The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.council.regular.20071009 ^"'--'~""'^'.>-'-'"'""''''--_.-~.''- - ",'_'_"_~____""'_' .. I CITY COUNCIL AGENDA October 9, 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) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments b) Agenda Deletions and Additions c) City Manager's Comments e) Board Reports VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion) a) Resolution #81, 2007 - Gibson Street Stormwater Improvement Contract b) Request to Use Paepcke Park - Food & Wine c) Resolution #80, 2007 Supplemental EOTC 1/2% Transit Sales and Use Tax Budget d) Resolution #83, 2007 - Support Ballot Sales and Use Tax for Transit Services e) Resolution #84, 2007 - Support Ballot StormWater Property Tax f) Resolution # 2007 - Support Ballot Questions g) Resolution # 2007 - In Support of Ballot Questions h) Minutes - September 4, 24, 2007 VII. First Reading of Ordinances a) Ordinance #45,2007 - Code Amendment Historic Preservation P.H. 10/22 b) Ordinance #43,2007 - Commercial Core and Lodging Commission P.H. 10/22 c) Ordinance #44, 2007 - Disconnection of Silver Lining Ranch VIII. Public Hearings a) Ordinance #24, 2007 - Vacation of Dean Street Right-of-way b) Ordinance #40,2007 - Code Amendment - Restricted Parking Residential Areas c) Ordinance #37,2007 - Amendment to Commercial Core Moratorium d) Ordinance #25, 2007 - Jerome Professional Building Subdivision e) Ordinance #28,2007 - 508 E Cooper Ave Subdivision f) Ordinance #39, 2007 - Code Amendment - Increase Parking Fees g) Ordinance #41, 2007 - Supplemental Appropriations h) Ordinance #29,2007 - Wienerstube Subdivision Continue to 11/12 IX. Action Items a) Resolution #82, 2007 - Amendment to Isis Agreement - Restaurant Use X. Adjournment Next Regular Meeting October 22. 2007 COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M. MEMORANDUM '1\ a. TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Tyler A. Christoff, Project Manager, Engineering. THRU: Bentley Henderson, Assistant City Manager Tricia Aragon, P.E., City Engineer DATE OF MEMO: October 1, 2007 MEETING DATE: October 9,2007 RE: Gibson Avenue Stormwater Improvement Project Construction Approval SUMMARY: Staff recommends that Council approves the contract for Heyl, LLC for construction of Gibson Ave Stormsewer Project in the amount of$320,303.70 and approve a supplemental in the amount of$150,000 to fully fund the project. BACKGROUND: Insufficient drainage infrastructure on Gibson Avenue has allowed runoff to pond in the roadway, especially during freeze thaw periods. The Engineering department has deemed this a problem drainage area. The goal of this project is to improve drainage in the area. Sopris Engineering LLC has completed construction drawings outlining the necessary improvements to correct the drainage problem and maintain a safe roadway in this neighborhood. The purpose of this memo is to request approval for a construction of the project on Gibson Avenue between Neale Avenue and Matchless Drive. DISCUSSION: This project will help correct drainage on Gibson Avenue between Neale Avenue and Matchless Drive. The project includes new inlets, drainage pipe and curb and gutter. These improvements should improve drainage, and road conditions in this area. Bids were received by one qualified contractor (Heyl, LLC) on October 1, 2007 in the amount of $320,303.70. Due to the safety concerns associated with this project staff thinks that it is in the City's best interests to award the construction contract to this vendor. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Funding Requested Funding originally estimated for this project was reduced in the 2007 general fund budget tOA/l1 f' balance the fund. Since that time additional funding has become available in the general furld, as a result staff recommends an additional $150,000 to fully fund the Gibson Ave. Funding ROW C&G Corrections Supplemental Request TOTAL $230,176.00 $150,000.00 $380, I 76.00 Expenditures Gibson Ave. Stormsewer Construction Staff Administration Contingency TOTAL $320,303.70 $ 10,000.00 $ 49,872.30 $380, I 76.00 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: This project would minimize flooding and icing in the area. This would in turn reduce maintenance time, effort, and fuel use for the City. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council approves the contract for Heyl, LLC for construction of Gibson Ave. Stormsewer as mentioned above. ALTERNATIVES: If the project is not approved the City would continue to try to maintain the area to minimize icing and localized flooding. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No~1 , Series of2007." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RESOLUTION #"3l (Series of 2007) A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND Heyl, LLC SETTING FORTH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REGARDING GIBSON AVENUE STORMSEWER IMPROVEMENTS 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 Heyl, LLC, a copy of which contract is annexed hereto and made a part thereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves a contract with Heyl, LLC regarding Gibson Avenue Stormsewer improvements, 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: Mick Ireland, 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 October 9th 2007 Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk III CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION TI-lf On OF A"i'l1\' ------.-.--, THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into on OF ASPEN, Colorado, hereinafter called the "City", "Contractor" . , by and between the CITY and Hevl LLC, hereinafter called the WHEREAS, the City has caused to be prepared, in accordance with the law, specifications and other Contract Documents for the work herein described, and has approved and adopted said documents, and has caused to be published, in the manner and for the time required by law, an advertisement, for the project: Gibson Avenue Stormsewer Construction, and, WHEREAS, the Contractor, in response to such advertisement, or in response to direct invitation, has submitted to the City, in the manner and at the time specified, a sealed Bid in accordance with the terms of said Invitation for Bids; and, WHEREAS, the City, in the manner prescribed by law, has publicly opened, examined, and canvassed the Bids submitted in response to the published Invitation for Bids therefore, and as a result of such canvass has determined and declared the Contractor to be the lowest responsible and responsive bidder for the said Work and has duly awarded to the Contractor a Contract For Construction therefore, for the sum or sums set forth herein; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the payments and Contract for Construction herein mentioned: 1. The Contractor shall commence and complete the construction of the Work as fully described in the Contract Documents. 2. The Contractor shall furnish all of the materials, supplies, tools, equipment, labor and other services necessary for the construction and completion of the Work described herein. 3. The Contractor shall commence the work required by the Contract Documents within seven (7) consecutive calendar days after the date of "Notice To Proceed" and will complete the same by the date and time indicated in the Special Conditions unless the time is extended in accordance with appropriate provisions in the Contract Documents. 4. The Contractor agrees to perform all of the Work described in the Contract Documents and comply with the terms therein for a sum not to exceed Three Hundred Twenty Thousand Three Hundred Three Dollars and Seventy Cents ($320,303.70) DOLLARS or as shown on the BID proposal. 5. The term "Contract Documents" means and includes the documents listed in the City of Aspen General Conditions to Contracts for Construction (version GC97-2) and in the Special Conditions. The Contract Documents are included herein by this reference and made a part hereof as if fully set forth here. Page 3 "CC1 CC1-971.doc 6. The City shall pay to the Contractor in the manner and at such time as set forth in the General Conditions, unless modified by the Special Conditions, such amounts as required by the Documents. 7. This Contract For Construction shall be binding upon all parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein or in the Contract Documents, this Contract For Construction shall be subject to the City of Aspen Procurement Code, Title 4 of the Municipal Code, including the approval requirements of Section 4-08-040. This agreement shall not be binding upon the City unless duly executed by the City Manager or the Mayor of the City of Aspen (or a duly authorized official in his/her absence) following a resolution of the Council of the City of Aspen authorizing the Mayor or City Manager (or a duly authorized official in his/her absence) to execute the same. 8. This agreement and all of the covenants hereof shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the City and the Contractor respectively and their agents, representatives, employees. Successors, assigns, and legal representatives. Neither the City nor the Contractor shall have the right to assign, transfer or sublet his or her interest or obligations hereunder without the written consent of the other party. 9. 