parking was being taken away. Speck wanted the comer more traditional in nature. Speck said that he was impressed with the amount of employee housing; the breaking up of the massing was acceptable. Speck asked if the elevators went to the roof. Weisnowski said the two elevators went to the third floor but not to the roof. Speck said that the project fit into the neighborhood. Tygre stated that Ruth covered a lot of the items that she had especially that this site should not be under parked, which would be a great benefit to the tenants of the building. Tygre said that it was shocking to approve a project with cash-in-lieu for parking when the site can accommodate parking; that was a real black mark against this project. Tygre said the building looked attractive and had no objection to the pointy roof on the comer; she appreciated the 30/60 foot modules. Tygre commended the applicant on the fully above grade employee housing. Tygre felt the categories on the housing, the under parking and no pedestrian amenity on site were all WTong. Tygre urged the applicant to keep some pedestrian amenity on site. Tygre said that the proposal as submitted does not qualify as an exceptional project. All of the commissioners requested the list of uses, code changes and exceptional project standards. Clauson stated that they responded to all the criteria for dimensional requirements; they were not required to provide all the parking on site and the code was clear about that. Clauson said with the exceptional project the criteria were laid out and it was not something that says it has to be more exceptional than what the criteria state. Clauson said that Ordinance 12 was passed during the course of work on this project and the design had to be altered because of changes from Ordinance 12 for the size of the units; they have tried to meet the code and exceed the code. Clauson said exceeding the energy requirements by 50% was huge and meets the affordable housing. Clauson said the only way to provide more parking was to provide a deeper basement to provide a number more spaces but because of the site constraints to ramp down would not provide that much more additional parking. They will look at the analysis of the uses and further explore the energy qualitites of the building. 8 Asnen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Meetin!!: Minutes October 17. 2006 MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to continue the public hearing on the Weinerstube Redevelopment to November 1h; seconded by Brain Speck. All in favor, APPROVED. Meeting adjourned at 7:05 pm. \. ~ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 9 E~hj bt .' Aspen PlanniDl! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! Minutes November 7. 2006 DRAFT COMMENTS .............................................................................................................2 MINUTES ..................................................................................................................2 DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST..............................................2 WElNERSTUBE REDEVELOPMENT ...................................................................2 I Aspen Plannin2 & Zonin2 Commission Meetin2 Minutes November 7. 2006 DRAFT Ruth Kruger opened the regular Planning & Zoning Meeting in the Council Chambers at 4:30 pm. Commissioners Steve Skadron, John Rowland, Dylan Johns and Ruth Kruger were present. Brian Speck and Jasmine Tygre were excused. Staff in attendance were Joyce Allgaier, Jessica Garrow and Stephen Kanipe, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Ruth Kruger asked about the designation of Hearthstone House and what other properties were being designated. Joyce Allgaier said there were several properties being designated; there was criteria to be met in order to qualifY to be listed having to do with the history of the building, the architecture and people associated with the building. Kruger asked how the owners were involved. Allgaier replied they were contacted and there would be a hearing with Historic Preservation and then with City Council. Kruger asked that P&Z receive a notice when projects were going to public hearings. Kruger had questions about the GMQS allotments and how it works. Kruger said it was inconceivable that a building as big as the Weinerstube redevelopment could only have 20 parking spaces; she said it was one of those un- intended consequences. Allgaier suggested a lunch meeting with staff on the subject. Steve Skadron requested information on cash-in-lieu for parking, pedestrian amenity, employee housing and everything. MINUTES The minutes were postponed to the next meeting. DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Dylan Johns was conflicted on the Weinerstube Redevelopment, Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD and the Sky Hotel Redevelopment. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (09/19/06; 10/03, 10/17): WEINERSTUBE REDEVELOPMENT Ruth Kruger opened the continued public hearing on the Weinerstube Redevelopment. It was made clear to the applicant that in order for a motion to be approved all three votes had to be affirmative. Stan Clauson stated that was understood and wanted to proceed. 2 Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Meetin!!: Minutes November 7. 2006 DRAFT Jessica Garrow stated at the previous meeting the commission requested some changes to the application and requested staff to clarify how the land use code related to uses in the CC and C 1 Zone Districts. Exhibit C outlined the permitted uses. Garrow said the commission asked for clarification regarding Growth Management for an exceptional project and a multi-year allotment; the review criteria were the same for multi-year allotments and an exceptional project (detailed on page 2 of the staff memo). Garrow explained that in anyone year there were 18 free market allotments for the entire city; at no point can more than 6 allotments occur in the CC or C 1 Zone District. Within the total 18 allotments 6 are allowed to be used for an exceptional project; an exceptional project goes through the criteria. Garrow said 5 of this year's allotments for the CC and CI Zone Districts were used by the Stage III project; the Weinerstube is requesting the 1 remaining allotment for this year and is requesting the rest of the allotments form the multi-year, which would draw from next year's allotments for the CC and C1 Zone District. Kruger still disagreed with the staff interpretation; she asked where it shows that they can dip into the next year. Garrow replied it said that there were only 6 allotments in the CC and C 1 Zone District in a year regardless if it was exceptional so if they use those 6 allotments in that year then an exceptional project can come in but can not go in as an exceptional project in that zone district (part 400 page 112 d). Kruger said that she did not interpret this in that way. Garrow noted on page 119 it began with Planning and Zoning Commission review and d on page 126 was City Council review; part one of that was exceptional project or multi-year development allotment. Kruger said they would continue to disagree. Joyce Allgaier stated that it was the Community Development Director's interpretation. Stan Clauson stated they accepted the staff interpretation and have tried to meet the criteria for either the exceptional project or the multi-year allotment. Kruger asked what was the point of having an exceptional project if there were no extra allotments. Kruger said that was the way she understood the rule to be written; she did not know how it became diluted into this. Garrow said for regular projects there were a total of 12 allotments available. Clauson said that Stephen Kanipe was present to address the commission's requests regarding the energy component. Garrow noted that 50% was significant and how it would be enforced. Stephen Kanipe stated that this project proposed to exceed the energy code by 50%; that was a significant effort on the applicant's part and on the teams' part to include very technical state of the art designs that were measurable. Kanipe said that Burlingame was at 48% and the new building at the Meadows (Doerhoiser Conference Center) was at 52%, which was considered state of the art. Kanipe explained there were a group of designers, mechanical system 3 Aspen Plannine: & Zonine: Commission Meetine: Minutes November 7. 2006 DRAFT and building envelope specialists and detailers and material suppliers that were able to do this. Kanipe stated that he would love to be part of that level of achievement. Kanipe said it will be more common to have a commitment to accomplish that energy efficiency. Clauson said that the other part of the Planning Commission's concern was it measurable. Kanipe responded that energy can be measured but what it discounts is occupant behavior, which was a matter of education. Garrow stated the parking increased to 47 spaces, most underground and staff supported the new parking scheme. The applicant still will provide cash-in-lieu for the pedestrian amenity and was permitted in the code. Garrow noted the recessed portion has been brought up and staff supported the change but staff also felt that it was struggling for an architectural identity and would like to see a better transition between the more modem building on the comer and the more traditional buildings on Hyman. Staff also wanted the building broken up into the 30 and 60 foot module characteristic in that zone district. Stan Clauson said there was an addendum submitted on November 2nd with significant changes in response to Planning & Zoning. Clauson stated there were approximately 47 parking spaces, the current wall and structure has been moved and the square footage remains the same because of the ramping required for the parking from the alley. Clauson explained that the 30 and 60 foot modules were repeated throughout the building format. Andy Weisnowski utilized a model and drawings for the articulation of the building. Weisnowski said that the comer was more unique and addressed the residential neighborhood. John Rowland asked what the dark material in the back was going to be. Weisnowski replied it would be a darker metal material and the whole upper level would be darker so the eye perceived it as a recessive nature. Steve Skadron asked if the spaces on the first level were retail spaces with storefront windows. Weisnowski replied that was exactly what it was. Rowland asked if the windows were double hung on the bank. Weisnowski replied that would become a question of the energy efficiency of the systems that were used. Clauson said that since this met the code and was not a PUD it would not be seen by P&Z again. Clauson said there would be planters and ash trees with pavers on the sidewalks; the outdoor dining area was covered by a roof, which would be a more flexible, useful and functional for the restaurant. Weisnowski said the covering done in a more permanent way and would be better than a more contrived way. Skadron asked if the space was conditioned for a restaurant. Kruger replied that restaurants attract people and the code used to say locally serving restaurants but it was not enforceable. Allgaier said that it was also un-interpretable. Skadron asked the 4 Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! Minutes November 7. 2006 DRAFT uses allowed. Garrow replied that it was in Exhibit C and read the allowed uses. Clauson said that a change in use would be required; there were 6 retail locations and the Weinerstube would be the ih commercial location. Skadron asked if that meant 6 doors. Clauson replied they were showing 6 entries and the Weinerstube. Weisnowski said that the Weinerstube was best known for the breakfasts and this was a better side for the dining and outdoor dining. Skadron asked the current building's open space component. Clauson replied zero. Skadron asked how the parking would operate; was it paid parking; was it dedicated to the store operators and residents. Clauson replied that the code does not address any specific requirements for how the parking operates. Kruger said the 47 parking spots were offthe street and underground. Skadron said if they would be used. Kruger stated they would be used; the spaces would be a benefit to the tenants and the amentias such as parking would attract tenants. Skadron asked why staff was not satisfied with the 30 and 60 foot modules. Garrow replied even though there was a portion of the building that responded to the next building and the side was 90 feet without any fenestration that would show a 60 and a 30 and did not feel that the transition was enough. Weisnowski said there were materials, height variations, the fenestration, windows and detailing were in this design to create the differentiations in the sections. Weisnowski said they went to great extents to create a building that had more bite sized pieces that were more consistent with the historic nature of town and this block alone had architecture that varied drastically in terms of styles. Clauson said this building meets all the stated commercial design standards in the land use code. Garrow said that staff felt this was an improvement from the previous design; they were happy with the store fronts brought out. Garrow said this was a 180 foot long lot and with the exception of a portion of the Weinerstube at the very front was all one height and staff felt this detracted from the more traditional 30 and 60 foot modules. Skadron asked what was the proposed area for the Weinerstube spot and what was the current Weinerstube. Weisnowski replied 3200 square feet give or take for the proposed and the current was about 3500 square feet. John Rowland asked if staff agreed that all the commercial design standards had been met. Garrow replied that was correct. Kruger said that the requirements for an exceptional project were for all projects and said that she did not know how the exceptional project came about. Kruger asked how the garage circulation went. Weisnowski utilized a map to show the one way alley from Spring Street with a ramping system going down to the garage 5 Aspen Plan nine & Zonine Commission Meetine Minutes November 7. 2006 DRAFT and loop around and go down another level or come back up on the other ramp; there were two ramps (like a scissor) in opposite directions. Kruger asked what the problem was with the ramps previously. Weisnowski said the code no longer allows 16% and will only allow 12%; so the ramp was fairly deep and it was safe with the alley. Public Comments: Kevin Wilson, current owner of the Weinerstube, asked where the Weinerstube would be located in the new building and the number of square feet. Clauson pointed out the location on the model. Weisnowski replied that there were about 3200 square feet. Rowland said that this proposed building was good and the energy code compliance was fantastic. Rowland said that he did not have a problem with the 30 and 60 foot modules. Kruger appreciated the applicant adding parking and bringing the retail up to the sidewalk and the restaurant being covered. Kruger said the affordable housing and parking did make it an exceptional project along with the green building. Skadron suggested a comment for the parking allocated to one space per unit for affordable housing units, available for tenants of the building and not condominiumized and not sold. Clauson stated they would accept that condition of approval. Skadron said the review criteria for an exceptional project "i" promoted sustainability and he realized that the commission cannot dictate what goes into the retail spots. Allgaier said the hard zoning would continue to apply to the commercial and office uses of the CI Zone. Allgaier noted the project exceeded the affordable housing, which keeps people and brings people downtown. Allgaier said that the mixed use was a step in gaining social economic sustainability downtown. MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to approve Resolution #28, Series of2006 as amended with conditions, commercial design review, growth management exemption for a new mixed use development, growth management for free-market residential units within a mixed use project, growth management review for the development of affordable housing; and recommending City Council approve a subdivision and multi-year growth management construction of a mixed use building with 18,000 square feet of commercial/office space, six free-market 6 Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Meetin!!: Minutes November 7. 2006 DRAFT residential units and twelve affordable housing units. Second by John Rowland. Roll call vote: Rowland, yes; Skadron, yes; Kruger, yes. APPROVED 3-0. Meeting adjourned at 7:05 pm. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 7 E~hib/'t F MEMORANDUM To: Development Review Committee From: Alex Evonitz. Com. Dev. Engineer Date: June 7, 2006 Re: 307 S. Spring Street Subdivision The Development Review Committee has reviewed the 307 S. Spring Street Subdivision for GM and Commercial Design Reviews at their June 7. 