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 the Contractor or the City may assign this Contract For Construction in accordance with the specific written consent, any rights to claim damages or to bring suit, action or other proceeding against either the City or the Contractor because of any breach hereof or because of any of the terms, covenants, agreements or conditions herein contained. 10. No waiver of default by either party of any 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. 11. The parties agree that this Contract For Construction was made in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and shall be so construed. Venue is agreed to be kept exclusively in the courts of Pitkin County, Colorado. 12. In the event that legal action is necessary to enforce any of the provisions of this Contract for Construction, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its costs and reasonable attorney's fees. 13. This Contract For Construction was reviewed and accepted 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 this Contract For Construction. 14. The undersigned representative of the Contractor, as an inducement to the City to execute this Contract For Construction, represents that he/she is an authorized representative of the Contractor for the purposes of executing this Contract For CC1-971.doc Page 4 **CC1 Construction and that he/she has full and complete authority to enter into this Contract For Construction for the terms and conditions specified herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties agree hereto have executed this Contract For Construction on the date first above written. ATTESTED BY: CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO By: Title: RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: City Engineering Department City Attorney ATTESTED BY: CONTRACTOR: By: Title: Note: Certification of Incorporation shall be executed if Contractor is a Corporation. If a partnership, the Contract shall be signed by a Principal and indicate title. CC1-971.doc Page 5 "CC1 V\b MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk DATE: September 27, 2007 RE: Food and Wine Request to Use Paepcke Park REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Food and Wine has requested the use ofPaepcke Park June 8 through June 17,2008. See attached request from Devin Padgett. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Staff asked Council's permission to use ofPaepcke Park for the Food & Wine Classic in 2006 and 2007. Each year it was for ONE year only. DISCUSSION: Food and Wine Classic has been using venues around the city for its event for the last 20+ years. Padgett states the Food and Wine Class has demonstrated responsibility and stewardship of city parks over the past, and this is true. Food and Wine has worked closely with the parks department to improve their operation every year. Tom Rubel, parks department, stated the impact of Food & Wine on Paepcke Park was minimal. Staffs concern is having the 3 major parks in town offline to casual park use for at least one week. Setup and tear down in Wagner Park and Paepcke Park by Food & Wine is at least 10 days. During part of this 10 days, Jazz Aspen is setting up in Rio Grande park. Staff did not want to commit to a second venue to Food and Wine and loss of a park for 10 days for Food & Wine without Council consideration. Food and Wine does leave about half the park open to public use. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Padgett states there is a positive economic, cultural and social impact of the Classic. There are no financial impacts to staff that are not already occurring. Trevor Smith, finance department, states, "the extrapolated calculation also estimates that the Food & Wine Classic increased total daily retail sales in Aspen by $423,979". ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The environmental impacts have little bearing on this decision. As a side note in 2007 Food & Wine staff implemented a variety of new environmental measures (including composting, monitoring energy use, staffing recycling bins, and more) to demonstrate its commitment to making the event as environmentally responsible as possible. 16.3 tons of greenhouse gasses were generated during the four day event in 2007, and F&W staff is already working with City of Aspen staff to lessen this amount for 2008. The event also boasts a recycling rate of61 %, about double the national average. In 2008 F&W plans to expand the Page 1 of2 composting efforts at the event, and provide even more education and awareness to the volunteers, attendees, and vendors. This event, while large and resource intensive, is striving to be the model of how to be an environmentally responsible event. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff supports the request to use Paepcke Park for Food & Wine but felt Council should decide about 3 in-town city parks being impacted by special events at the same time. ALTERNATIVES: The ACRA does not have a solid alternative at this point. Gondola Plaza is under construction next year so no tents will be allowed in that venue. The ACRA works year-round to keep venue options as clear and updated as possible. Food & Wine needs big spaces to hold 250+ people at a time. We are using the Aspen Art Museum for the first time this year and we're talking to Nancy about the possibility of using the Aspen Ice Garden but these are not additional spaces, they are taking the place of spaces that have been lost as event venues. PROPOSED MOTION: By adopting the consent calendar, Council IS supporting Food & Wine's use ofPaepcke Park June 8 through 17. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: E-mail from Devin Padgett Page 2 of2 Page 1 of2 Kathryn Koch From: Devin Padgett [dpadgett@devincorporated.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 25,20072:53 PM To: Tom Rubel; Kathryn Koch Cc: Mike devlNC; 'Jennifer Albright' Subject: RE: 2008 - Paepcke Tom and Kathryn - The 26th annual Food & Wine Ciassic in Aspen is formally requesting use of Paepcke Park for programming needs during its three-day Aspen summer kickoff event. The 2008 event dates are June 13-15 and our request for park use begins 12:00pm, Sunday, June 8 through 12:00pm, Tuesday, June 17, 2008. The additional 5 days on the front and 2 days on the back are for production ioad-in, build out and strike purposes. We anticipate the same build-out as last 2 years (2006-2007) with several iarge tents, all of which wili be sub-floored with turf protection (Terraplas) for the duration. The event continues to face the challenge of securing enough large venue space to produce the Classic successfully and we would therefore request use of Paepcke Park for all future events. The Classic in Aspen has been confirmed through the year 2017 and we are in process of extending those dates through 2025, and hopefully beyond. We feel that the positive economic, cultural and social impact of the Classic combined with our demonstrated responsibility and stewardship of Parks controlled property over the past 20+ years warrants strong consideration for approval. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter and please let us know next steps. Sincerely. Devin 10/1/2007 MEMORANDUM v,~ TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager FROM: John D. Krueger, Director of Transportation DATE OF MEMO: September 27, 2007 MEETING DATE: October 9, 2007 RE: Supplemental EOTC 2007 1/2% Transit Sales and Use Tax Budget SUMMARY: Attached for your review and approval is a resolution and budget which, if approved, would authorize the following supplemental 2007 EOTC 1/2 cent transit sales and use tax budget: Buttermilk to Roundabout Bus Lanes, construction Free Snowmass-Aspen bus for remainder of summer $8,000,000 36,500 *See attached 2007 budget and multi-year plan PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: This resolution and the corresponding supplemental budget reflect the decisions made by the Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) at its July 19 and September 20, 2007 meetings. City Council as a member of the EOTC approves the EOTC annual budget each year and any additional funding requests as they are presented. DISCUSSION: The EOTC at its meeting on September 20, 2007 approved the $8 million funding request for construction of the 1.2 mile section of bus lanes from Buttennilk to the Maroon Creek Roundabout. At a prior meeting on July 19, 2007 the EOTC also approved a funding request in the amount of $36,500 for the continuation of the free Snowmass-Aspen bus for the remainder of the summer season. BACKGROUND: The City of Aspen as a member of the EOTC is required to approve the Supplemental Budget by resolution. Each other member of the EOTC is also required to approve the Supplemental Budget by resolution or ordinance before the budget can be considered adopted. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial implications to the City as these are EOTC 1/2% Transit Sales and Use Tax funds and not City funds. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council approve the attached resolution to approve the supplemental 2007 EOTC 1/2% Transit Sales and Use Tax Budget. C:\Documents and Settings\iohnk\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6\07EOTC Aspen c.doc AL TERNA TIVES: Council can decide not to approve the supplemental 2007 EOTC Budget and send it back to the EOTC for further discussion and approval. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution # ~ to approve the supplemental 2007 EOTC Budget." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: 2 C\Documents and Settings~ohnk\Local Seuings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6\07EOTC Aspen c.doc RESOLUTION NO. 9f) SERIES OF 2007 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A SUPPLEMENTAL 2007 BUDGET FOR THE PITKIN COUNTY 1/2 CENT TRANSIT SALES AND USE TAX WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council, the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners and the Town Council of Snowmass Village (the "Parties") have previously identified general elements of their Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan (the "Plan") which are eligible for funding from the Pitkin County one-half cent transit sales and use tax; and WHEREAS, by intergovernmental agreement dated September 14, 1993, the Parties agreed: a. to conduct regular public meetings to continue to refine and agree upon proposed projects and transportation elements consistent with or complimentary to the Plan; and b. that all expenditures and projects to be funded from the County-wide one-half cent transit sales and use tax shall be agreed upon by the Parties and evidenced by a resolution adopted by the governing body of each party; and WHEREAS, at public meetings held on September 20 and July 19,2007, the Parties considered and approved the following supplemental budget requests for the year 2007 for the Pitkin County one-half cent transit sales and use tax: a. $8,000,000 for construction of bus lanes between Buttermilk and the Aspen roundabout; b. $36,500 for the continuation of the free Snowmass-Aspen bus for the remainder of the summer season; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen wishes to ratify the approval given at the September 20 and July 19,2007 meetings by adoption of this resolution. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, that the following supplemental 2007 one-half cent transit sales and use tax expenditure budgets are hereby approved: Buttermilk to Roundabout Bus Lanes, construction Free Snowmass-Aspen bus for remainder of summer $8,000,000 36,500 RESOLVED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 9th day of October, 2007, by the City Council for the City of Aspen, Colorado. Michael C. Ireland, 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 October 9, 2007. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 3 C:\Documents and Seuings\iohnk\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6\07EOTC Aspen c.doc I I I I I I I I ..- Q) en "0 :J co I' o o C\J - .... ~ 0 0 " '" ::l ID . ., ! 0 z Cl r:: 't:l r:: ::J u.. - u Q) .- 0 ... D.. :': (/) r:: Ii co ... I- 0 li'l I- Ig 0 CI W z is z ::l LL 0000 0000 0000 f'-.~Oo1tC NNW,.... OLOCOC\l .q-- tri x j9 X . VJ ctS ~ 0); 'E rn~od -;R~Q) o ~ E r.n ~ - 0 Q) ,....,.... (,) 0 ~~.~ :J c c _ 0 ::J::JC(/) 000) OOEc c::c1ii~ .g:g~5 c:a::..!:L.L OJ (0:000 f- coc.oaocooo......Ooooo;:oo I'vOOO'lOOCClOOOOOlC)OO f': ......~ q 0_ ......~ 00_ o~ ..q_ q o~ 0_ 0_ Ut cri 0_ 0_ Q')("-..(oOC\lOOMOOLOOCO......OO (I')..q,.....LOf'-.C\JOtONC\lCDO,.....C\lOO f'-. (l')C\I..q T""'"C\I...... LON M - u - -- 000 - u u (J) .~ 1ii o '0 B " '" 0. Cl LL :J C Q) VJ C VJ .~ g Q) c>"'C ~ ~x eel .... 'u) c Q) c::J::J 0. 2l O)~ C/JO)_ o ..Q""Ocn (/J CWo - c:: :J (ij ~.!!! c:: 'm L.L (/) ~:.E .0)_ :J c ctl .2 ~ c:: (/);;:: (J C Q) (/) - Q) c:: a> rn .-;;_' cE~ ~Cf)a.Q)urn ctSQ)o c:::::looQ.oQ>E Q) >~ :Jl:D<(ooctJc c-o cce,....r.noco<(n;.!S!~ 'E- 'C 0 .2 a.. - Q) L.L Q) - 0 Q) en -0. 'en (/) 0 IJ) a. Q) - .... :J -o1a ccE~:Jg(/)gwoo.oc ctl u __ ~ [;.; ~ ~ '';::;", <(<( co g cd "5 ,Q l/) oe:s--- xVJO'-' ....(tJ ......- ~ r.n~~Q)c ..~t~E....Q)BS~ O-E-2~C>C>~oo~R~wE~ctJc~ (J a.:::ICC--..cooa:Q)w--oQ) cC>E(fJ~~Q)cvc......c....~cE~ E ._ ..... .... .... en 0 ctl 0 ........ 0 en :J Q) a: o _ >- '00 ctl co CO :;::::; .... .... - - - c 0 Ci_ UCn;ca..a.~:J~~a..O(fJ~a:E~ ..Q).~_~~~>~..c~~cl=o'-E ~ = (fJ ~ _ ~ ~ 00 - u ~ 0 .Q u w - r ~ WO"w ooWWooc-- -ow~~ CJ) "oo.w........ccocccocc........:=u..E _x_oEOOE"EoO).r::20.(fJ-Em~ -ccu- ~ <( ....ccu ....<(- ,,-Woo(tl..c.......;: "E w>:=c~ z~.~~~~~gt~llm~~~t~ c~~mxmm(fJa:~z(fJa:~~ma:oo ~NM~iO<Dr::-roo)O~NM~iOtO ,....,....,....,....,....,.... ,.... 00 00 "'0 ~o MO o cD ~ ~ E " E 0 ::::J':.;: ., g - - ~Ui ~ " " 0 " " on; Ii E ~ f.!!! - ., .2 :J .,.0 ::l- .0 ::l " 0 ~.o a.'" .," <( " , ::l ., 0 .,a: ~B :c~ g E 00 - ~ ~ ~ == ~ ::l LLID ~~ ....co ~ ~ '" ~ m '" CD '" ..j en 0) ., ~ OJ 15 f- ~ ~ m <0 CD ~ ~ CD o o ..j o - .,.; f=' g LL W o - (fJ ~ ...J ~ a: ~ en ...J <( ~ Z Z <( o f- a w f- g LL W o - (fJ ~ ...J ~ a: ~ (fJ W > ~ ...J ~ ::;: ~ o o f- a w 1;) Cl '0 :J .0 'E 0) 0. ., C :J >- C '" 1ii -5 ., c '" u; w 0) E o~ z U . ~ en ~ ~ " o f- a w .... o .... o o N ,g '0 ;;; ~ 2 '0 0) ." ;;; " en '" :c CD o o N E e .... o o N - .... ~ m C III 0.. " ~ '" ~ a: 0 '" " 0 '" ~. a: 0 '" " Ol '" 0 a: 0 '" " IX) '" 0 a: 0 '" - ...~ 0" ~ :> m CD iii 0 :> 0 - '" u <( Cl s::: .- 'tJ s::: ~ u. - 0 Gl .- 0 ... c.. :=: rJl s::: cii lU w ... u l- ll: U :;) I- ~ 0 <.:I. W z. is z :;) "" 000 000 000 ......-(")0 LOCD~ mLO'" <i 000 000 000 NN~ OLON ...LON <i 000 000 000 u)'''---cri' w....m ....LON <i 000 000 000 001"--- ...."'0 NLO'" <i 000 000 000 "':Oa) "''''CD O"'CD <i I ..... III Q) >- . ...,. :J :2: MOOl~-.:t ~ ~ C;; ""~ R ..o...tLri'ffi...t" C\Ir---o ,.... COLO'" M LO I I I I I I '" CD ~ X ._::J_ .s X u C/J.s.~-g CD CD E CD rn3~x ~ ~ Q) Q) ~&Eo(,/) --0 Q) ............()C~ i?:'i?:'.!: lD ::3 c: c.... E 0 :J :J C Q) C/) o 0 Q) ~ oOE::J ccCi)..c .i:~tllE -:: ."!::: ~ '0) c..c..-a: .s " C ::J u.. iii (?:o-u"O~ o o o <i N CO Iii LOO~ o....w mow cD N 1"--- ....LO~ '" 0 '" m '" "! <i N N ~ o <i o o o cD ... .... Iii .q-......OO vl"--C"'lO vf'.,C\I0 cDor--:ci "'d" 1.0...... 1.0 ...o~ moo "'OLO MaiO N"'~ mco NM o o o Iii o '" Iii COMon OM..-O ......1[)000 ..;fmcLio v'.;t......L{) ...ow mo'" ....0.... Nom NLO_ ...w NM o o o ,.: ... o Iii CD L{) 00 CONoa a)('f')"d"O ~a:S<<5o .q-...q-......I!) NOW ",om woo ~ C\J- cD N_'" LO.... M o o o cD ~ '" Iii co\Ooocooo,....ooooo;:oo ~~gg~gg~ggggffi1t)"gg a)r:cDONOOMOouiocO~oo (")'l:t,...Lt)f::N~~~N~~~N:E~ M 000 MO...... Q ..................0 CD to mooamo mc6r-:ciaiC\i C\l...... 1.0(0 ... o o o o co m co .... <i o - ... .... - o o M en ~ 1ii o '0 B u '" c. OJ u.. ::J .S Q) (f) C CI} m g Q) 0)"0 - ctI ......- c OJ g coo ~~.2 g- 2m.2"O C') ~ .S LL () (0 .S :J ~-Ecri .groc ~.E-5 ~ emU> -~Q)cQ) - .~ @ ~?f- ~ 3 g. ~ g g ~ Q) >~ ~l:D<(C/)t'CICc_ c:g cco......rnoco<(-l9 ._.... o o i5..-0(l)lLw-o:EcnC'a E,..." '00 '00 f/J C a. Q) - ..... :J li ...... ccE.....o:J (f)CJQ)-..c ~ ~ co ctI .- 0..... ..c .Q <( ~ u fJ) .... B f/J "'__~a.a.x~~~~<(~@~o:J~- .......(J):g~Q)c .....t::.-c....lD.o.s:c ~-E~~~C')C'l~ro~&~wc@~C~ u O'~cc--J::rna:Q)w-"'CQ) OJ E (J) .~ .~ Q) C C '- J:: '- ...... C E Cl) .cQE.__~~~o~~o......o'~~Q)~ >.'_ ~ ~ ~ .- '- '- _ _ - C 0 - T;: C--CD "'c 0.0.::="5.,E1- 0.0 rn ~a: 0.-:; ~ >.0 (J)'- E'" ..Q)~_~~~ '_J::~~CQ)-O'-~ oo=o'~~",~Q)Q)(J}~u~~o.Qo-"""~c W Q) Q)Q)(J}C-- _0Q)~r-Cl) ~o"'Ca.~'-'-~o~co~,-~~a:E _x_oEOOEuEoCD~~c.-Em~ ~~o- J:: <( ,-~oOO'-_- i"I'-Q)(J}~rnJ::3: C Q)>:.=cQ)- IV: Q) '0 (J) " ~ ~ 0 I- ~ 3: 3: Q) ..c .;;; t: I- (J) '- ~ , '- '- c ~ '- Q) Q) Q) ~ 'U ~ ~ ~ o:Jc..mxmmooa:~zoo~c..~m~oo :;::-NM~LO(Q~romo:;::-NM~LO(Q w ~~~~~~~ 00.... 00_ ono'" cDcN' MOCO OM a;j~ ~ ~ ~ E " E .2 ~ U :> - ~ 0_ ~ '" CD " " 0 " u .~ ri E ~ ~ " ~.!!! ~ o '" - :> lJl.c :> - .c :> " 0 CD.c c,'" lJl" <( " , :> '" 0 lJlll: '" 0 E - ;:0< 0= " E 00 ~ Cl) .!! ~ ! 'S (J) u..m:J iii ,....000 -~f- o '" N Iii LO <i '" .... '" cD '" m cD N co ~ - LO LO cD m '" '" cD N - <i co LO W al LO - <i o ... ... cD w w. ... LO o ,.: ... .... cD '" ~ ~ u o f- o W ... o M .... '" cD LO ....- .... .... m al .... '" M N co '" cD .... "! ... co N cD o co <i - w w o LO m m w w <i LO o cD ~ - '" cD CD ~ ~ co o o. .... o ~ ...; w .... o Iii - q N N m o ... N <i E o Li: w o (jj :J ...J c.. ~ :J 00 ...J <( :J Z Z <( () f- o W t: o Li: w o - 00 :J ...J c.. a: :J 00 w > ~ ...J :J ~ :J o o f- o W ... o o ~ ... ~ m RESOLUTION # 83 (Series of 2007) VlG A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY OF ASPEN 2007 BALLOT ISSUE KNOWN AS "TRANSIT SALES AND USE TAX", WHICH AUTHORIZES A NEW .0.15% SALES TAX AND 2.1% USE TAX FOR CITY TRANSIT SERVICES AND PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES. WHEREAS, the City of Aspen owns six diesel buses, four hybrid buses, and six smaller shuttle buses for in-town service that RFTA is contracted to operate. The eight free shuttle routes in Aspen (Castle/Maroon, Cemetery Lane, Cross Town, Galena Street, Hunter Creek, Maroon Creek Road, Mountain Valley, and West Side) carry approximately 1 million passengers per year; and WHEREAS, the transit system is currently funded by parking fees as well as Aspen's share of the 1 % countywide transit tax and half of the 1 % City lodging tax; and The City of Aspen pays RFTA over $4 million annually to operate its free shuttle service and estimates the City will pay $4.3 million in 2008; and WHEREAS, in recent years, the cost of providing transit services has outpaced the growth of its funding mechanisms, resulting in a structural deficit. Specifically, transit operating costs are rising by at least 6% annually, while transit revenue sources are expected to increase by only 