2006 meeting and has compiled the following comments: Attendees; Alex Evonitz, Com. Dev. Eng.;Steve Hunter, Engineering; Denis Murray. City Building Dept.; James Lindt, Planner Community Development; Brian Flynn. Parks; Tom Bracewell, ACSD; Blake Fitch, Parking; Cindy Christensen, Housing; Phil Overeynder, Public Works; Stan Clauson, Applicant; Kim Weil. Poss Arch. Building Department - Denis Murray; . Access Infrastructure Permit would be a way to start the project. . Pedestrian protection will be necessary as the work gets underway for the sidewalk. . No use of basement storage by anyone not directly associated with the building. . Doors and Windows all need to be ANCI accessible, Type B access. . Stabilization will be required as well as everything required for the Construction Management Plan (CMP). Fire Protection District - No Attendance Engineering Department - Steve Hunter; . The normal CMP, Soils Report and Drainage Reports are required. . Replacement of the sidewalk C&G need to be part of this project. . If snow melting sidewalks are installed the adjacent C&G need to be heated also so the runoff can go the COA existing collection System. Housing Office - Cindy Christensen; . A change of the unit mix should be considered for the affordable units rather than all 2-Bdrm. . Two different association will be necessary 1 for free market units and 1 for affordable units. . Anticipate going for Board review on June 21. Zoning Officer -Todd Grange; Page 2 of 7 June 7, 2006 307 S. Spring Street Subdivision for GM and Commercial Design Reviews . Parks fees will need to be determined and paid. . A lighting plan will need part of the permit application package. . Are the pedestrian amenities requirement being met at the 10%. Environmental Health - No attendance . AIR QUALITY: "It is the purpose of [the air quality section of the Municipal . Code 13.08J to achieve the maximum practical degree of air purity possible by requiring the use of all available practical methods and techniques to control. prevent and reduce air pollution throughout the city..."The Land Use Regulations (Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code) seek to "lessen congestion" and "avoid transportation demands that cannot be met" as well as to "provide clean air by protecting the natural air sheds and reducing pollutants". . The land use code states that the Growth manaaement criteria. residential: applications need to be consistent with Aspen Area Community Plan provision, Reducing dependency on the automobile is vital for the long- term livability and health of the Aspen area. The AACP envisions a time in the not-too-distant tuture when the automobile is not the dominant means of moving people in and around the community. The Aspen Area Community Plan seeks a balanced, integrated transportation system for residents, visitors and commuters that reduce traffic congestion and air pollution. Subdivision applications need to provide information on projected traffic generation and air pollution. . Using standard Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Rates, this development will generate 449 additional trips per day. and 63 pound of P M-lO per day. Thus this development will have a pernicious (negative) effect on the air quality if sianificant mitiaation measures are not implemented. . To ensure that the development does not have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City of Aspen, the Environmental Health Department recommends that the following PM-] 0 mitigation measures be implemented: 1. Pay the City of Aspen's Air Quality Impact Fee (if in place by building permit submittal). Other recommended measures include: 2. Provide free bus pass for employees, 3. Active participation in the City's Transportation Options Program (TOP) by businesses and the Homeowner's Association, and 4. Providing covered and secure bike storage. The City of Aspen Environmental Health Department has reviewed the land use submittal under authority of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and has the following comments and reminders: . FIREPLACE/WOODSTOVE PERMITS: The applicant must file a fireplace/woodstove permit with the Building Department before the building permit will be issued. In the City of Aspen, buildings may have two gas log fireplaces or two certified woodstoves (or 1 of each) and Page 3 of 7 June 7, 2006 307 S. Spring Street Subdivision for GM and Commercial Design Reviews unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building. New homes may NOT have wood buming fireplaces, nor may any heating device use coal as fuel. . FUGITIVE DUST: Any development must implement adequate dust control measures. . A fugitive dust control plan is required as part of the applicants erosion control plan. A fugitive dust control plan may include. but is not limited to fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out, speed limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line or causing a nuisance. A fugitive dust control plan must be submitted to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Quality Control Division if this project will last greater than 6 months. . ASBESTOS: Prior to remodel, expansion or demolition of any public or commercial building, including removal of drywall, carpet, tile. etc., the state must be notified and a person licensed by the state to do asbestos inspections must do an inspection. The Building Department cannot sign any building permits until they get this report. If there is no asbestos. the demolition can proceed. If asbestos is present, a licensed asbestos removal contractor must remove it. . TRASH STORAGE AREA: The applicant should make sure that the trash storage area has adequate wildlife protection. We recommend recvclina containers be present wherever trash compactors or dumpsters are located due to the Citv of Aspen's new Waste Reduction Ordinance. Chapter 12.06. . A total of at least 20-27* square feet of the utility/trash service area is recommended for recycling facilities. One 90-gallon toter = 2"x2.5" [5sq. ft.). Need one for each: co-mingled, office paper. newspaper = 15sq. ft. Cardboard - At minimum could use a toter = 5sq. ft and at most need a cardboard dumpster = 12sq.ft (3"x4"). Facility can have required space reduced if facility uses a cardboard shelf = Osq.ft The applicant is advised that with the new Waste Reduction Ordinance recycling services will be included with any trash hauling service contracted during construction. It is important that the applicant plan for adequate space for recycling during the construction of the project. Recycling services will include the following recyclable material: Cardboard, Co-mingled (plastic bottles, aluminum. steel cans and glass bottles), Newspaper and Office Paper. . NOISE ABATEMENT: Section 18-04-01 'The city council finds and declares that noise is a significant source of environmental pollution that represents a present and increasing threat to the public peace and to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen and to its visitors. Noise has an adverse effect on the psychological and physiological well being of persons, thus constituting a present danger to the economic and aesthetic well-being of the community. " Page 4 of 7 June 7, 2006 307 S. Spring Street Subdivisfon for GM and Commercial Design Reviews . 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. A construction noise suppression plan must be submitted to the City of Aspen Environmental Health Department if the construction of this project will create noise greater than 80 decibels. . FOOD SERVICE FACIlITIES: Section 10-401 of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Sanitation of Food Service Establishments in the State of Colorado requires a review of plans and specifications by this Department. The Department shall be consulted before preparation of plans and specifications. The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District must be contacted for their recommendation on the proper size of the grease trap. Restaurant grills are regulated by the City of Aspen ar d the applicant should contact this Department to be it is in compliance with City code. . The applicant should be aware that approval of both plans and specifications is required before the building permit is approved. A minimum of two weeks is necessary for the Environmental Health Department to review and approve plans. Also, final approval from this Department is necessary before opening for business and prior to issuance of a Colorado Food Service License. Planning - James Lindt; . Massing of the structure as presented area a concern. A meeting is requested to discuss option for the structure. . A 3-d model will help P&Z understand the scale and massing of the project. . Buy downs for other units is suggested verses a cash in lieu for other affordable units. Parks - Brian Flynn: . Tree Removal: An approved tree permit is required for any future tree removals. An approved tree permit requires a proposed landscape plan identifying trees for removal and means and schedule for mitigation. Please contact the City Forester for more information 920-5120. The tree permit must be approved prior to an approved demo permit. . Tree Protection: A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site. 6. formal plan indicatina the location of the tree protection will be reauired for the blda permit set. No excavation, storage of materials. storage of Page 5 of 7 June 7, 2006 307 S. Spring Street Subdivision for GM and Commercial Design Reviews construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree remaining on site. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee (920-5120) before any construction activities are to commence. . Landscapina and Sidewalk landscaped area: Landscaping in the public right of way will be subject to landscaping in the ROW requirements. The Landscapina plan needs to be redesianed and a new plan presented to the Parks Department for approval prior to P & z. . The street tree planting shall be evenly spaced a minimum of 15 to 20 foot off center. . Use the existing tree locations to determine appropriate spacing along East Hyman and S Spring. The planting should be spaced evenly from the Western property line around the corner ending at the alley property line. . ROW requirements require adequate irrigation pressure and coverage. . Improvements to the soil profiles of the ROW (amendina the current soils to improve air. water filtration and increase lonaevity of the new plantinas). . Tree trenches will need 10 be utilized for the street tree planting. Water/Electric - Phil Overeynder; . A transformer location needs to be included for the new construction. . Separate meters are required for each unit in the building. This should be accomplished using a single building penetration then a split of services. . All existing services need to abandoned. Community Development Engineer - Alex Evonitz; . Fees will be required for a storm drainage connection to the City system. . Grading for the new FF needs to address the fact the current building is below the alley level on the south side. . The normal requirements need to be addressed at the time of permit submittal. Special emphasis should be directed to the Construction Management plan because of the close quarters on the lot. Material staging. parking and material handling are major concerns. A tower crane should be considered for material handling on site to minimize traffic disruptions. . Permits for ROW permits will be required for any work within the COA ROW. Parking - Rich Ryan and Brian Fitch . Construction parking will need to be addressed. . No further comment at this time. Aspen Consolidated Waste District - Tom Bracewell . Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules. regulations, and specifications. which are on file at the District office. . ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof. foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. Page 6 of 7 June 7, 2006 307 S. Spring Street Subdivision for GM and Commercial Design Reviews . On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. . Oil and Grease interceptors (NOT traps) are required for all food processing establishment. Locations of food processing shall be identified prior to building permit. . Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance establishments. . Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells. . Elevator shafts drains must flow thru ols interceptor . Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. . Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. . One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. . Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. . All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district. . Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. . Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned capacity of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. The District would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the material cost difference for larger line). . Where main sanitary sewer lines are required to serve this new development or the existing publicly owned sewer system requires modification or adjustment. a line extension request and .collection system agreement are required. Both are ACSD Board of Director's action items. . Applicant will be required to deposit funds with the district for construction costs. engineering fees. construction observation fees, and fees to clean and televise the new main sewer line extension into the project. . The Applicant will have to pay 40% of the estimated tap fees for the anticipated building stubouts prior to building permit. . The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. Page 7 of 7 June 7, 2006 307 S. Spring Street Subdivision for GM and Commercial Design Reviews . The applicant will be required to fund the main line replacement of approximately 300 feet of the existing sanitary sewer system in the alley from Spring st. to Hunter st. . Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines and within 3 feet vertically below an ACSD main sewer line. . Applicant's civil engineer will be required to submit existing and proposed flow calculations. . Owners will receive credit for prior tap fees, but only in the on the books amount at the time of payment. Bxni'oit. q MEMORANDUM To: James Lindt, Community Development Department From: Jannette Murison, City Environmental Health Department Date: June 9, 2006 Re: 307 South Spring Street Subdivision, Growth Management Review and Commercial Design Parcel ill #2737-182-25-004 /"- The City of Aspen Environmental Health Department has reviewed the land use submittal under authority of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and has the folIowing comments. , AIR QUALITY: "It is the purpose of [the air quality section of the Municipal Code 13.08] to achieve the maximum practical degree of air purity possible by requiring the use of all available practical methods and techniques to control, prevent and reduce air pollution throughout the city...''The Land Use Regulations (Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code) seek to "lessen congestion" and "avoid transportation demands that cannot be met" as welI as to "provide clean air by protecting the natural air sheds and reducing polIutants". The land use code states that the Growth management criteria. residential: applications need to be consistent with Aspen Area Community Plan provision, Reducing dependency on the automobile is vital for the long-term livability and health of the Aspen area. The AACP envisions a time in the not-too-distant future when the automobile is not the dominant means of moving people in and around the community. The Aspen Area Community Plan seeks a balanced, integrated transportation system for residents, visitors and commuters that reduce traffic congestion and air pollution. Subdivision applications need to provide information on projected traffic generation and air polIution. . Using standard Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Rates, this development wilI generate 449 additional trips per day, and 63 pound of PM-l 0 per day. Thus this development will have a pernicious (negative) effect on the air quality if sil!:llificant mitil!:ation measures are not implemented. To ensure that the development does not have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City of Aspen, the Environmental Health Department recommends that the folIowing PM-l 0 mitigation measures be implemented: 1. Pay the City of Aspen's Air Quality Impact Fee (if in place by building permit submittal). Other recommended measures include: 2. Provide free bus pass for employees, 3. Active participation in the City's Transportation Options Program (TOP) by businesses and the Homeowner's Association, and 4. Providing covered and secure bike storage. The City of Aspen Environmental Health Department has reviewed the land use submittal under authority of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and has the following comments and reminders: FIREPLACE/WOODSTOVE PERMITS: The applicant must file a fireplacelwoodstove permit with the Building Department before the building permit will be issued. In the City of Aspen, buildings may have two gas log fireplaces or two certified woodstoves (or 1 of each) and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building. New homes may NOT have wood burning fireplaces, nor may any heating device use coal as fuel. FUGITIVE DUST: Any development must implement adequate dust control measures. A fugitive dust control plan is required as part of the applicants erosion control plan. A fugitive dust control plan may include, but is not limited to fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out, speed limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line or causing a nuisance. A fugitive dust control plan must be submitted to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Quality Control Division if this project will last greater than 6 months. ASBESTOS: Prior to remodel, expansion or demolition of any public or commercial building, including removal of drywall, carpet, tile, etc., the state must be notified and a person licensed by the state to do asbestos inspections must do an inspection. The Building Department cannot sign any building permits until they get this report. If there is no asbestos, the demolition can proceed. If asbestos is present, a licensed asbestos removal contractor must remove it. TRASH STORAGE AREA: The applicant should make sure that the trash storage area has adequate wildlife protection. We recommend recvcling containers be present wherever trash compactors or dumpsters are located due to the City of Aspen's new Waste Reduction Ordinance. Chapter 12.06. A total of at least 20-27* square feet of the utility/trash service area is recommended for recycling facilities. One 90-gallon toter = 2"x2.5" (5sq. ft.). Need one for each: co-mingled, office paper, newspaper = 15sq. ft. Cardboard - At minimum could use a toter = 5sq. ft and at most need a cardboard dumpster = 12sq.ft (3"x4"). Facility can have required space reduced if facility uses a cardboard shelf = Osq.ft The applicant is advised that with the new Waste Reduction Ordinance recycling services will be included with any trash hauling service contracted during construction. It is Exn; bt tf MEMORANDUM TO: James Lindt, Community Development FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing DATE: August 22, 2006 RE: 307 SOUTH SPRING STREET /625 EAST HYMAN A VENUE (REVISED) Parcel ID No. 2373-182-25-004/2373-182-25-003 ISSUE: The applicant is requesting approval to replace an existing commercial space with a mixed-use project to include retail space, restaurant space, office space, deed-restricted units and a free-market residential unit. BACKGROUND: The redevelopment will replace an existing commercial space, containing the Wienerstube Restaurant, and an empty lot. Currently, the parcel is 18,000 square feet and is improved with a commercial building approximately 6,222 square feet of floor area of which 627 square feet is storage and 5,595 is net leasable area. The project also includes the gravel parking lot approximately 6,000 square feet. The ground floor is to include retail space. The employee housing is approximately 13,960 square feet of floor area and is a mix of 12 two-bedroom units (950 square feet net leasable per unit) of which 50% are to be Category Three and 50% Category Four. The third (top) floor is to consist of a free-market residential unit totaling 10,805 square feet and contain four 2,000 square foot units and two studio units, for a total of six units. The basement is to be used for storage, mechanical and laundry facilities for the employee housing. No parking spaces are required for the deed-restricted and/or free-market units in the C-I zone district and none is being provided. MITIGA TJON REQUIREMENTS: Under Section 26.470.040(C)(6), affordable housing must equal to 30% of the additional free- market floor area that is provided in a manner acceptable to APCHA. The free-market residential floor area (limited to the third floor of the building) is 10,805 square feet - 30% of 10,805 square feet is 3,241.50 square feet. The deed-restricted affordable housing floor area is 13,960 square, far exceeding the 30% requirement. Under Section 26.470.050(A), 60% of the employees generated by the additional commercial space needs to be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash-in-lieu. The current Weinerstube Restaurant and Ajax Bike and Sport businesses employ 23 employees over 5,595 net leasable square feet (5,595 7 1,000 sq. ft. = 5.6 X 4.1 FTE's = 23 employees). The total amount of retail net leasable square feet has been reduced to 16,125. Minus the existing 5,595 square feet, 10,530 retail square feet generates an additional 43.173 employees (10,53071,000 = 10.53 X 4.1 1 FTE's = 43.173 FTE's). At 60%, 25.9 employees is the mitigation requirement. On site employee mitigation is proposed in the form of 12 two-bedroom units (24 bedrooms). A two-bedroom unit mitigates at 2.25 employees; therefore, 12 X 2.25 = 27 employees; therefore, the 12 two-bedroom units satisfy the mitigation requirement. The deed-restricted housing is proposed as follows: . 6 Two-bedroom units, Category 3, at 950 square feet each . 6 Two-bedroom units, Category 4, at 950 square feet each The proposed units are being developed as part of the mixed-use development and are specified as "for sale" units that are to be sold through the lottery process. Two homeowners' associations would need to be established - one for the free-market component and one for the affordable housing component. RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Board reviewed the application at their regular meeting on June 21, 2006 and staff reviewed the changes requested by the applicant. Housing recommends approval with the following conditions: I. The 12 two-bedroom units satisfy the mitigation requirement. 2. It is suggested that two homeowners' associations shall be established. Since the project is a mixed free-marketldeed-restricted project, the assessments shall be based on the differential between the price values of the free-market component compared to the deed- restricted component. This language shall be required in the approval and in the Covenants associated with the project. No changes to this restriction would be allowed without APCHA's approval. 3. Should the units be deed-restricted as rental units, the following conditions shall apply: a. The units have the ability 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 3 maximum sales price based on the Guidelines in effect at the time of final plat approval for all units and all units shall be sold through the lottery system as specified in the Guidelines as they are being provided for mitigation purposes. b. Rental of the units shall be open to all qualified employees of Aspen and Pitkin County and shall not be tied to employment for the free-market component. c. The governing documents shall be drafted to reflect the potential for the rental units to become ownership units; i.e., the Protective Covenants, By-Laws, Articles of 2 Incorporation, etc. Since the project is a mixed free-marketldeed-restricted project, the assessments shall be determined as stated in #2 above, based on the price values of the free-market component compared to the deed-restricted component. This language shall be required in the approval and in the Covenants associated with the project. No changes to this restriction would be allowed without APCHA's approval. d. APCHA or the applicant shall structure a deed restriction for the units such that an undivided l/lOth of 1 percent of the property is deed restricted in perpetuity to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority; or until such time the units become ownership units; or the applicant may propose any other means that the Housing Authority determines acceptable. 4. The deed-restriction shall be recorded at the time of recordation of the Condo Plat and prior to Certificate of Occupancy. 3 16 August 2006 AUS 1 :3 20C6 p.h\'orli I STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, INC Planning. Urban Design Landscape Architecture Transportation Studies Project Management Mr. Jame~ Lindt, AICP Senior Planner BU\UJ1N'3 DEP.!i,.RTMENT City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 200 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE: 970.925.2323 FAX: 970.920.1628 E-MAIL: info@scaplanning.com WEB: .WWW.scaplanning.com Re: ADDENDUM 307 South Spring Street Application Dear James: Attached is an addendum to the application submitted for 307 South Spring Street. This addendum includes the additional information you requested including: . Clarification of the Open Space and Pedestrian Amenity requirements; . Clarification of the required employee housing mitigation - all mitigation provided on-site; and . Additional information regarding the exceptional status of this application for Multi- Year Development Allotments. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you require additional information. Very truly yours, Michelle Bonfils Thibeault STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, INC Attachments: I. Addendum PUNNING AND DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR COMMUNITlES AND PRIVATE SECTOR CUENTS ADDENDUM Open Space Requirement Clarification: The existing conditions do not provide any open space on either the developed lot or the parking lot. The existing building is developed to the property boundaries. Similarly, the gravel parking lot exists to the property boundaries allowing for no open space (as defmed by the land use code). The parking lot itself cannot be considered to constitute open space. The proposed development looks to continue the commercial pattern language in a manner that is consistent with existing buildings in the Commercial Core (CC) and Commercial- I(Cl) zone districts. Most of these buildings utilize the entire parcel, allowing for little or no open space as defined by the land use code. In so doing, they present themselves in direct relation to the sidewalk and streetscape, which is supportive of the pedestrian environment. Section 26.575.030 Pedestrian Amenity. B. Applicability and Requirement Response: There is presently no public open space on the Weinerstube and parking lot sites. Thus, it is only required that 10% of the property or 1,800 s. f. be provided for public amenity area. In the proposed redevelopment, an amenity area would consist of an arcade along Hyman Avenue and the inset for the Weinerstube outdoor seating along Spring Street, which would be publicly accessible and visible from the street and sidewalk. These amenity areas would comprise 1,060 s.f., with the balance of the requirement being met through a cash-in-lieu payment. C. Provision of Pedestrian Amenity. The applicant intends to provide a portion of the pedestrian amenity on-site and the difference in a cash-in-lieu payment. The proposed development itself will fulfill the purpose of the pedestrian amenity requirement by creating a mixed-use building that is "conducive to an exciting pedestrian shopping and entertainment atmosphere." The proposed mixed-use project is a well-designed development that will benefit the community by enlivening the pedestrian environment in the downtown area. Its extensive fenestration and varied setbacks at entrances and display windows will create an appealing fayade that will cause many pedestrians to linger. A covered walkway will run along 82 feet of street frontage to complement the adjacent 601 E Hyman Ave property. This will create a similar pedestrian amenity and experience to the covered walkway along the 200 block of South Mill Street. Moreover, nearly 90% of the ground floor commercial space street fayade is display windows. 307 South Spring Street -- Addendum 1 On-Site Housing Mitigation THE SITE: The existing building is on four 3,000 SF lots totaling about 12,000 SF. The adjacent parking lot covers two 3,000 SF lots totaling about 6,000 SF. The total site is 18,000 SF. AFFORDABLE HOUSING EQUAL TO 30% OF THE ADDITIONAL FREE-MARKET FLOOR AREA IS PROVIDED IN A MANNER ACCEPTABLE TO APCHA The free-market residential floor area (limited to the third floor of the proposed building) is 10,805 square feet. 30% of 10,805 square feet is 3,241.5 Sq.Ft. The deed-restricted affordable housing floor area is 13,960 square feet, substantially exceeding 100% of the free-market residential floor area 60% OF THE EMPLOYEES GENERATED BY THE ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL, ACCORDING TO SECTION 26.470.0S0(A), ARE l\fiTIGATED THROUGH THE PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR CASH-IN-LIEU. Calculated in accordance with Section 26.470.050(A) of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, the current Weinerstube Restaurant and AJAX Bike and Sport uses on the property represent 23 employees in their 5,595 net leaseable square feet. The calculation is provided below: . 5595/1000SF = 5.6 . 5.6 x 4.1 = 23 employees The description for the net leaseable area of the proposed building has been revised since the original application submittal. The net leaseable area calculations provided in the original application did not account for internal storage and circulation within the office and retail spaces. The original plans show the raw space on the ground floor and the raw space on the second office floor - no internal walls, circulation/access, or storage. These raw areas are likely to be leased to multiple tenants. The owner is proposing to "build to suit" for future tenants. Therefore, this addendum provides revised calculations for the net leaseable area considering that both the ground floor and office levels will have storage areas and internal walls that are not part of the net leaseable area. Secondly, in reviewing the plans the applicant has noted that an additional emergency access is required (further separated from the main entrance) for the Weinerstube restaurant. This additional emergency access is through a corridor along the southern side of the ground floor. 307 South Spring Street -- Addendum 2 The revised total amount of retail net leaseable square feet is 16,125 minus the existing 5,595 square feet equals 10,530 retail square feet generating an additional 43 employees. Sixty percent of this employee generation equals 25.9 employees. The applicant is proposing to provide on-site mitigation for 27 employees, exceeding this requirement. 6,125 net leaseable square feet 5,595 existing square feet 10,530 net leaseable square feet 10,530/1000 SF = 10.53 x 4.1 FTE = 43.1 FTE 43.1 x 60% = 25.9 Employee mitigation requirement On-site employee mitigation is in the form of 12 two-bedroom units (24 bedrooms). A two- bedroom unit mitigates 2.25 employees, therefore 12 two-bedroom units mitigates 27 employees. Commercial FAR . The ground floor will have a total of 12,176 square feet net area. . The second floor has 10,678 square feet of net commercial office. Proposed Net Leaseable . The ground floor will have 8,894 square feet leaseable area . The second floor will have 7,231 square feet leaseable area. 307 South Spring Street n Addendum 3 Exceptional Project Criteria Growth Management Review: Multi-Year Development Allotment 26.470.040(D)(1) Note: New information since oril!:inal application underlined. 1. The proposed project advances the visions, goals or specific action items of the AACP. The proposed development is consistent with the following Housing Goals stated in the Aspen Area Community Plan (pages 27, 28): I. Develops affordable housing within the Community Growth Boundary 2. Develops affordable, free market housing and commercial in close proximity to public mass transit 3. is containable development compatible with neighborhood and does not promote sprawl. 4. is contiguous to existing public facilities and infrastructure 5. amenable to transit, bike and pedestrian-oriented design 6. visually compatible with surrounding area' 7. optimizes the site's development potential 8. contributes to APCHA's housing goals 9. creates a high-quality of life with a range of income groups and mixed uses in the development 10. creates a high quality in design and construction of affordable, free market and commercial uses. 2. The proposal exceeds the minimum affordable housing required for a standard project. Deed-restricted housing is provided in excess of the 30% of the additional free-market floor area requirement. The free-market residential floor area (limited to the third floor of the proposed building) is 10,805 square feet. 30% of 10,805 square feet is 3,241.5 Sq.Ft. The deed-restricted residential floor area is 13,960 square feet, exceeding 100% of the free-market residential floor area. The current proposal mitigates for 27 emplovees (12 two-bedroom units mitigating at 2.25 FTEs each). The required mitigation is 25.9 emplovees. 3. The proposed project represents an excellent historic preservation accomplishment. A recommendation from the HPC.... 307 South Spring Street -- Addendum 4 The property is not historic. 4. The proposalfurthers affordable housing goals by providing units established as priority through the current Guidelines of APCHA. The proposed deed-restricted housing totals 13,960 square feet of floor area and is configured into 12 units. The units are proposed to be the following categories consistent with the APCHA Board guidelines: . 6 Two-bedroom units, Category 3, at 950 Sq.Ft. each . 6 Two-bedroom units, Category 4, at 950 Sq.Ft. each The average APCHA income category for this mix of units is Category 3.5, consistent with the APCHA policies. 5. The TJroTJosal minimizes impacts on TJublic infrastructure bv inco1'1Joratine innovative. enerllV-savinf! techniques. The applicant proposes to incomorate energy-efficient design into the building. The Aspen Energy Efficiency Code is not applicable to buildings containing commercial uses. Therefore. the applicant will reference appropriate sections of the LEEDS program for efficient design and mechanical svstem solutions. An energy efficient building will reduce impacts on public infrastructure bv reducing consumption and therefore demand of services. 6. The proposal maximizes potential public transit usage and minimizes reliance on the . automobile. The central location and proximity to Aspen Mountain and ski buses at RFTA make this location for free-market housing ideal for reduced individual vehicle trips and increased public transit patronage, pedestrian and bicycle activity. The subject property is also less than one block from a major grocery store. 7. The TJroTJosal exceeds minimum requirements of the Emcient Buildine Code or for LEEDS certirrcation. as aTJTJlicable. A recommendation from the Buildine DeTJartment shall be considered for this standard. The applicant proposes to follow the LEEDS commercial standards and residential standards (as applicable) for this mixed-use building. Currentlv. there is not a certification for mixed-use buildings. The applicant has a goal of exceeding the 2006 IECC energv code bv 50%. purchasing wind powered electric. including a system to deliver solar hot water to the residential units. integrating photovoltaic. an efficient HV AC system. and specifying zero VOC finishes. 307 South Spring Street -- Addendum 5 8. The proposal promotes sustainability of the local economy. The proposed development is within the Urban Growth Boundary and will promote density with both deed-restricted and free market housing on-site as well as a sustainable mix of residential and commercial uses inside the boundary. The proposed mixed-use development will create deed-restricted housing opportunities alongside free market residential contributing vitality and a greater sense of community in the downtown core. The central, downtown core location of the project will promote pedestrian circulation, particularly for the residential units, over vehicle trips that might be generated if this development were outside of the downtown core or outside of the urban growth boundary. The mixed-use proposal will support a diversified economic base for the town by providing 19,722 net leaseable square footage, proposed to include an updated location for the existing Weinerstube Restaurant and additional retail opportunities. Similarly, the integration of both deed-restricted and free market housing in the same building will support existing surrounding businesses as well as offer new retail and office opportunities. The downtown core location of the proposed project will not impact or consume open space or wildlife habitat. The mixed-use proposal will promote a more balanced permanent community by providing 12 units of deed-restricted housing on-site. Similarly, Work Program #5 of the AACP is to "encourage greater densities within the original Aspen town site" and "increased housing density in the form of mixed-use buildings." The proposed development of 19,722 square feet of commercial, 13,960 square feet of deed-restricted housing and 10,805 square feet of free market creates a livable density in the downtown core. The residential components will increase vitality to this edge of the commercial core and the commercial components will provide services and economic opportunities for the City. The commercial uses of this proposal are categorized into retail and office space. This is consistent with Work Program #20 of the AACP to "stem the loss of commercial and office space." The redevelopment of this and the adjoining property will rebuild the existing 5,595 square feet of retail space, plus an additional 4,975 square feet of retail and 9,152 square feet of office space on the second floor. This mix of uses will both promote economic vitality and encourage a diverse retail environment. LastIv. mixed-use developments are a form of Smart Growth -- a planning practice adopted bv manv communities throughout Colorado. The purvose of Smart Growth is to reduce the outward spread of urbanization. protect sensitive lands. and. in the process. create true neii!hborhoods with a sense of community. Smart Growth encourai!es the location of stores. offices. residences. school and related public facilities within walkini! distance of each other in compact 307 South Spring Street -- Addendum 6 neif!hborhoods. It aims to provide a varietv ofhousinf! choices so that vounf! and old. sinde persons and families. and those of varvinf! economic abilitv mav find places to live. The proposed mixed-use development incorporates several of these qualities. The proposed development contains development within the already developed commercial core: provides a variety of housing choices bv offering both free market and affordable housing on-site: the address is within walking distance of many retail and public services (including transit). 