3.5% per year; and WHEREAS, financial projections estimate that the transit fund will deplete its reserves by the end of 2008 and face an average revenue shortfall of $1.3 million per year by 2010. If no solutions are found, major service reductions such as the elimination of entire routes will become necessary; and WHEREAS, the Transit Sales and Use taxes will provide funding for continued operation, maintenance, capital replacement and improvement of Aspen's free in-town shuttle system. Additionally, the funds raised would be used to purchase, operate, and maintain various pedestrian amenities; and WHEREAS, the current 0.25% sales tax that funds the parking garage will expire on September 8, 2009. The new $0.15% sales tax would go into effect on September 9, 2007 and only fund transit and pedestrian amenities; and WHEREAS, the 2.1 % use tax will be levied upon construction materials that are purchased outside of City limits for use on construction projects occurring within City boundaries. The first $100,000 of materials will be exempt from the tax; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL supports the ballot question known, as "Transit Sales and Use Tax" will provide funding necessary to continue proving free in-town bus services to the citizens and guests of Aspen. The Aspen City Council urges the electors of the City of Aspen to support said proposed referendum and to vote "Yes" on its passage. Dated: Michael C. Ireland, 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 October 9,2007. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk RESOLUTION # (Series of 2006) V, a. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, IN SUPPORT OF THE 2006 PITKIN COUNTY BALLOT ISSUE KNOWN AS "CITY PROPERTY TAX FOR STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM", WHICH AUTHORIZES TO LEVY A NEW 0.65 MILL PROPERTY TAX FOR THE CITY'S STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. WHEREAS, the Roaring Fork River is severely degraded through the City with increasing levels of sediment discharge and other pollutants. Stormwater runoff has been identified as the number one source of river pollution by the Roaring Fork Conservancy; and WHEREAS, it is in the City's interest to protect private property, public health and safety, the City's infrastructure, the environment, and the ecology of the Roaring Fork River from the effects of stormwater runoff; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen's Stormwater Management Plan has identified ways to reduce the amount of storm water runoff going directly into the river from the current 88% level to 37% preventing 1,426 tons of sediment from reaching the river each year; and WHEREAS, reducing sediment will improve water quality, fish habitat, and river health throughout Aspen and for miles downstream; and WHEREAS, the cost of the Stormwater Management plan is estimated to be $12 million over 15 year; and WHEREAS, a new mill levy of 0.65 mill property tax will generate an estimated $12 million over fifteen years for use in maintaining, improving, and extending the City's existing drainage system; and WHEREAS, the new property tax is not a huge financial burden to the citizens of Aspen. A typical single family home in the West end will pay approximately $10 more per month and an affordable housing unit will pay approximately $1 more per month in property taxes; and WHEREAS, the various projects identified in the Stormwater Management Plan will mitigate the adverse water quality impacts from the City on the Roaring Fork River; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL supports the ballot question known as "City Property Tax for Storm Water Management System" that authorizes Council to levy a new 0.65 mill property tax to reduce the adverse water quality impacts from the City on the Roaring Fork River and improve fish habitat and river health. The Aspen City Council urges the electors of the City of Aspen to support said proposed referendum and to vote "Yes" on its passage. Dated: Michael C. Ireland, Mayor J, 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 September 25, 2006. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk RESOLUTION # 85 (Series of 2007) " t.f A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY OF ASPEN 2007 BALLOT ISSUES KNOWN AS "CASTLE CREEK HYDROPOWER FACILITY GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS AND OPEN SPACE CHANGE OF USE ", TO GRANT THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS AND THE CHANGE OF USE OF EXISTING OPEN SPACE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING AND EQUIPPING A NEW HYDROELECTRIC FACILITY ON CASTLE CREEK. WHEREAS, the City of Aspen acquired approximately 11,774 square feet of property located adjacent to the City's Street Department Shop on Power Plant Road beneath the bridge with Open Space funds; and WHEREAS, the original Castle Creek hydroelectric power plant was located on the property; and WHEREAS, the City owns and has continued to maintain certain assets related to the original Castle Creek hydroelectric plant including water rights, easements, dams, headgate structures, pipeline, and water storage facilities; and WHEREAS, it is in the City's interest to renovate, reconstruct, and expand on these existing assets for the purpose of generating hydroelectric power for the municipal electric system; and WHEREAS, the new hydroelectric plant will produce 5.5million kWh per year which equates to the amount of electricity consumed by 655 typical homes in Aspen; and WHEREAS, The new plant will eliminate an estimated 5,167 tons of C02 emissions annually and existing coal-fired energy purchases will be replaced by clean, renewable energy from the new hydroelectric plant; and WHEREAS, the $5.1 million cost to build a new hydroelectric power plant will be partially financed through existing appropriations ($780,000), REMP fund grant ($400,000) and if approved by voters, $3,920,000 in bond sales. The bonds will be repaid with electricity sales revenues; and WHEREAS, in conjunction with the Open Space Board and Use change rules, the land will be replaced with land of equal value and that is more suitable to trails and open space access; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL supports the ballot questions known as "Castle Creek Hydropower Facility General Obligation Bonds and Open Space Use Change" that will authorize the issuance of bonds to fund the new hydroelectric plant and approve a use change on the original power plant site. The Aspen City Council urges the electors of the City of Aspen to support said proposed referendum and to vote "Yes" on its passage. Dated: Michael C. Ireland, 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 October 9,2007. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk RESOLUTION # ~ (Series of 2007) \Ie'" A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, IN SUPPORT OF THE 2007 CITY OF ASPEN BALLOT ISSUE KNOWN AS "ORDINANCE NO.38 INSTANT RUN-OFF VOTING", WHICH AMENDS SECTION 2.7 OF THE CITY OF ASPEN HOME RULE CHARTER TO IMPLEMENT INSTANT RUN- OFF VOTING PROCEDURES FOR THE ELECTION OF MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL; AND TO REQUIRE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL TO BE ELECTED BY MAJORITY VOTE. WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter requires the election of council members by requiring 45% of the votes, plus one; and WHEREAS; Ordinance 38 Instant Run-off Voting proposes to amend the City Charter will allow Council to adopt instant run-off voting and to require a majority vote to elect members of council, 50% plus one; and WHEREAS, instant run-off voting allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference (e.g. first, second, third) eliminating the need to conduct expensive run-off elections at a later date; and WHEREAS, first choices are tabulated from the ballots and if a candidate receives the majority of first choices, he or she is elected. If no one receives the majority of votes on the first count, a series of run-offs are simulated using each voters' preference indicated on the ballot; and WHEREAS, instant run-off voting affords citizens the convenience of only having to vote once and financially responsible with taxpayer dollars; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL supports the ballot question known as "Instant Run-off Voting" that amends the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter to implement instant run-off voting and to require the election of council members by majority vote. The Aspen City Council urges the electors of the City of Aspen to support said proposed referendum and to vote "Yes" on its passage. Dated: Michael C. Ireland, 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 October 9, 2007. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk DATE: October 5, 2007 RE: Appointment of Protest Hearing Officer - Jeffrey Evans Initiative Petitions Regarding the Entrance to Aspen The deadline for filing a protest to the direct connection and modified direct connection petitions filed August 31, 2007, is Wednesday October 10,2007. See below: C.R.S. 31-11-110. Protest states: (1) Within forty days after an initiative or referendum petition is filed, a protest in writing under oath may be filed in the office of the clerk by any registered elector who resides in the municipality, setting forth specifically the grounds for such protest. I have certified the petitions sufficient as to signatures and plan on reporting that at your next Council meeting, October 22,2007. I have been assured a protest will be filed by the deadline, tomorrow. Due to the tight time lines as outlined in the Colorado Revised Statues, I am requesting approval ofthe appointment of a protest hearing officer before the fact. If no protest is filed, this issue will be moot. c.R.S. 31-10-111(3) states: (3) Every hearing shall be held before the clerk with whom such protest is filed. The clerk shall serve as hearing officer unless some other person is designated by the legislative body as the hearing officer. . . I request Council designate Karen Goldman as the hearing officer. Ms. Goldman was city clerk of Lakewood, Colorado, for 11 years and is presently Secretary to the Colorado State Senate. Ms. Goldman was appointed by City Council as hearing officer in July 2002 for the initiative petition on the Entrance to Aspen and in April 2004 as the hearing officer for the initiative petition on the parking garage and most recently as the hearing officer in the initiative protest April 2005 regarding the Burlingame annexation. . ',a, MEMORANDUM THRU: Mayor and City Council Chris Bendon, Community Development Director oUm TO: FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer M ~ RE: Code Amendment, Municipal Code Section 26.415, Development Involving The Aspen Inyentory Of Historic Landmark Sites And Structures Or Deyelopment In An "H," Historic Overlay District, First Reading of Ordinance #!:ii, Series of 2007 DATE: October 9, 2007 -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ SUMMARY: On September 10,2007, City Council directed Community Development Staff to bring forward amendments to Ordinance #30, Series of2007. Ordinance #30 was adopted in July and addresses the identification and protection of potential historic resources. The proposed amendments entail narrowing the applicability of the Ordinance from all properties over 30 years of age to a specific list researched by staff. The City is not to add any more sites to the list (unless initiated by the property owner) for a period of 10 years. Other changes requested by Council include the requirement that designation without owner consent needs a "super-majority vote" in order to establish a recommendation of approval by HPC and final determination of approval by City Council. Council expressed willingness to formally consider the possibility that designation would create an economic hardship for the property owner. The code amendments are scheduled to move forward as quickly as is reasonable. HPC discussed this matter on September 26th and P&Z on October 2nd. HPC supported the concept of super-majority as part of their own review process, but were informed the City Attorney's Office has recently determined that a super-majority requirement at City Council conflicts with the Charter and will not be possible without a public vote. As a result, that concept has been struck from the code amendment. HPC was in favor of the idea of limiting the applicability of Ordinance#30 to a list, and were very eager to see new incentives and other program improvements that create a more proactive, positive atmosphere around the preservation program. With regard to the evaluation of the economic impact of historic designation, HPC did not want to include this in their review criteria, believing it to be an issue for City Council. LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REpORT PAGE 1 P&Z's comments will be proyided to Council at First Reading. Council direction provided that night, and input from the citizen's group not addressed to date will be incorporated into the packet materials at Second Reading. Staff is seeking Council's support for the code amendments that follow. A public hearing is scheduled for Oct. 22od. REVIEW PROCESS: According to Section 26.310.020, in order to amend the Code, there must be a public hearing and recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, and a public hearing and affirmative vote by City Council. The review criteria for code amendments are located at Section 26.3 I 0.040 and are addressed by Staff in Exhibit A to this memo. PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS Staff proposes amendments to existing language within the Municipal Code as follows. New language is underlined and removed language is strieken. Amend Section 26.415.030, Designation of Historic Properties, which section describes the process and criteria through which the city designates properties of historical, architectural, archaeological, engineering and cultural importance, to read as follows: 26.415.030 Designation of historic properties. The designation of properties to an official list, that is known as the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures which is maintained by the City of Aspen, is intended to provide a systematic public process to determine what buildings, areas and features of the historic built environment are of value to the community. Designation provides a means of deciding and communicating, in advance of specific issues or conflicts, what properties are in the public interest to protect. A. Establishment of the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmarks Sites and Structures has been established by City Council to formally recognize those districts, buildings, structures, sites and objects located in Aspen that have special significance to the United States, Colorado or Aspen history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or culture. The location of properties listed on the Inventory shall be indicated on maps on file in the Community Development Department. B. Criteria. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, an individual building, site, structure, or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. The significance of properties shall be evaluated according to the following LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REpORT PAGE 2 criteria. When designating a historic district, the majority ofthe contributing resources in the district must meet the criteria described below: I. A property or district is deemed significant for its antiquity, in that it is: a. In whole or in part more than one hundred (100) years old, and b. It possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association, given its age; or 2. A property or district is deemed significant as a representation of Aspen's 20th century history, was constructed in whole or in part more than thirty (30) years prior to the year in which the application for designation is being made, possesses sufficient integrity oflocation, setting, design, materials, workmanship, and association; and is related to one or more of the following: a. An event, pattern or trend that has made a significant contribution to local, state, regional or national history; or b. People whose specific contribution to local, state, regional or national history is deemed important and the specific contribution is identified and documented; or, c. A physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman or design philosophy that is deemed important. 3. A property that was constructed less than thirty (30) years prior to the year in which the application for designation is being made may be considered under subsection 2, above, if the application has been filed by the owner of the property at the time of designation or, when designating a historic district, the majority of the contributing resources in the district meet the thirty (30) year age criterion described above. 4. The construction date of a property shall be established by the date of issuance ofthe earliest building permit for the subject structure found in the records of the City of Aspen Community Deyelopment Department, or bona fide records submitted bv the Property Owner. If there are no building permit records available, the building shall be assumed to be, in whole or in part, at least thirty (30) years old. LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REpORT PAGE 3 5. The Historic Preservation Commission shall adopt, maintain, and make available to the public guidelines, score sheets, and other devices used by the Commission to apply the criteria set forth in this Chapter to properties potentially eligible for inclusion on the Inventory. C. Application. The property owner(s), the Community Development Director, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) or the City Council may file an application for designation of a building, district, site, structure, or object on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. The application for the designation of a property or collection of properties shall include the following: I. The applicable information required in section 26.304.030(B)(I),(2),(3) and (4). 2. Site or historic district boundary map. 3. Property or district description including narrative text, photographs and/or other graphic materials that document its physical characteristics. 4. Written description of how the property meets the criteria for designation. 5. Identification ofthe character-defining features that distinguish the entity which should be preserved. 6. If the property owner does not consent to the application for desi!!:nation, the owner may choose to provide any evidence of economic hardship, to be reviewed as part of the desi!!:nation hearin!!: before City Council accordin!!: to Section 26.415.030.D.6. D. Review, public hearings and notice. 1. The Community De'/eIopment Department shall maintain a datahase indieating the eonstruetion date of all stmetures within the City of ."spen. The eonstruction date of a property shall he estahlished hy the date of issuance of the earliest huilding permit for the suhjeet strueture found in the records of the City of Aspen Community Development Department. If there are no building permit records IlYailahle, the strueture shall he assumed to he, in whole or in part, at least thirty (30) years old. This datahase shall he ayailahle for public inspeetion during normal husiness hours and on the Community Development Department's website. ~1. An application for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures shall be transmitted to the Community Development Director to determine if the application is complete. For applications filed with sufficient information, a report will be prepared by City LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REpORT PAGE 4 staff for transmittal to the HPC with the relevant information on the proposed historic property or district with a recommendation to approve or disapprove and the reasons for the recommendation. '!'2. A date for a public hearing on a complete application shall be scheduled before the HPC. Notice ofthe hearing shall be provided according to the provisions of section 26.304.060(E)(3)(a)(b)(c) except when the Community Development Director, HPC or City Council is the applicant. When the Community Development Director, HPC or City Council is the applicant, notice of the hearing. a COpy of the complete Land Use Application. and the staff memo shall be mailed to the owner ofthe subiect property and notice shall be mailed to the property owner(s) within three hundred (300) feet of the property and posted on the subject property for at least thirty (30) days prior to the hearing. Notice to the property owner shall be by registered mail. In the event that there is no evidence that the property owner received actual notice, the HPC may specify that additional measures be taken. 4.3. The HPC shall evaluate the application to determine if property or district meets the criteria for designation. At the public hearing the property owner, parties of interest, and citizens shall have an opportunity to provide information about the property or district's eligibility for designation. The HPC may recommend approval, disapproval or continuance of the application to request additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. If the owner of the subject property has not consented to the application. a recommendation to approve desienation must be supported bv a vote of a majority. plus one. of the reeular members of the board present and votine at the meetine. Anv less than a majority plus one in favor shall be considered a recommendation of denial. HPC's:fheiF recommendation shall be forwarded to City Council. SA. Upon receipt ofthe decision, report, and recommendations of the HPC, the City Council shall schedule a hearing on the application in accordance with the notice requirements for adopting an ordinance. Council shall evaluate the application to determine if the property or district meets the criteria for designation. At the public hearing the property owner, parties of interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to provide information about the property or district's eligibility for designation. The Council may approve, disapprove, or continue the application to request additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. &.5. If an application is denied, the Community Development Director, HPC or City Council may not file a reapplication for designation of the same Historic Resource, property, or district on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark, Sites and Structures for five (5) years from the date of the City Council disapproyal, !!! LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REpORT PAGE 5 until such time that Exhibit A to Ordinance # . Series of 2007 is revised. whichever comes later. 6. It is the policv of the Citv of Aspen to respect private propertv rights. The citv reco2nizes. therefore. that there mav be some circumstances in which the operation of this chapter. in particular historic desi2nation. could create an undue economic hardship. This provision is created to provide propertv owners with a means of demonstratin2 that such a hardship may exist. and that the propertv should not be desi2nated because ofthat hardship. It is the intent of this provision to insure that no private propertv is taken without iust compensation. The Citv will establish a Hearin2 Officer to review evidence provided by a propertv owner with re2ard to economic hardship. The standard of review for determination of economic hardship will be whether desi2nation would result in a violation ofthe prohibitions of the U.S. and Colorado Constitutions a2ainst takin2 of private propertv for public use without iust compensation as those prohibitions are interpreted by the courts of Colorado and the United States. In applvin2 the standards the economic benefits of financial. developmental. and technical assistance from the Citv and the utilization of anv federal and state rehabilitation tax credit pr02rams may be considered. Citv Council will be provided with and will consider the analysis of the Hearin2 Officer. and a ioint report prepared bv the Historic Preservation Officer and the Citv Attornev settin2 forth the citv's response to the evidence provided bv the propertv owner. Amend Section 26.415.035, Designation of Historic Properties, which section describes the process and criteria for the Identification of Potential Historic Resources, to read as follows: 26.415.035. Identification of Potential Historic Resources For those properties listed on "Exhibit A" of Ordinance # . Series of 2007, N& ill!. alterations (other than interior remodeling, paint color selection, exterior repainting or replastering similar to the existing finish or routine maintenance such as caulking, replacement of fasteners, repair of window glazing or other such minimally intrusive !!! reversible work), no land use applications and no building permit applications shall be undertaken or accepted by the Community Development Department until there has been a determination in accordance with this section that the subject property should not considered for inclusion on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures. Alterations, land use applications, and building permit applications which exclusively impact the interior of a building shall be exempt from this Section. The purpose of this determination is to preyent the loss of buildings, sites, structures or objects, or collections of buildings, sites, structures or objects that may have historical, architectural, archaeological, engineering and cultural importance and to limit the LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REpORT PAGE 6 detrimental effect of development or demolition on the character of the town. Preserving and protecting historic resources promotes the public welfare by making Aspen a more attractive and desirable place in which to live and work. No properties shall be added to those identified on "Exhibit A" for a period of ten (10) vears from the date of adoption of this Ordinance. however any property owner mav volunteer for historic desil!:nation review. If anv property on "Exhibit A" is reviewed as described below and denied landmark desil!:nation. it shall be removed from the list. If the primary structure(s) on any property on "Exhibit A" are destroyed by an act of God or are otherwise declared unsafe by the Chief Buildinl!: Official. the property shall be removed from the list. A. Procedure: Before any alteration, land use application or building permit application affecting a huilding whieh is in whole or in )lllft, thirt)' (30) )'cllrs or More old a property identified on "Exhibit A" may be accepted by the Community Deyelopment Department, the Community Development Director shall review the affected property and make a preliminary determination as to whether the property should be considered for inclusion on the Inventory. If a building is of unknown age, it shall be assumed that the building is over thirty (30) years old for the purpose of this Section. The determination by the Community Development Director shall be based on the criteria stated in Section 26.415.030.B.~ and must be concluded within thirty (30) days after a complete written request is received from the property owner. The written request shall include the property address, the owner's name, address and telephone number, a site plan or survey, photographs of all buildings on the property and their dates of construction. A property owner may make a written request to initiate this process at any time, even if no development is proposed. 