9. The proposal represents a desirable site plan and an architectural design solution. EmDtv lots have a negative impact on the pedestrian experience. Empty lots create a yoid in the pattern language of a neighborhood. On a fully developed block. the pedestrian experiences a pattern of entrvwavs to store fronts or residential units. This pattern creates a connectivity of uses from one block to the next encouraging the pedestrian to explore are greater area. This connectivity defines the character of a block or larger area. Empty or undeveloped lots disrupt this connectivity. In the specific case of this application - the empty lot at 625 East Hyman A venue creates a negative impact for the pedestrian experience on the 600 block of East Hyman Avenue. The current development of the subiect property marginalizes the pedestrian and gives priority to the automobile. Several existing conditions contribute to this unfortunate design hierarchy: 1. The storefronts along Hvman Avenue at the existing subiect building are elevated three or more feet above the sidewalk. 2. The elevated storefronts and associated staircase interrupts the relationship of the sidewalk to the storefronts. 3. The elevated storefronts turn the sidewalk into a buffer zone between the storefronts and the on-street parking rathet than a pedestrian amenity. 4. The pedestrian experience is marginalized bv the lack of relationship to the sidewalk in this area -- the pedestrian is burdened with street parking to the north and the existing retaining wall to the south. This is not pedestrian-oriented. 5. The existing conditions do not meet the City of Aspen Commercial Design Standards. As the pedestrian continues west on the 600 block. the hierarchy of the automobile over the pedestrian is more prominent. The emptv/parking lot in the middle of the block and the related driveway further reduces the priority of the pedestrian to the automobile. The parking lot disconnects the existing commercial building at 307 South Spring to the commercial pattern within the downtown core. This empty lot acts as an informal boundary from the active commercial core to a secondarY commercial area. The presence of the empty lot lends to the sense of being at the outskirts of any significant commercial activitv. 307 South Spring Street -- Addendum 7 Additionallv. the impacts of this empty lot are compounded bv the close proximity to the other empty lot less than half a block west at the comer ofHvrnan and Hunter. The relationship of these two undeveloped lots creates a distinct void in the downtown core's pattern language and disrupts the pedestrian experience in these areas. This application would remedv one of these voids with commercial uses that appropriatelv relate to and enhance the pedestrian experience. An enhanced pedestrian experience will benefit the community in several wavs: . encourage greater economic activity in this area: . encourage more pedestrian travel than automobile travel: and . connect the area to the downtown core in both a development pattern language and in a sense of place. 10. The proposed development is compatible with the character of the existing land uses in the surrounding area and the purpose of the underlying zone district. The proposed building is located over six city lots, including the comer lot at Hyman Avenue and Spring Street. The proposed building has an articulated fa~ade along both Hyman Avenue and Spring Street. The articulation of the building gives the appearance and feel of multiple, individual buildings consistent with the character of the downtown core. The building is proposed to be at grade, consistent with the existing public right-of-way (sidewalk) for easy and accessible entrances to each retailer. GROUND FLOOR The ground floor retail space has a varying setback to articulate what might otherwise be a monolithic structure. Where the building is setback from the property line, the walkway is covered. The covered walkway brings an element of the building to the property line. The covered walkway element will create a consistent building elevation from the ground floor retail to the second floor office and residential uses. Nearly 90% of the ground floor commercial space street fa~ade is display windows and similar fenestration. This is both sensible for good business practice as well as exceeds the 60% fenestration code requirement. The ground floor has a total of 12, I 76 square feet net leaseable area. The expression of the Hyman Avenue fa~ade has a varying setback from the property line. Reading the building from west to east along Hyman Ave, the westerly side of the building is respectful to the adjacent 601 E Hyman Ave property, which has an office entrance setback approximately 31.5 feet from the property line. To maintain the quality of the neighbor's entrance, the proposed project is similarly setback approximately 31.5 feet for an access point to the second and third floors. The building continues to be consistent with the 601 E Hyman building, setback 9 feet from the property line for approximately 82 feet (the existing gravel parking lot). This 9-foot setback 307 South Spring Street n Addendum 8 provides a covered walkway to the ground floor retail spaces for this 82 feet of street frontage. This will create a similar pedestrian amenity and experience to the covered walkway along the 200 block of south Mill. The building then steps forward again to break-up the Hyman Ave fa9ade with a one-foot setback from the property line for 30 linear feet, reminiscent of the historic minimal setback development pattern of the downtown core. The corner frontage of the proposed building is an opportunity for a single retailer, with entrances on both Hyman Ave and Spring Street. The setbacks for this section of building average three-feet from the property line, varying at the entrances and major display windows. Along the Spring Street frontage, is a second entrance to the comer retail space. Adjacent to the comer retail is a restaurant space, designed to accommodate the relocation of the Weinerstube Restaurant. 46-feet of Spring Street frontage includes a 14- foot setback to allow for limited patio dining. The eastern exposure of this area will provide morning sun to the location ideal for breakfast and lunch dining. 307 South Spring Street -- Addendum 9 / ExhibIT J --" '~ ~ Resource . Engineering Group, Inc. efficiency . sustainability.. simplicity Doerr-Hosier Center HV AC System Design Elements The HV AC system will use roughly 50% less energy than if the building had been built following typical Aspen/Pitkin Code requirements- and these are some of the strictest in the country. A few of the exceptional items included in the center's HV AC system are listed below: GSHP: Ground source heat pumps (GSHPs) provide very efficient heating and cooling. Essentially the system works by moving heat to or from the outdoor pond as needed. This is the same technology used in your refrigerator and a typical window mounted air conditioner. This equipment is just bigger, of much higher quality, and able to operate in forward or reverse (produce cooling or heating):. . Heating efficiency: The heating efficiency of this system is approximately 400+%. In other words for every unit of energy we put in to pump the heat 'uphill' from the very large, relatively cool pond to the small hotter internal water loop, we get 4 units of heat out. . Cooling efficiency: The cooling efficiency is measured with a unit know as the EER (energy efficiency rating). A typical air conditioner has an EER of 12. This system has an EER of around 20. Also, whenever the temperature outside is less than 650 F, the units will simply cool the building with 100% fresh air from outside. Indoor air quality: The indoor air quality inside this building is assured by carbon dioxide monitoring. As more people enter a space, they breathe out more CO2 and the ventilation system increases the supply of fresh air to flush odors and pollutants from the building. . Quiet operation: The system has been designed and built to strict acoustical criteria to operate very quietly and not interrupt speakers and musical guests. . High efficiency boiler: The GSHP system provides the majority of the hot water heating- even for the kite:hen. To assure the almost limitless high temperature water needed to run a kitchen a;ery efficient (96%) condensing boiler is used for booster heating. This boiler will also provide additional heat to the space heating system on the coldest 10 to 20 days of the year. The boiler was added to control system costs. To be able to use only GSHP heating year round, the pool would need to be .twice as large. . Air handler quality: To meet the acoustical and efficiency requirements of this system, the highest quality air handlers have been used. The fan motors and blades are the highest efficiency available. To prevent heat and sound transfer, the cabinet construction and insulation is some of the best available. . Bigger ducts and pipes equal smaller motors: Bigger pipes and ducts mean less friction, which results in reduced energy use. This simple design principle was used throllghout this system to increase efficiency. , Please feel free to contact us at Resource Engineering Group with further questions. Sincerely, " ;1 /.i .--. I /f / )hu,," /1 ilM< r{vvfl 1/....t1; [/ 1 t August Hasz, PE P.O. Box 3725' Crested Butte CO 81224 USA, tel (970) 349-1216 fax (970) 349-1218' email houghton@reginc.com'webwww.reginc.com ., ...",,4A V La.. ., .,~--.~~ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ~ FROM: Jessica Garrow, Planner d ~ RE: Stage III Building Redevelopment (625 E. Main St) - Subdivision Review- Second Reading of Ordinance No. 41, Series 2006 (Continued from November 13,2006, November 27, 2006, January 8, 2007) MEETING DATE: January 22, 2007 ApPLICANT /OWNER: Aspen Main Street Properties, LP, Jeffrey G. Jones REPRESENT A nVE: Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning, LLC; & Charles Cunniffe Architects LOCATION: Lots E, F, G, easterly 10 feet of Lot D, Block 98, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO, commonly known as 625 E. Main St. CURRENT ZONING & USE Located in the Commercial (C-l) zone district containing a two-story movie theater with 7,123 square feet of total net leasable area and three (3) on-site parking spaces. PROPOSED LAND USE: The Applicant is requesting Subdivision approval for a three story mixed-use building that will contain fourteen (14) sub-grade parking spaces, three (3) exterior surface parking spaces, two (2) commercial spaces, two (2) office spaces, four (4) affordable housing units, and five (5) free-market housing units. SUMMARY: The Applicant requests City Council approve a Subdivision Review for the Mixed-Use project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Aspen City Council approve, with conditions, the Subdivision request. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDA nON: The Planning and Zoning Commission approved three (3) Growth Management Reviews and a Commercial Design Standards review, and recommended City Council approve, with conditions, a subdivision on September 5, 2006 in a three to two (3 - 2) vote. Photo of the subject property Stage III Subdivision Review Staff Memo Page I of 12 SPECIAL NOTE: This staff report is new since the November 27, 2006 report and addresses the issues raised and plan changes reviewed at the first public hearing on this application. It contains the following: · A summary of the issues from the last meeting with additional information provided by Staff; · Newly submitted plans from the Applicant; · Staff recommendation & motion; and . A revised Ordinance. Also attached is a portion of the original staff report of November 27, 2006. This is attached primarily to show the development proposal, background and dimensional standard table associated with the development so that you have this information at hand. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approval from the City Council: · Subdivision for the construction of multiple dwelling units pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480 (Citv Council is the final review authoritv after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). SUMMARY: At the November 27, 2006 public hearing for the Stage III application, the City Council reviewed the proposal and moved to continue the meeting. At the November 27, 2006 hearing, a number of important issues were raised by the City Council. The concerns voiced by City Council are itemized by issue, along with how the Applicant has addressed the issue when applicable. Comments from Stafffollow in a separate italicized paragraph. SUBDIVISION: The Applicant is required to go through a subdivision review because the development of multi- family dwelling units requires approval of subdivision. This subdivision is a technical one, as it is intended only to demarcate individual ownership within one building. The units will need to be condominiumized in order to demarcate ownership. Once construction is nearly completed but prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the developer must file a condominium plat and associated documents for review and approval by the City Engineer and Community Development Director. Staff outlined the Review Criteria for a Subdivision Review at the November 27, 2006 public hearing. The Staff Findings to the Subdivision Review Criteria are attached as Exhibit A. As was stated at the November 27, 2006 public hearing, staff finds this proposal meets all the requirement ofthe Subdivision Review. It is a technical subdivision that is needed to demarcate ownership units within a single building, as is required in the definition of a subdivision (see Land Use Code section 26.104.100, Subdivision). Below is a summary of Staffs findings with regard to the Subdivision Review. In reviewing the subdivision portion of the application, Staff finds that the proposal meets the applicable subdivision review standards established in Land Use Code Section 26.480.050, Stage III Subdivision Review Staff Memo Page 2 of 12 Review Standards. Staff finds that the proposal is consistent with the goals established in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan. The project provides affordable housing within the city limits which is consistent with the AACP's housing goals. It also contains new development within the Urban Growth Boundary which is a goal of the managing growth section of the AACP. The project promotes the AACP goals with regard to transportation by developing a building that supports the opportunity for choice in travel modes - transit, walking, and bicycling - and that will help create a more friendly pedestrian experience by providing interest at the street level and improved sidewalk and streetscape amenities. The project is consistent with the Economic Sustainability goals of the AACP by providing needed office space which will provide opportunities for Aspen's professional community. The project is consistent with the Parks and Open Space section of the AACP as it will include improvements along sidewalks on East Main and will pay Park Development Impact Fees. The development also meets the AACP with regard to design quality as the architectural deign enhances the existing character of the area through its materials and its consistency with the Commercial Design Review standards. (Also see Exhibit A for greater elaboration on these points.) Stafffinds the subdivision will not negatively impact the surrounding area and is compatible with surrounding development. The applicant will pay all applicable impact fees, including the School Lands Dedication Impact Fee. The project has received all appropriate Growth Management Reviews and allocations. The land is suitable for development and subdivision, and provides more affordable housing than is required by the Land Use Code. ISSUES RAISED BY CITY COUNCIL I. Design concerns were raised bv a number of council members with regard to the building's mass. height, and boxiness. The Applicant has addressed these concerns by dropping the building height two (2) feet to a maximum height offorty (40) feet at the Main Street elevation. Due to slopes on the lot, the alley elevation is proposed at thirty-seven (37) feet six (6) inches. The revised plans include rooftop decks, so these heights represent the level at the railings as is required by the building code. These railings are not located at the extents of the roof - they have been pulled towards the center of the building to directly guard the rooftop decks to help further reduce the perceived mass and height of the building. These guardrails are made of transparent materials to further help decrease the perceived mass of the building. The two (2) foot decrease in height was achieved by lowering the floor to ceiling height in the first floor commercial spaces one (I) foot from eleven (II) feet to ten (10) feet, and by lowering the floor to ceiling heights on top floor free-market residential units one (I) foot from ten (10) feet to nine (9) feet. The floor to ceiling heights in the second floor office spaces and affordable housing units were not lowered, and remain nine (9) feet in height. The height of the building at the roof is thirty-seven (37) feet along Main Street and thirty- four (34) feet six (6) inches along the alley. Most of the building's mass remains two (2) stories and measures twenty-eight (28) feet four (4) inches in height along the Main Street Elevation. Changes to the building's dimensions are attached as Exhibit B. Stage III Subdivision Review Staff Memo Page 3 of 12 The cross section of the building below illustrates these heights. This graphic is also attached in Exhibit D I ~ ------~~_....$ ,..,.........~~ ------~-----. I 1 l ------~~~ M.U:.~ --~~~ --~ The Applicant has also attempted to reduce the mass of the building by "carving away" portions of the third floor and by relocating the stair access from the free-market units to the rooftop decks. (See the color renderings in Exhibit F) The third floor mass has been divided through the use of transparent materials in the center of the floor. The center section of the third floor is setback fourteen (14) to twenty-six (26) inches from the second story streetfront fayade. Setback from this center section are the curved forms to the east and west ends of the floor. The curved forms begin a ten (10) feet back from the front property line and curve away from the street to as far back as fourteen (\ 4) feet from the property line. The Applicant has also added a second floor cornice line to help reduce the appearance of the third level and to improve the experience of the pedestrian. Stafffinds that the design changes have improved the overall design on the building, and have addressed concerns expressed by City Council and the public. The reduction of the building height to the pre-in fill level offorty (40) feet in height is a significant change. Further, the addition of a second floor cornice line helps create a more prominent two-story mass. which will create the feeling of the building as a two story structure. This prominent cornice creates the appearance of a building that is twenty-eight (28) feet four (4) inches, despite thefact that the thirdfloor goes up to thirty-seven (37) feet in height. Additionally, the "carving away" of the thirdfloor through the use of transparent materials and curving portions of the level helps reduce the mass and boxiness of the building. The setbacks on the third floor also help decrease the height of the building as it is perceived by the pedestrian. Stage III Subdivision Review Staff Memo Page 4 of 12 2. A number of Council members expressed concerns with the rooftop decks and the additional height thev might add. The Applicant has retained the rooftop deck access for the third floor free-market units, but has redesigned the layout to centralize the mass. The rooftop decks have been moved to the center of the roof closer to the elevator and the mechanical equipment. The stairs that access the rooftop decks from the third floor deck space have also been relocated towards the center portion of the building's roof. The Applicant has done this to concentrate the mass away from the roof portions most visible from the street and neighboring properties. The Applicant has also committed to a number of provisions that will minimize the height of amenities placed on the rooftop decks. These provisions have been included as conditions of approval in Section II of the revised Ordinance. These conditions include: a. Any planter boxes placed on the roof may not exceed a depth of one and a half (\ .5) feet. This condition is intended to limit the kinds of plants able to grow in the planters. b. All plantings on the roof will be limited to four (4) feet in height. This condition is intended to ensure the plantings remain within the established forty-two (42) foot height limit in the C-I zone district. As is outlined in number I above, the building height has been lowered to a height of thirty-seven (37) feet tall at the rooflevel, which means this condition will ensure the plantings do not exceed forty-one (41) to forty-two (42) feet in height after accounting for the planter boxes. c. A prohibition on the installation of permanent shading structures the roof decks has been included in the ordinance. Seasonal, temporary shade structures, including but not limited to umbrellas, are permitted. d. The Land Use Code permits mechanical equipment on a roof as long as it does not exceed five (5) above the height limit in the zone district. In the C-l zone district where the height limit is forty-two (42) feet, mechanical equipment is permitted to extend to forty-seven (47) feet in height. The submitted plans illustrate a height of forty-six (46) feet for this mechanical equipment, one (I) foot below the permitted height. A condition has been added stating the mechanical equipment will be built at the lowest possible height required by the building department while still complying with the Land Use Code. This height will be verified for compliance with the Building and Land Use Codes by the Zoning Officer and the Chief Building Official. StafJfinds that the added conditions and the design changes to the rooftop decks meet the requirements of the Land Use code and help to minimize the visual impacts on neighboring properties and passers-by. StafJ supports the rooftop decks and finds that they will add a human presence and vitality to the roof, creating an additional area of activity on the lot. This kind of activity meets a number of the Aspen Area Community Plan goals, including providing for a "lively design" as is articulated in the Design Quality philosophy where it states, "Zoning, our primary means of shaping the built environment, must encourage appropriate and lively design." The rooftop decks are within the zoning provisions in the Stage III Subdivision Review Staff Memo Page 5 of 12 C-I district. Further, the conditions placed on the decks will ensure the activity occurring on these decks complies with height limits in the zone district. 3. A number of Council members expressed concerns regarding the "rooftop gardens." The Applicant has proposed a green roof on much of the roof. The green roof is proposed for the portions of the roof near Main Street and the Alley (the rooftop deck have been concentrated in the center and are surrounded by the green roof). Attached as Exhibit G is a description of the proposed green roof prepared by the applicant. In addition, staff has provided information on green roofs from a publication by the City of Chicago, a municipality leading the way in green roof technology in the United States, attached as Exhibit H. The Applicant has proposed the green roof in an attempt to minimize visual impacts and impacts created on the storm water system, as well as to provide energy savings for the building. The portions of the roof to be designated as a green roof can be seen on the color roof plan attached in Exhibit D. The green roof will provide energy savings by reducing the need for cooling in the summer and heating in the winter by creating insulation for the building. Additionally the green roof creates a permeable surface that will absorb rainfall which decreases the amount of storm water runoff. Staff is supportive of the proposed green roof because of the energy savings for the building and because of the community benefits created by impacting the urban heat island and minimizing stormwater run off The following is an excerpt from a 2001 issue of Urban Land, a publication of the Urban Land Institute, which outlines a number of reasons staff supports the use of a green roof in this project: "As open space and undisturbed land are replaced with buildings and roads, and sealed with concrete and asphalt, these surfaces no longer allow water to infiltrate the ground. Dark rooftops and solid pavements absorb and store energy from the sun during the day and reflect it at night. This activity results in increased stormwater runoff; greater temperature difJerences between urban areas and open, undisturbed land (known as the urban heat island effect); altered weather patterns; and a loss of greenery in metropolitan areas. Green roofs provide one stormwater management solution that can simultaneously improve the energy performance of buildings, air quality, and the urban ecology-all without taking up additional land. By transforming a roof from the single task of waterproofing buildings to a multifunctional system, green roofs can result in as many cost savings to developers and owners as ecological advantages to communities and watersheds. " Additionally, staff is supportive of the green roof and its proposed location, as it will create a more aesthetically pleasing view jar neighbors with views of the roof Rather than seeing concrete and/or asphalt over the entire roof these neighbors will see a surface that looks more natural. Section 12 of the revised Ordinance outlines conditions for the green roof including a provision requiring the roof consist of a low growing succulent native to the west. Green Stage III Subdivision Review Staff Memo Page 6 of 12 roofs do not serve their purpose if they are made with plants that grow very high, so the plants used on these portions of the roofwill grow very close to the roof's surface. 4. The assigning of parking was brought UP as a potential issue bv Council members. The Applicant is providing more parking than is required by code. These spaces are both sub-grade in a garage and at grade off the alley. One concern brough up by Council was how the parking spaces would be assigned amongst the building's occupants (both commercial and residential). The Applicant has committed to a condition (Section 13 of the revised Ordinance) prohibiting the storage of vehicles not regularly in use to help ensure there is adequate parking available for users of the commercial and office spaces. The Applicant has chosen not to assign spaces to any particular uses. The Housing Board did not recommend spaces be assigned to the Affordable Housing units. Staff has addressed parking conditions in Section 13 ()f the revised Ordinance. This condition includes the prohibition of the permanent storage of vehicles and the condomimiumization of the parking spaces except to delineate ownership by the commercial/office spaces and the residential units. Because the Housing Board did not recommend the affordable housing units be assigned parking Staff has not included it as a condition for approval. Further, because this project takes place in the 1njill area, there are no parking requirements for residential units (see Land Use Code section 26.515.030). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the proposal, Staff finds that the project is consistent with the goals of the AACP in providing a mixed-use building that is located within the city near transit and within walking distance of the commercial core. The project also meets the Managing Growth and Affordable Housing goals of the AACP by providing housing for seven (7) FTEs within the Aspen Infill Area. The housing provided will be sold through the lottery process and is located near the commercial core and close to mass transit options. The design changes, as shown in the exhibits, enhances the building's compatibility with the neighborhood and addresses height and massing concerns. The buildings design attempts to create a prominent two-story mass, which helps minimize its perceived mass and height. The conditions placed on the rooftop decks will ensure plantings are within the height limit of the zone district. Further, staff is supportive of the green roofs, as they will help minimize the negative environmental impacts all development has on the environment. Staff recommends approval of this project. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: The City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Water Department, Aspen Sanitation District, Housing Department, and the Parks Department have all reviewed the proposed application and their requirements have been included as conditions of approval when appropriate. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMITlVE): "I move to approve Ordinance No. 41, Series of2006 upon second reading." Stage III Subdivision Review Staff Memo Page 7 of 12 INFORMATION FROM AUGUST 1,2006 STAFF REPORT: PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant, Aspen Main Street Properties, LP, has requested the land use approvals necessary for the redevelopment of the Stage III property, located at 625 E. Main Street. The property currently houses a three screen movie theater and would be redeveloped as a new mixed-use building containing commercial, office, affordable housing, and free market residential uses. The property is located in the Commercial (C-I) zone district. The subject site is a 10,000 square foot lot and is slightly sloped from Main St. up to the alley. The new three story building is proposed to contain: · A completely sub-grade parking garage with access provided by an internal automobile lift. The garage will provide fourteen (14) parking spaces, resident and tenant storage units, mechanical areas, and stair and elevator access to the rest of the building. · A street level containing two (2) commercial spaces, common circulation areas/facilities, and the top end of the automobile lift. Three (3) head-in parking spaces are provided off the alley, as is an exterior trash/service/delivery area. · A second level containing two (2) office spaces, one (I) free market residence, four (4) one-bedroom affordable housing units, and common circulation areas. The affordable housing units are located on the Main Street side of the building, facing north. The office spaces and free-market residences are located along the alley, facing south. · A third level containing four (4) free-market units. The four (4) comer spaces on this floor are cut out in order to provide massing relief and roof access from the free- market residences. The dimensional requirements for the proposal meet all of the C-I zone district requirements. These dimensional requirements are attached as Exhibit B. CITY COUNCIL SITE VISIT: The City Council conducted a site visit on Monday October 30, 2006. At this site visit, the Applicant discussed the story poles that were placed on the property, as well as the architectural plan for the building. The City Council also entered three (3) apartments in the Concept 600 building (one on the second floor, one on the third floor, and one on the fourth floor) to see how the building would look from that vantage point. This picture, taken from street level, shows the storey poles at 39 feet. This is the building height at Main Street and along the alley. Portions of the building along the east and west facades will be 42 feet in height. These pieces will be setback from the street and are needed to accommodate the stairwells. The pole in the middle of the building represents the elevator shaft which allows ADA accessibility to the roof decks. The height of the elevator shaft is 47 feet. The elevation rendering below shows the height of the elevator shaft in the middle of the roof (47 feet), as well as the two side staircases which are proposed to be 42 feet in height. The rendering also shows the main fayade heights. A majority of the building is located adjacent to the right of way at 29.4 feet in height. The remainder of the building will be set back slightly and will be 39 feet in height. 142 reet> 39 reet PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REVIEW: The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed development on August 15th, 2006, and September 5th, 2006. The Commission expressed some concern over the building's massing at the first public hearing (based on the design submitted by the Applicant on August 3, 2006). In response, the Applicant altered their fayade to include different exterior materials as well as additional fenestration and awnings. The following is taken from the Staff Memo, dated September 5, 2006: "The building is one-hundred (100) feet in length, with approximately eighty (80) feet built at the lot line and the remaining twenty (20) feet set back slightly. The sides of the building, approximately ten (10) feet on each side, are set back and provide access to the stairwells. This portion of the front far;ade is made of glass materials, providing transparency, helping to break of the length of the far;ade. Additionally. the top floor includes the same transparent design and steps back from the front far;ade. This creates a prominent primary mass that is approximately thirty (30) feet in height, and creates a pedestrian friendly environment. The building's full height is not experienced at street level due to the transparency invoked on the top floor and sides of the building. The building's primary street frontage (the eighty feet that is built to the lot line) is further broken into three "units" through the use of materials and slightly "punching" the majority of the retail frontage behind part of the front far;ade. This creates a building which is broken up for the pedestrian, while appropriately addressing the street. The design also includes street trees which will shade pedestrians walking past the building. Stage III Subdivision Review Staff Memo Page 9 of 12 Each of the three "units" includes an entrance with an awning, helping create a positive pedestrian experience. The center entrance provides access to the central elevator, while the entrance on each side of the main entry provide direct access to the commercial spaces. These commercial spaces also include large windows, creating opportunities for window displays that bring excitement to the street. The window for the right commercial unit can open, enabling the activity on the street to enter the space, and visa versa. Overall the Applicant's design changes help break up the building's mass and appropriately addresses the street while maintaining a pedestrian scale. The building meets all of the commercial design review criteria. The revised drawings and a figure illustrating the proposed building footprint in relation to adjacent properties are included as Exhibit D. The minutes from the September 5th meeting, where the project received Growth Management approval and approval of the building's design via Commercial Design Standards approval are attached as Exhibit F. The minutes from the August 15th meeting are attached as Exhibit E. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the project, including three Growth Management Reviews, and a Commercial Design Review via adoption of Resolution Number 27, Series of 2006. In the same Resolution, the Commission also recommended City Council approve a Subdivision. The Resolution was approved by a three to two (3-2) vote. SUBDIVISION: The Applicant is requesting subdivision approval because the development of multi-family dwelling units requires approval of subdivision pursuant to the definition of subdivision in the City's land use code. The units will need to be condominiumized in order to demarcate ownership. Once construction is nearly completed but prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the developer must file a condominium plat and associated documents for review and approval by the City Engineer and Community Development Director. In reviewing the subdivision portion of the application, Staff finds that the proposal meets the applicable subdivision review standards established in Land Use Code Section 26.480.050, Review Standards. Staff finds that the proposal is consistent with the goals established in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan. The project provides affordable housing within the city limits which is consistent with the AACP's housing goals. It also contains new development within the Urban Growth Boundary which is a goal of the managing growth section of the AACP. The project promotes the AACP goals with regard to transportation by developing a building that supports the opportunity for choice in travel modes - transit, walking, and bicycling - and that will help create a more friendly pedestrian experience by providing interest at the street level and improved sidewalk and streetscape amenities. The project is consistent with the Economic Sustainability goals of the AACP by providing needed office space which will provide opportunities for Aspen's professional community. The project is consistent with the Parks and Open Space section of the AACP as it will include improvements along sidewalks on East Main and will pay Park Development Impact Fees. The development also meets the AACP with regard to design quality as the architectural deign enhances the existing character of the area Stage 111 Subdivision Review Staff Memo Page 10 of 12 through its materials and its consistency with the Commercial Design Review standards. (Also see Exhibit A for greater elaboration on these points.) Staff finds the subdivision will not negatively impact the surrounding area and is compatible with surrounding development. The applicant will pay all applicable impact fees, including the School Lands Dedication Impact Fee. The project has received all appropriate Growth Management Reviews and allocations. The land is suitable jor development and subdivision, and provides more affordable housing than is required by the Land Use Code. STAFF RECOMMENDA nON: In reviewing the proposal, Staff finds that the project is consistent with the goals of the AACP in providing a mixed-use building that is located within the city near trahsit and within walking distance of the commercial core. The project also meets the Managing Growth and Affordable Housing goals of the AACP by providing housing for seven (7) FTEs within the Aspen Infill Area. The housing provided is located near the commercial core and close to mass transit options. The refined design of the project, as shown in the exhibits, enhances the visual compatibility, and character of Aspen. Staff recommends approval ofthis project. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: The City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Water Department, Aspen Sanitation District, Housing Department, and the Parks Department have all reviewed the proposed application and their requirements have been included as conditions of approval when appropriate. Stage III Subdivision Review Staff Memo Page II of 12 ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A - Subdivision Review Criteria and Staff Findings EXHIBIT B - Dimensional Table EXHIBIT C - Additional Written Materials from Applicant, dated January II, 2006 EXHIBIT D - Revised Third Floor Plan, Roof Plan, Building Section EXHIBIT E - Map of adjacent properties EXHIBIT F - Color Renderings EXHIBIT G - Green Roof System information, Provided by Applicant EXHIBIT H - Green Roof information from the City of Chicago, Provided by Staff EXHIBIT I - Citizen Comments Stage III Subdivision Review Staff Memo Page 12 of 12 ORDINANCE NO. 41 (SERIES OF 2006) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A SUBDIVISION AND CONDOMINIUMIZA nON FOR 625 E. MAIN STREET, LOTS E, F, G, EASTERLY 10 FEET OF LOT D, BLOCK 98, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, CO, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL NO. 2737-182-02204 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Aspen Main Street Properties LP, represented by Haas Land Planning, LLC, requesting approval of three (3) Growth Management Reviews, Subdivision Review, and Commercial Design Review to construct a mixed-use building consisting of two commercial units, two office units, four affordable housing residential units, and five free-market residential units at 625 E. Main Street; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned C-l (Commercial); and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval, with conditions, of the proposed subdivision and associated land use requests; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on September 5, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 27, Series of2006, by a three to two (3 - 2) vote, approving three Growth Management Reviews for the development of a mixed-use building that includes commercial space, office space, free-market housing, and affordable housing, approving Commercial Design Standards Review, and recommending that City Council approve with conditions the proposed subdivision and condominiumization to construct a mixed-use building consisting of two (2) commercial spaces, five (5) free-market residential units and four (4) deed-restricted affordable housing units located on the property located at 625 E. Main Street, Lots E, F, G, easterly 10 feet of Lot D, Block 98, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 27 with the conditions that the dimensional requirements comply with all C-I zone district requirements, that the affordable housing meet all Housing Authority requirements and be deed-restricted Category 4 for-sale units, and that a Pedestrian Amenity cash-in-lieu fee equal to $50,000 be paid prior to building permit issuance, and WHEREAS, on October 10th, 2006 the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. 41, Series 2006, on First Reading by a five to zero (5-0) vote, approving with conditions the Subdivision and Condominiumization of 625 E. Main Street, Lots E, F, G, easterly 10 feet of Lot D, Block 98, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on November 13th, 2006, the Aspen City Council opened and continued the public hearing to November 27th, 2006; and WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on November 27th, 2006, the Aspen City Council opened and continued the public hearing to January 8th, 2007; and Ordinance No. 41 Series 2006 Page I WHEREAS, during a continued public hearing on January 8th, 2007, the Aspen City Council opened and continued the public hearing to January 22nd, 2007; and WHEREAS, during a continued public hearing on January 22nd, 2007, the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. 41, Series 2006, by a _ to _ L---> vote, approving with conditions the Subdivision and Condominiumization of 625 E. Main Street, Lots E, F, G, easterly 10 feet of Lot D, Block 98, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO; 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 RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the Aspen City Council hereby approves a Subdivision and Condominiumization allowing Aspen Main Street Properties, LP, to construct a mixed- use building consisting of two (2) commercial units, two (2) office units, five (5) free- market residential units, and four (4) deed-restricted affordable housing units on the property located at 625 E. Main Street, Lots E, F, G, easterly 10 feet of Lot D, Block 98, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO. Section 2: Plat and Al!:reement Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the Applicant shall record a subdivision agreement that meets the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision, within 180 days of such approval. The Subdivision Agreement shall also include a commitment to satisfy all conditions of Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Number 27, Series of 2006 as well as all conditions of this Ordinance. A final Condominium Plat may be approved and signed by the Community Development Director upon substantial completion of construction and prior to transfer of ownership of individual units within the project. 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. Ordinance No. 41 Series 2006 Page 2 c. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Department. d. An excavation-stabilization plan, construction management plan (CMP), and drainage and soils report pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. The CMP shall include an identification of construction hauling routes, construction phasing, and a construction traffic and parking plan for review and approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent. The CMP shall also identify that the adjacent sidewalks will be kept open and maintained throughout construction, that landscaping, plantings and amenities on adjacent properties will be protected, and that construction parking will not encroach on private property. e. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall meet adopted building code requirements. f. An approved Landscape Plan for landscaping in the public rights-of-way. Section 4: Dimensional Requirements The building as presented complies with the dimensional requirements of the Commercial (C-I) zone district. Compliance with these requirements will be verified by the City of Aspen Zoning Officer at the time of building permit submittal. The subgrade storage areas shall remain uninhabitable and unimproved storage facilities. If these areas are remodeled in the future, the applicant shall go through the appropriate land use reviews in place at the time of application. Section 5: TrashlUtiIitv Service Area The trash containers shall be wildlife proof and meet the Certificate of Appropriateness regulations pertaining to size and security. Section 6: Sidewalks, Curb, and Gutter The sidewalks shall be upgraded to meet the City Engineer's standards and ADA requirements. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall provide sidewalk, curb and gutter plans that meet the approval of the City Engineer. Such improvements shall be made prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on any of the units within the development. 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 units within the building shall have individual water meters. Section 8: Sanitation District Requirements a. Service is contingent upon compliance with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's (ACSD) rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. Ordinance No. 41 Series 2006 Page 3 b. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. c. Oil and Grease interceptors (NOT traps) are required for all food processing establishment; Locations of food processing shall be identified prior to building permit; even though the commercial space will be tenant-finished, interceptors will be required at this time if food processing establishments are anticipated for this project. d. Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance establishments. Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells. Elevator shaft drains must flow through oil and sand interceptors. e. Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. f. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. g. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. h. Any glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. 1. Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines. J. Applicant's civil engineer will be required to submit existing and proposed flow calculations. 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: Landscapinl!: a. Specific excavation techniques will be required for the excavation along the back of the property. Vertical excavation will be required and over-digging is prohibited in this zone. This note must be represented on the building permit set. Utility connection will need to be designed and shown on the plan in a manner that does not encroach into the tree protection zones. b. Prior to the issuance of any demolition or building permits, a tree removal permit will need to be approved by the City of Aspen Parks Department. To the extent that mitigation is required for any removals, the required mitigation will be provided to the satisfaction of the Parks Department via payment of cash-in-lieu ofplantings, the planting of street trees, or a combination of these methods. c. Root trenching will be required around all trees with excavation next to and/or under the drip line. This can be accomplished by a contracted professional tree service company or trained member of the contractor's team. This is specific to the trees located on adjacent properties. Ordinance No. 41 Series 2006 Page 4 d. Planting in the Public Right-Of-Way (ROW) will be subject to Landscaping in the ROW requirements. Improvements to the ROW should include new grass, irrigation and the applicant shall work with the Parks Department in order to design an appropriate trench box for the new tree plantings. Plans for the tree plantings should be completed and conceptually approved prior to building permit submittal. Section 11: Rooftop Decks All planter boxes on rooftop decks shall be limited to a depth of one (I) foot six (6) inches, and all rooftop plantings shall not exceed four (4) feet in height at full maturity. The aforementioned heights shall be measured from the roof level as illustrated in submitted land use plans. Seasonal, temporary shade structures, including but not limited to umbrellas, are permitted on the roof decks. Permanent shading structures shall be prohibited from the rooftop decks. The elevator shaft and other mechanical equipment shall be built at the lowest possible height required by the Building Department while still complying with all height restrictions in the zone district and Land Use Code section 26.575.020(B)(I)(d), Chimneys, Antennas and Other Appurtenances. This height will be verified for compliance with the Building and Land Use Codes by the Zoning Officer and the Chief Building Official. Section 12: Green Roof The roof shall include green roof technology as presented in application materials and designs at the January 22, 2007 City Council hearing. The location of the green roof shall be as illustrated in plans presented at the aforementioned hearing. Low growing succulents native to the western region of the country shall be used for the green roof. Section 13: Off-Street Parkinl!: The Applicant shall provide fourteen (14) sub-grade parking spaces to be accessed from the alleyway via a car lift, and three (3) exterior parking spaces to be access from the alleyway. Permanent storage of vehicles which are not regularly used is prohibited in these spaces. At no time shall the parking structure or spaces be condominiumized other than to delineate ownership of parking spaces for the owners of the residential units and commercial/office space within the subject building. Section 14: Park Development Impact Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fee, the Applicant shall pay a park development impact fe.e prior to building permit issuance. The fee shall be calculated according to the fee schedule in Land Use Code Section 26.610.030, Fee Schedule. Section 15: School Lands Dedication Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School lands dedication, the Applicant shall pay a fee-in-lieu of land dedication prior to building permit issuance. The City of Aspen 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. Ordinance No. 41 Series 2006 Page 5 Section 16: Vested Rights The development approvals granted pursuant to Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Number 27, Series of2006 and herein shall be vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of the development order. No later than fourteen (14) days following the 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: 625 E. Main Street, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO, by Ordinance No. 41 Series of2006, of the Aspen City Council. Section 17: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 18: This 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: A public hearing on the ordinance was held on the 13th day of November, 2006, 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. Ordinance No. 41 Series 2006 Page 6 INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 10th day of October, 2006. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 22nd day of January, 2007. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: John P. Worcester, City Attorney G:\city\Jessica\Cases\Stage III\Council\second reading\STAGE3 ORDINANCE second reading.doc Ordinance No. 41 Series 2006 Page 7 EXHIBIT A: STAFF FINDINGS FOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW 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 Findinf! Staff finds the proposed subdivision is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Outlined below is the subdivision's consistency with applicable individual goals in the AACP. Managing Growth The community goals listed in the AACP include: · "Provide for a 'critical mass' of permanent local residents by providing a limited number of affordable housing units within the Aspen Community Growth Boundary." The proposed subdivision will allow for five (5) free-market units and four (4) affordable housing units to be constructed and subdivided. The four affordable housing units will be deed restricted and provide housing for seven (7) FTEs within the Aspen Infill Area. Staff finds the subdivision meets this goal of the AACP. . "Contain development with the creation of the Aspen Community Growth Boundary..." The proposed development and subdivision is within the Aspen Community Growth Boundary. Staff finds the subdivision meets this goal of the AACP. . "Foster a well-balanced community through integrated design that promotes economic diversity, transit and pedestrian friendly lifestyles, and the mixing of people from different backgrounds." The subdivision and development creates spaces for free-market and deed- restricted residences, and spaces for office and commercial uses. These uses are integrated in one building, and are mixed within the floors. The location of the development fosters lifestyles conducive to transit and pedestrian use, as it is located within the Aspen Infill Area, has access to the bus route, and is within one block of the Commercial Core. The building will provide additional landscaping along its Main Street fa~ade which will provide a pedestrian friendly atmosphere for passersby, tenants, and residents. Staff finds the subdivision meets this goal of the AACP. . "We should endeavor to bring the middle class back into our community. We should discourage sprawl and recognize its cost to the character of our community, our open spaces and our rural resources as well as the fiscal expenses associated with the physical infrastructure of sprawl. " The Housing Guidelines maintain seven (7) Categories of affordable housing; in furtherance of this AACP goal, the Code was written to require affordable housing at the middle category level, namely Category 4. The proposal provides four (4) high-quality Category 4 units in the heart of the community and thereby serves to forward all aspects of this AACP goal. Staff finds the subdivision meets this goal of the AACP. Stage III Redevelopment Subdivision Review, Exhibit A Page 1 of6 Transportation The community goals listed in the AACP include: . "Maintain and improve the appeal of bicycling and walking...by adding sidewalk connections, replacing sidewalks, and requiring sidewalks as part of development approvals, where appropriate..." The subdivision and development will include sidewalk improvements along the Main Street side of the building, creating a pedestrian and bike friendly atmosphere. Staff finds the subdivision meets this goal of the AACP. . "Reduce the adverse impacts of automobiles on the Aspen area." The development includes underground parking for tenants and residents of the building. The location of the parking reduces the impact these cars would otherwise have on the surrounding community if they were required to park at street level. Staff finds the subdivision meets this goal of the AACP. . "New development should take place only in areas that are, or can be served by transit, and only in compact, mixed-use patterns that are conducive to walking and bicycling." The proposed development is served by transit and is composed of compact mixed-uses conducive to walking and bicycling. Staff finds the subdivision meets this goal of the AACP. The intent ofthe Transportation section states: . "The community seeks to provide a balanced, integrated transportation system for residents, visitors, and commuters that reduced congestion and air pollution. Walking, Bicycling and transit use is promoted to help us reach that goal." The proposed development and subdivision promote the use oftransit and a pedestrian friendly lifestyle. The development is located on Main Street, and is located one block away from the Commercial Core zone district. The development will increase the overall pedestrian experience, as it will provide landscaping improvements, and will improve the Main Street building fayade by replacing a stone wall with large store front windows that supply visual interest and engage the pedestrian. Staff finds the subdivision meets the intent of the Transportation section in the AACP. Housing The community goals listed in the AACP include: . "Encourage development to occur within the Aspen Community Growth Boundary and emphasize 'good city form'." The proposed subdivision is within a development located within the Aspen Growth Boundary and within the Aspen infill area. The development also promotes "good city form" through its improvements to the Main Street fayade, which make the building more pedestrian friendly, and through its consistency with the Commercial Design Standards. Staff finds the subdivision meets this goal of the AACP. . "The public and private sectors should work together to ensure success in providing affordable housing." And "Encourage greater participation by the private sector in developing affordable housing." The subdivision includes four (4) high-quality affordable housing units, which will be deed-restricted and provide housing for seven (7) FTEs. The private sector is providing these units as part of the development proposal. Staff finds the proposed subdivision meets these two AACP goals. Stage III Redevelopment Subdivision Review, Exhibit A Page 2 of6 · "New affordable housing projects should reinforce and enhance a healthy social balance for our community and enhance the character and charm of Aspen." The subdivision will provide four (4) above-grade deed-restricted housing units on the same floor as one (1) free- market housing unit and in the same building as four (4) other free-market housing units. The development enhances the character of Aspen by improving the Main Street streetscape. Staff finds the subdivision meets this goal of the AACP. Economic Sustainabilitv The intent of the Economic Sustainability section includes: · "Maintain a healthy, vibrant and diversified year-round economy that supports the Aspen area community..." The subdivision will include office and commercial uses that will help promote and maintain Aspen's year-round community. There is a lack of significant office space currently in Aspen, and this development and subdivision will help increase the office base needed in the community. The subdivision will also include housing for seven (7) FTEs who will live and work within the community (as required by Housing Authority rules) and who will help support a healthy, vibrant, and diversified year-round economy. Staff finds the subdivision meets the intent of this section of the AACP. . "Enhance the wealth-generating capacity of the local economy while minimizing the rate at which cash flows through the local economy and limiting the expansion of the physical size of the community." The subdivision occurs within the Aspen Growth Boundary, which will not increase the physical size of the community. The development will also increase the local economy's wealth-generating capacity by providing commercial and office spaces within the Aspen Infill Area. Staff finds the subdivision meets the intent of this section of the AACP. Parks, Open Space, & the Environment . "Seek opportunities to discourage sprawl in order to preserve open spaces between communities. Encourage infill projects that integrate more housing into the existing urban fabric." The development will provide a Park Development Impact Fee, and includes streetscape improvements along the Main Street side of the development. This project will integrate housing into the urban fabric by providing four (4) affordable housing units and five (5) free-market residential units within the Aspen Infill Area. Staff finds the subdivision meets this section of the AACP. Design Oualitv The intent of the Design Quality section includes: . "Ensure the character of the built environment in Aspen is maintained through public outreach and education about design quality, historical context, and the influence of existing built and natural environments." This AACP section does not relate well to the subdivision itself, as it will divide the internal spaces into separate ownership interests. The development itself meets this AACP section through its compliance with the Commercial Design Standards, its use of fenestration and fa<yade articulation to break up the building's mass, and its use of native materials on the fa<yade. Staff finds the subdivision and development meet the goals and intent of this section of the AACP. Stage III Redevelopment Subdivision Review, Exhibit A Page 3 of6 The community goals listed in the AACP includes: · "Retain and encourage an eclectic mix of design styles to maintain and enhance the special character to Aspen." Again, this section relates more to the overall development rather than the subdivision. The development itself represents a high quality design that will work with and enhance Aspen's unique character. The buildings mass is broken up through fayade fenestration and the use of different materials, which helps it relate to Aspen's historic thirty (30) feet lot widths. The fayade is made of different sand stone colors that relate to colors traditionally used in buildings in the commercial core, while also using materials that relate to neighboring buildings in the C-I zone district. Staff finds the subdivision and development meet the goals and intent of this section of the AACP. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. Staff Findinf! The proposed subdivision is consistent with the existing land uses in the vicinity, as many of the surrounding properties in the C-I zone district are subdivided and include a mix of commercial, office, and residential uses. The proposed development is also consistent with the land uses in the area, which include the mixed-use developments at the Concept 600 Building, the Hunter Square Building, and the Obermeyer Place project, as well as the other commercial office uses, affordable housing uses and free-market multi-family uses within the C-I zone district. Staff finds this criterion to be met. c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Staff Findinf! The subdivision of the building will not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding areas, as the division of the building into separate ownership units will not impact the development abilities in surrounding areas. The development itself will not pose an adverse affect on surrounding areas. The surrounding properties are close to fully developed, and the surrounding road and utility systems have the capacity to support this development. Additionally, the development meets all the requirements of the C-I zone district. All park development, school land, and other impact fees will be paid at the time of building permit issuance in order to mitigate for any other impacts from the development. Therefore, Staff finds that the proposal will not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding properties. Staff finds this criterion to be met. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. Staff Findinf! The proposed development is in compliance with the C-I zone district requirements and meets all other land use regulations. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Stage III Redevelopment Subdivision Review, Exhibit A Page 4 of6 B. Suitability of land for subdivision. a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. Staff Findinf! Staff finds that the property is suitable for subdivision. The site is already developed and is within the designated Aspen Infill Area. The site contains no overly steep topography and no known geologic hazards that may harm the health of any of the inhabitants of the proposed development. Therefore, Staff finds this criterion to be met. b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. Staff Findinf! Staff finds that the property is suitable for subdivision. Staff believes that there will not be a duplication or premature extension of public facilities because the property to be subdivided is already served by adequate public facilities. The Applicant has committed that the cost of any necessary utility extensions or upgrades will be borne by the Applicant. Therefore, Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Improvements. The improvements setforth at Chapter 26.580 shall be providedfor the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and/or the goals of the community. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. Staff Findinf! The Applicant has consented in the application to meet the applicable improvements pursuant to Section 26.580. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. Stage III Redevelopment Subdivision Review, Exhibit A Page 5 of6 Staff Findini! Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program, is not applicable for this subdivision. The development includes new free-market residential units and provides more affordable housing than is required by the Land Use Code. The Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the project for compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System, and granted its approval pursuant to Resolution Number 27, Series of 2006. Staff finds the subdivision meets this criterion. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. Staff Findini! 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. Staff finds this criterion to be met. F. Growth Management Approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development (AH-PUD) without first obtaining growth management approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney. (Ord. No. 44-2001, & 2) Staff Findini! The Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution Number 27, Series of 2006, granting the project all of its required growth management allotments. The applicant has been granted five (5) free-market residential allotments for the development. There are a total of eighteen (18) allotments available this year, with a limit of six (6) allotments in the CC and CI zone districts. At the time of application six (6) allotments were available in the C I zone district. The applicant has also been granted an allotment of 2,300 square feet of new net leasable commercial space. At the time of application, 28,000 square feet of such new commercial space was available. Subdivision approval may now be granted in accordance with this standard. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Stage III Redevelopment Subdivision Review, Exhibit A Page 6 of6 EXHIBIT B: COMPARISON OF PROPOSED VS. REQUIRED DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Dimensional Requirement Minimum Lot Size Minimum Lot Width Minimum Front Yard Setback Minimum Side Yard Setback Minimum Rear Yard Setback Maximum Height Pedestrian Amenity Space Proposed Dimensional Requirements 10,000 sq. ft. 100 Feet o Feet o Feet o Feet, with trash and utility service areas located abutting alley Building: 40 Feet at Main Street, 37 Feet 6 Inches at Alley Elevator Shaft extends 46 Feet [note: the elevator qualifies as "mechanical equipment" and is permitted pursuant to 26.575. 020(B. 1. d)} Cash-in-Lieu fee approved pursuant to P&Z Resolution 27, Series 2006 Underlying 3,000 sq. ft. No Requirement No Requirement No Requirement No requirement for mixed use development; but trash/utility service area must abut alley 42 Feet for flat roofs. Pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Pedestrian Amenity Exhibit B, Stage III, page I DinteftSloDlll P1'6p!)~eapJ,)I~~i9rjl Underlying~(ll!!'~~eial(C-l)ZoDe District Reanil'ement ReQui~menf$ . ~ltltenteDts Commercial: 1.5:1 (15,000 sq. ft. on Commercial: this lot) up to 2:1 12,784 sq. ft. (20,000 sq. ft. on or 1.28:1 this lot )(with affordable housing increase) Lodging, Arts, Cultural and Civic, N/A Public, Cumulative Cumulative Maximum: Recreational, Floor Area Maximum: 3:1 Academic uses: 3:1 Ratio (FAR) Affordable Affordable 26,414 sq. ft. Housing: 3,630 (or 30,000 sq. ft. on this Housing: No or 2.64: I lot) sq. ft. limitation Free-Market Residential: Free-Market 10,000 sq. ft. Residential: 1:1 or 1:1 Duplex, detached residential, bed and N/A Breakfast: 80% pg allowable floor area of same-sized lot in R6 zone district Free-Market Affordable Maximum Units: Units: Maximum 2,000 ft. net livable area for each A. 1,926 ft. I. 700 ft. sq. Residential sq. sq. free-market and affordable residential unit. Unit Size B. 1,961 sq. ft. 2. 691 +24 sq. The total free-market net livable area must be (sq. ft.) C. 1,985 sq. ft. ft. (storage in more than the total above-grade commercial D. 1,168 ft. hallway) no sq. net leasable E. 1,451 ft. 3. 751 ft. area. sq. sq. 4. 700 sq. ft. Exhibit B, Stage III, page 2 ahibft CJ HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC January II, 2007 Ms. Jessica Garrow Aspen City Planner 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 625 E. Main Street (Stage III) Subdivision, Second Reading Dear Jessica: As you are aware, Aspen Main Street Properties, LP's second reading for the 625 E. Main Street (Stage III) Subdivision application was continued to January 22, 2007 in order to provide adequate time to complete revisions to several aspects of the proposed building design. These revisions made in response to comments heard during the previous City Council hearing have been completed. This letter, along with the accompanying plans, provides a description of the changes that have been made as well as responses to issues brought up at the November 27,2006 City Council hearing. On November 27, 2006, we heard numerous design-related comments from both the Council and the public, including comments to the effect that the proposal is a "boxy building which needs more relief." Also, we heard that: we should "break up the facade and mass;" there is "too much height and bulk;" the "roof lines should be varied;" the proposal does not meet the "characteristics" of the newly proposed (and not yet adopted) design guidelines; the project "should have landscaping in front;" there is "too much height" and there should be "notches in the roof and facade." As noted in the letter from Jody Edwards to John Worcester, dated December 12, 2006, it is the applicant's position that the P&Z approved Commercial Design Review on September 5, 2006 and that all issues related to design standards have already been resolved. Nevertheless, the applicant has taken the voiced concerns of the Council and the public to heart in agreeing to make several significant changes to the design while also committing to other measures to address matters. More specifically, with regard to design changes, the accompanying plans show that the design has been revised in a manner which: . 201 N. MILL STREET. SUITE 108 . ASPEN. COLORADO. 