1. If, usinl!: the desil!:nation criteria of Section 26.415.030.B. the Community Development Director determines that there is no )lrohllhle elluse evidence to believe that the property should be considered for inclusion on the Inventory, or the Community Development Director fails to make a determination within thirty (30) days of the submission of a complete application for such a determination, the Community Development Director shall issue a written verification that the alteration, land use application or building permit application may proceed without further review under this Section. The Historic Preservation Commission and City Council shall be provided with a copy of the Community Development Director's determination, along with photograph(s) of the property and shall have 7 days to initiate designation according to the procedures of Section 26.415.030, Designation of historic properties. If neither HPC, nor City Council take such action, the Community Development Director's written verification shall be effective for a period offke (5) yellrs ten (10) years after the date of issuance, and the Community Development Director, HPC or City Council may not file a reapplication for designation of the same property or district on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark, Sites and Structures during that period. LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REpORT PAGE 7 2. If, usinl.!: the desil.!:nation criteria of Section 26.415.030.B. the Community Development Director determines there is prallallle eaUBe evidence to believe that the property should be considered for inclusion on the Inventory, then: a.) There shall continue to be a prohibition on any alteration, land use application or building permit application affecting the subject property for a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days beginning on the date that the Community Development Director makes such a written determination or until the matter of landmark desil.!:nation is decided bv Citv Council. whichever is sooner. The property owner may appeal the Community Development Director's determination to the City Council pursuant to Section 26.316, Appeals. The one hundred and eighty (180) day prohibition on the activities described above will be extended for a time period equal to that required to conclude the appeal process. b.) The Community Development Director shall initiate an application for designation pursuant to Section 26.415.030, Designation of historic properties. All contents of the application will be sent to the property owner by registered mail at least thirty (30) days before a public hearing takes place at the Historic Preservation Commission. If an appeal of the Community Development Director's determination is granted, the designation application will be withdrawn. 3. Any owner who takes action to alter or demolish a property, including purposeful removal, change or damage to any exterior materials, features, portions of a building, or structural members of a building before the Identification of Potential Historic Resources is complete as described in this Section shall be subject to the penalties established in Section 26.415.140, Penalties. The Community Development Department must demonstrate to City Council, using date stamped photographs, that the exterior of the building has been altered after the adoption date of this ordinance in order to apply penalties. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the proposed amendment to the Municipal Code complies with the applicable review criteria and should be approved. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance #_, Series of 2007, on First Reading. Attachments: Exhibit A: Amendments to the Land Use Code - Staff Findings LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REpORT PAGE 8 EXHIBIT A Amendments to the Land Use Code Section 26.310.040 - Standards for Review of an Amendment to the Text of Title 26: In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. I? YES ortions of the Title. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: Does it Com I ? YES Staff finds that the amendment supports the Historic Preservation element of the AACP, which includes the goals of making improvements to the historic reservation rocess and rotectin all buildin s of historic si nificance. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. STAFF FINDING: Does it Com I ? YES The code amendments have no direct affect on land uses. The effect ofthe proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. STAFF FINDING: Does it Com I ? YES The code amendments have no effect on traffic eneration and road safe Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. STAFF FINDING: I Does it Comply? I YES There will be no additional affect on infrastructure as a result of this code amendment. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. I STAFF FINDING: I Does it Comply? I YES LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REpORT PAGE 9 This code amendment has no direct impacts on the natural environment, however, preservation can have less negative effect on the natural environment than new construction. Whether the proposed amendment IS consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. STAFF FINDING: Does it Com I ? YES Aspen's physical character is in great part defined by the community's historic resources. Ensuring that Aspen has an effective historic preservation process will allow us to be more successful in protecting this character, which is vitally important to the econom and livabili of town. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. STAFF FINDING: Does it Com I ? NOT ApPLICABLE Historic Preservation is an increasingly difficult task in Aspen because of high property values. Demolition of properties before they have been properly evaluated for historic si nificance is an on- oin risk. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. STAFF FINDING: Does it Com I ? YES Staff finds that the proposed amendment will not be in conflict with the public interest and, in fact, will help to protect the public interest by preserving historic structures for eve one to en' 0 . LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REpORT PAGE 10 ORDINANCE NO. ~ 6 (Series of 2007) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING CHAPTER 26.415 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE, DEVELOPMENT INVOLVING THE ASPEN INVENTORY OF HISTORIC LANDMARK SITES AND STRUCTURES OR DEVELOPMENT IN AN "H," HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT WHEREAS, in light of the on-going demolition of buildings, structures or objects that may have historical significance for the City of Aspen, the City Council adopted an Emergency Ordinance, Ordinance #30, Series of2007, on July 10, 2007. The Ordinance amended Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, specifically Chapter 26.415 Development Involying the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures or Development in an "H" Historic Oyerlay District and established a new process for the identification and protection of potential historic resources. The Ordinance was adopted to address the negative impacts that the loss of landmark eligible buildings would have on the health, peace, safety, and general well-being of the residents and visitors of Aspen, and the diminishment of Aspen's unique architectural character, livability and attractiveness as a destination; and WHEREAS, City Council subsequently directed the Community Development De- partment to prepare further amendments to the historic preservation ordinance, including limit- ing the protection of potential historic resources to a list of properties which are at least 30 years old and which, in staffs opinion are associated with architectural styles and historical trends which represent Aspen's first one hundred years of history, most particularly Aspen's development since World War II. Said list is attached to this Ordinance as "Exhibit A;" and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommends approval of the pro- posed additions and amendments to Section 26.415. of the Municipal Code, as described herein; and, WHEREAS, the amendments to the Land Use Code are delineated as follows: . Text being removed is bold and strikethrough. Te)(t being remoyes looks like tffi& . Text being added is bold and underline. Text being added looks like this. . Text which is not highlighted is not affected; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing to con- sider the proposed amendments to the above noted Chapter and Section on October 2, 2007, took and considered public testimony and the recommendation of the Community Devel- opment Director and recommended, by a x-x vote, City Council adopt the proposed amendments to the land use code by amending the text of the above note Chapters and Sec- tions of the Land Use Code, as described herein. Ordinance #_, Series 2007 Page 1 of15 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 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the City Council hereby amends 26.4 I 5.030, Designation of Historic Properties, which section describes the process and crite- ria through which the city designates properties of historical, architectural, archaeological, en- gineering and cultural importance, to add and delete the following: 26.415.030 Designation of historic properties. The designation of properties to an official list, that is known as the Aspen Inventory of His- toric Landmark Sites and Structures which is maintained by the City of Aspen, is intended to provide a systematic public process to determine what buildings, areas and features of the his- toric built environment are of value to the community. Designation proyides a means of de- ciding and communicating, in advance of specific issues or conflicts, what properties are in the public interest to protect. A. Establishment of the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. 