81611 . PHONE: (970) 925-7819 . FAX: (970) 925-7395 . January 11, 2007 625 E. Main Street Page 2 >- Decreases the building's overall height by two (2) feet so that: a) The leading streetfront roof edge is now a full five (5) feet below that allowed by Code; b) The alley-side roof edge is now a full seven-and-one-half (7' -6") lower than that allowed by Code; c) The elevator tower is approximately one (I) foot lower than the maximum height allowed by Code; and, d) The floor-to-ceiling height on the ground level has been reduced from eleven (11) feet to ten (10) feet; the floor-to-ceiling height of the second level space, which includes the affordable housing units, a free-market residence and two office spaces, remains at nine (9) feet; and, the floor-to-ceiling height on the third level . has been lowered from ten (10) feet to nine (9) feet. >- The building ends at the first and second floors step away (recede) from the property line to provide additional setbacks from and visual relief along the east and west sides, especially along the adjoining private courtyard of the Hunter Square property; >- A modem interpretation of a cornice line has been added to the roofline of the second floor, which cornice line greatly aids in accentuating the two-floor height and massing along the streetfront while increasing the degree to which the third floor visually recedes; >- The third floor massing has been redesigned and broken up as follows to relieve the perception of "boxiness": a) The massing of the third level has been visually divided into two halves in-lieu of the previous unified form; b) The east and west ends of the third floor have been given increased setbacks and have been curved to pull further away from the street while greatly softening the overall rectangular building form; more specifically, the curved forms begin a full ten (10) feet back from the front property edge and curve away from the street to as far back as fourteen (14) feet from the property line; c) The center sections of the third floor units have been pulled back an additional fourteen (14) to twenty-six (26) inches from the second story streetfront fayade (combined with the addition of the second floor cornice line, this measure will greatly increase the degree to which the third floor recedes from view); d) The center sections of the third floor are now setback four (4) to five (5) feet from the front fayade ofthe first and second floors; e) The exterior materials palette on the third floor has been refined to better relate to residential loft construction and provide complimenting contrast with the commercial aesthetic of the first and second floors; and, f) The transparent rooftop guardrails around the small deck spaces (only 250 square feet each, consuming only 10% or so of the total roof) have been pulled even further toward the center of the building and away from the streetfront view. January 11, 2007 625 E. Main Street Page] With regard to the rooftop decks, the applicant notes that these are not a regulated use and are fully allowed by Code when falling within height limits. Indeed, rooftop decks not only exist as a very common amenity prevalent throughout the commercial zone districts of Aspen, but have been encouraged by the City in recent years as a means of supporting downtown living and increasing vitality. For instance, rooftop decks can be found in such recognizable locations as the Isis Building; the old Aspen Drug Building; the Kobey Block Building (Quicksilver); the Brand Building; the Syzygy Building; the Paragon Building (where height variances were granted to enable development of the rooftop); the Elks Building (where a height variance was granted as recently as one or two months ago to enable development of the rooftop); and, the Phil Rothblum residence located directly across the alley from the subject property. The rooftop decks on the proposed structure. use only a very small percentage of the total rooftop area and are located so as to minimize visual impacts, i.e., away from the street and toward the center and rear of the building. Nonetheless, the applicant has heard the concerns of the Council and the neighbors with regard to the rooftop decks and, in response, hereby agrees to the follo.wing assurances: ~ Planter boxes on the rooftop will be limited to a depth not to exceed 1.5 feet so as to make impossible the planting of trees that might otherwise grow tall; ~ All rooftop plantings will be limited to not more than four (4) feet in height, which will restrict the top of all plantings to within the zoned height limit of 42 feet; ~ Rooftop deck areas will be restricted to prohibit installation of permanent umbrellas or shading devices/structures; ~ Those portions of the rooftop (roughly the front and rear quarters) not used for decks, access, and accommodation of mechanical equipment will be established as a "green roof' to reduce energy consumption and lessen visual impacts from the upper units of the Concept 600 building; and, ~ The elevator cab and enclosure will be built to the minimum height required by applicable codes. The applicant has obviously taken the concerns of the Council and the public to heart as the above described plan revisions and assurances are not only thoughtful, innovative and responsive, but will effectively address the vast majority of concerns that have been raised. It is in this same spirit of cooperation and neighborliness that the applicant has considered other issues as well. While the proposed uses will result in far less vehicular traffic and parking demand than were associated with the movie theater use that occupied the subject site for January 11, 2007 625 E. Main Street Page 4 the past twenty or so years, the applicant has still provided a development plan that supplies nearly triple the amount of required off-street parking. Still, some seem to feel that parking demand will continue to exceed supply. In an even further effort to alleviate such concerns, the applicant hereby commits to a prohibition against permanent on-site vehicle storage for vehicles not being actively used. With this commitment, a greater number of on-site spaces can be expected to be available to users and tenants of the building. Such measures and the quantity of parking being provided on-site is very uncommon in the City's CC and C-I zone districts. After much consideration of ways to and the practicality of accommodating the mid-block walkway along the west property line, the idea has been only partially accommodated. Since it has become apparent that the owners of the Hunter Square property intend to privatize their courtyard through the installation of fences/walls, and that any accommodation of the mid-block walkway would occur only on the ground level of the subject property, the walkway would effectively be reduced to an uninviting, turmel-effect passageway to nowhere. Both ends of the subject block are provided with crosswalks over Main Street. Crossing Main Street anywhere else is unsafe. As such, and given the lack of destination served by a mid-block walkway, coupled with the relative convenience of existing sidewalks on the block, the mid-block walkway concept has be'en abandoned but with partial accommodation. The applicant has revised the first floor plan to allow continued passage forlby occupants of the Hunter Square Building from their parking spaces along the alley through the rear part of the subject property and vice versa. Discussions of the proposed project relative to the sidewalk edge and pedestrian amenity spaces were held as well. It is worth noting that the existing Stage 3 building provides no pedestrian amenity spaces and meets or encroaches upon th~ sidewalk edge for the length of the property. The Code does not require provision of pedestrian amenity space on the property, opting instead for automatic approval of cash-in-lieu. As a matter of general planning and urban design, the subject block already includes more than adequate variation of form and open area along the sidewalk edge, especially considering proximity to the heavily trafficked Main Street corridor and solar access on this north- facing aspect of the adjoining sidewalk. In regard to the subdivision issue, it must be recognized that virtually every surrounding property is developed with a mixed-use and/or condominiumized building, including, (I) the Hunter Square Building (west side) which has both residences and commercial space, (2) the Spring Street Condominiums on the east has both residential townhouses and offices in the back part of the property, and, (3) the Concept 600 Building has office and commercial uses on the first floor with residential condominiums on it top three floors. As such, the proposed subdivision is fully consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. January 11,2007 625 E. Main Street Page 5 In total, it is felt that the proposed redevelopment is not only consistent with each and every applicable and adopted regulation of the City of Aspen, but with the changes and commitments described herein, it goes the extra distance to accommodate concerns well beyond that which would otherwise be required. If I can be of further assistance in any way, or if you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. You can reach me at the phone number provided, or by email atmhaas@sopris.net. Truly yours, Haas Land Planning, LLC C;/My Documents/City Applications/Stage 3/CC Revisions - Cover Letter f:xYllDltL Objections to Stage 3 Redevelopment A number of Aspenites and City Council members publicly voiced concerns about various elements of the proposed Stage 3 Redevelopment at the November 27,2006 City Council review of the project. In response to these concerns, the applicant made two modest changes: the building height has been lowered by 2' and the roofs over the third floor porches have been slightly curved. With such modest changes and the addition of more structures on the roof, all of the comments and concerns expressed as part of the November 27 review still apply, as summarized below: . Roof decks: Comments by the public and several City Council members opposed the inclusion of roof decks. The applicant's recent drawings continue to show planters, deck furniture, and fireplaces which indicate the developer intends this to be living space. In the summer, these decks will be unusable without the installation of shade structures, which will add 8' or more to the height of an already too tall structure. The decks require the installation of an 9' tall housing for the elevator, lobby and stairway. The decks are tantamount to a 4th floor and should be eliminated as previously requested by City Council. . Open space, the existing pedestrian walkway, and setbacks: The public and City Council requested that the developer retain the 30+ year-old pedestrian walkway on the west side of the property. Retaining the walkway would preserve some open space in the area in addition to space between buildings iti'when Hunter Square is redeveloped. The developer has chosen to ignore the benefits to the City of landscaping and open space and made a payment of $50k to build a lot-line- to-lot-line structure. Aspen places more value on open space than the amount of this payment and the walkway should be retained as previously requested by City Council. . Parking: Although the number of spaces provided by the project meets the specifics of the current code requirements, the applicant still has not said where the 36 commercial employees, the commercial customers, venders, etc. will park. Because the parking was largely installed to meet the needs of the commercial component of the project, the available parking should be reserved for exclusive use by the commercial entities. . Building height: The building still looms over adjacent buildings, does not fit in the neighborhood, and, lacking articulation along the roofline, continues to block pedestrians' mountain views. This massive, blockish building remains a prime example of everything Aspenites and City Council say they do not want in the Commercial Core or on Main Street. Admittedly, this building location is not the only location on Main Street where pedestrians have mountain views. But, ifthisbuilding is approved as designed and, post-moratorium, building standards are changed, it may be the only location on Main Street where views are permanently lost. The building height should be furthered lowered and/or the roof lines articulated in a way that preserves some mountain views. Dick Coppock, Concept 600 owner and resident on behalf of 20+ previously commenting Concept 600 owners and residents txVJiV!-tI Objection to Subdivision Approval on the Stage III Redevelopment Based on the fact that the Stage 3 Redevelopment application does not provide sufficient affordable housing for the actual increase in the full-time employee count that results from the requested subdivision, r believe that subdivision approval should be denied at this time and the application be re-evaluated. My reason for this request is that, in this particular case, the formula for calculating the required amount of affordable housing has not been appropriately applied because the use of the current, purpose-built, single-function facility (the Stage 3 Theater) will change to that of a flexible, multi- purpose facility. Based on my conversation with Don Swales, the man who built this building and operated the original theater that preceded and then became Stage 3, the full-time employment in the movie theater was only 2-3. There was never an intention to have more than 2 or so full-time employees. According to Mr. Swales, that was the reason only three parking spaces were installed when the theater was constructed in the early 1970s. He told me that, at that time, parking spaces were added largely to meet the needs of the full-time employees. The current applicant states in his application that, using the formula, the Stage 3 commercial property could have had 28, full-time employees. The new building will have approximately 36 employees, 28 in the theater space and 8 in the expanded commercial space. The applicant states he needs to mitigate or provide affordable housing for the difference between the "could have had" count of28 and the "future" count of 36. However, there has never been a time during the 35-year existence of the theater building when there were ever 28 full-time employees. When that commercial space is replaced and subdivided to become a flexible-use, multi-purpose commercial space, the 36 employees who will be working in the new office/retail space will constitute a dramatic change in the actual employment level, which should require a larger increase in affordable housing than what is now proposed. Contrary to the Staff findings (Subdivision Review, Exhibit A, page 5, Section C- I), the requested subdivision is not compatible with the goals of the community. rfthis applicant were held to the same mitigation standard as all other developers, a standard that requires a developer to provide affordable housing for any increase in full-time employment, there would be I I or 12 new affordable housing units included in this project, not just four. City Council should recognize the readily available facts reflecting the actual increase in full-time employment and use its judgement and authority in this situation to compel the applicant to provide affordable housing for the factual increase in employees that will result from subdivision. Jim Smith Concept 600 Aspen "fXYllYJIt- L More on Stage 3 Redevelopment It is frustrating to realize that the Stage 3 redevelopment applicant has pretty much ignored the requests of City Council, neighbors, and others within the community to make some major modifications to the design of their new building. I still feel the developer needs to go back to his architects and do some more work based on the following: I. Lowering the structure by two feet does not go far enough to keep it from looming over Main Street and neighboring structures as well as obliterating the views of Aspen mountain. . As has been done with the Obermeyer Place*, the designers for this project could give Aspen a 35-foot-tall building with three floors and enough amenities to make this property very attractive to buyers. The price of the Obermeyer free-market units keeps going up with each sale; buyers are not in short supply. (In addition to the lowered ceiling heights could the developer reduce height by re-designing the utility/mechanical spaces between floors and above the third floor? Can some of the floor space on the ground floor be below ground level?) . The roof decks have been kept although several Council members requested they be eliminated. Even with all the structures moved to the center of the building, the required elevator, lobby, and staircase as well as the extended roof line by the rooflobby will add unnecessary height to the building - there's no getting around this. Even the architectural drawing on Page 9 of the recent State ill Subdivision Review Staff Memo shows the structures obviously protruding from the roof. Also, why the need for planters and fireplaces? Who, in the future, will monitor the ordinances so that tall plants and other structures won't become the norm? Again, Obermeyer Place's free market units are re-selling for millions without decks. . I know (because I've been told so many times) that the views of Aspen Mountain are not guaranteed. However, in this case, I cannot think of one justification for depriving everyone of any view of Aspen mountain from the street level of the 600 block of Main in order that two,part-time owners can have a somewhat- improved mountain view)\ that is afforded by several feet of additional building height. City Council members take seriously their responsibility to protect this town's assets, and mountain views are one of several assets that citizens have said they want protected. Council members were recently concerned about the impact of a proposed project that could harm the view of Ute Mountain from Smuggler Mountain. Council members, please apply the same concern to the 600 block of East Main as you do to other areas in Aspen and preserve some view for the public. 2. The overall boxiness of the building has not been addressed. Council members asked for articulation and what the developer did was curve the corners of the roof on the third floor. fYtlJvFt-x 3. Not retaining the long-used pedestrian walkway, as requested by some on City Council, as well as citizens and neighbors, seems to indicate that the developer does not care about being a good neighbor. This developer states in all his documents that he has the best interest of Aspen and his neighbors in mind as he designs his building. However, it seems as if he has not lived up to his statements because he has ignored or done as little as possible to respond to City Council, citizen, and neighbor input. * I know that the Obermeyer P!~ was a COWOP-designed projec! Md,jherefore, fundamentally different from....Stage 3 redevelopment and otherJ~ojects in town. ~er the design process, Obermeyer builders continued to solicit and use input from neighbors with regard to issues that came up during construction, something they were not compelled t Obermeyer Place must be one of the most Aspen- and n i or-friendly projects in this town and could be used a lot more as a standard for other developers to follow. Sincerely, Lindsay Smith Aspen ~A/ / i I-~