11: Aspen Inyentory of Historic Landmarks Sites and Structures has been established by City Council to formally recognize those districts, buildings, structures, sites and objects located in Aspen that have special significance to the United States, Colorado or Aspen history, architec- ture, archaeology, engineering or culture. The location of properties listed on the Inventory shall be indicated on maps on file in the Community Development Department. B. Criteria. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, an individual building, site, structure, or object or a collection of build- ings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. The signifi- cance of properties shall be evaluated according to the following criteria. When designating a historic district, the majority of the contributing resources in the district must meet the criteria described below: 1. A property or district is deemed significant for its antiquity, in that it is: a. In whole or in part more than one hundred (100) years old, and b. It possesses an appropriate degree of integrity oflocation, setting, design, mate- rials, workmanship and association, given its age; or Ordinance #_, Series 2007 Page 2 of 15 2. A property or district is deemed significant as a representation of Aspen's 20th century history, was constructed in whole or in part more than thirty (30) years prior to the year in which the application for designation is being made, pos- sesses sufficient integrity oflocation, setting, design, materials, workmanship, and association; and is related to one or more of the following: a. An event, pattern or trend that has made a significant contribution to local, state, regional or national history; or b. People whose specific contribution to local, state, regional or na- tional history is deemed important and the specific contribution is iden- tified and documented; or, c. A physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman or design philosophy that is deemed important. 3. A property that was constructed less than thirty (30) years prior to the year in which the application for designation is being made may be considered under subsec- tion 2, aboye, ifthe application has been filed by the owner of the property at the time of designation or, when designating a historic district, the majority of the contributing resources in the district meet the thirty (30) year age criterion described above. 4. The construction date of a property shall be established by the date ofissuance of the earliest building permit for the subject structure found in the records ofthe City of Aspen Community Development Department, or bona fide records submitted bv the Property Owner. If there are no building permit records available, the building shall be assumed to be, in whole or in part, at least thirty (30) years old. 5. The Historic Preservation Commission shall adopt, maintain, and make available to the public guidelines, score sheets, and other devices used by the Commission to apply the criteria set forth in this Chapter to properties potentially eligible for inclusion on the Inventory. C. Application. The property owner(s), the Community Development Director, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) or the City Council may file an application for designation of a building, district, site, structure, or object on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. The application for the designation of a property or collection of properties shall include the following: I. The applicable information required in section 26.304.030(8)(1),(2),(3) and (4). 2. Site or historic district boundary map. Ordinance #_, Series 2007 Page 3 of 15 3. Property or district description including narrative text, photographs and/or other graphic materials that document its physical characteristics. 4. Written description of how the property meets the criteria for designation. 5. Identification of the character-defining features that distinguish the entity which should be preserved. 6. If the orooerty owner does not consent to the aoplication for designation. the owner mav choose to orovide anv evidence of economic hardshio. to be reviewed as part of the designation hearin!!: before City Council accordin!!: to Section 26.415.030.D.6. D. Review, public hearings and notice. 1. The Community Denlopment Department shall maintain a database indi eating the eonstruetion date of all stmetures within the City of I.spen. The eon struetion date ora proper!)' shall be established by the date ofissuanee oCthe ear liest building permit for the subjeet strueture feund in the reeords of the City of Aspen Community Development Department. If there are no building permit re eords Il'railable, the struetuFc shall be assumed to be, in whole or in part, at least thirty (30) years old. This database shall be available for pub lie inspeetion during normal business hours and on the Community De"/elopment Department's web site. ~1. An application for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures shall be transmitted to the Community Development Director to determine ifthe application is complete. For applications filed with sufficient informa- tion, a report will be prepared by City staff for transmittal to the HPC with the relevant information on the proposed historic property or district with a recommendation to ap- prove or disapprove and the reasons for the recommendation. ~2. A date for a public hearing on a complete application shall be scheduled before the HPC. Notice ofthe hearing shall be provided according to the provisions of section 26.304.060(E)(3)( a)(b)( c) except when the Community Development Director, HPC or City Council is the applicant. When the Community Development Director, HPC or City Council is the applicant, notice of the hearing. a COpy oCthe comolete Land Use Aoplication. and the staff memo shall be mailed to the owner oCthe subiect prop- erty and notice shall be mailed to the property owner(s) within three hundred (300) feet ofthe property and posted on the subject property for at least thirty (30) days prior to the hearing. Notice to the property owner shall be by registered mail. In the event that there is no evidence that the property owner received actual notice, the HPC may specify that additional measures be taken. 4.3. The HPC shall evaluate the application to determine if property or district meets the criteria for designation. At the public hearing the property owner, parties of inter- Ordinance #_, Series 2007 Page 4 of 15 est, and citizens shall have an opportunity to provide information about the property or district's eligibility for designation. The HPC may recommend approval, disapproval or continuance of the application to request additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. If the owner ofthe subject property has not consented to the application. a recommendation to approve desil!nation must be supported bv a vote of a maioritv. plus one. of the rel!ular members of the board present and votinl! at the meetinl!. Any less than a majoritv plus one in favor shall be considered a recommendation of denial. HPC's =HteiF recommendation shall be forwarded to City Council. SA. Upon receipt of the decision, report, and recommendations of the HPC, the City Council shall schedule a hearing on the application in accordance with the notice re- quirements for adopting an ordinance. Council shall evaluate the application to deter- mine if the property or district meets the criteria for designation. At the public hearing the property owner, parties of interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to provide information about the property or district's eligibility for designation. The Council may approve, disapprove, or continue the application to request additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. (i...5. If an application is denied, the Community Development Director, HPC or City Council may not file a reapplication for designation of the same Historic Resource, property, or district on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark, Sites and Structures for five (5) years from the date of the City Council disapproval, or until such time that Exhibit A to Ordinance # , Series of2007 is revised, whichever comes later. 6. It is the policv of the Citv of Aspen to respect private property ril!hts. The citv recol!nizes. therefore. that there mav be some circumstances in which the op- eration ofthis chapter, in particular historic desil!nation. could create an undue economic hardship. This provision is created to provide property owners with a means of demonstratinl! that such a hardship may exist, and that the property should not be desil!Ilated y because of that hardship. It is the intent ofthis provi- sion to insure that no private propertv is taken without just compensation. The Citv will establish a Hearinl! Officer to review evidence provided by a prop- ertv owner with rel!ard to economic hardship. The standard of review for deter- mination of economic hardship will be whether desil!nation would result in a vio- lation of the prohibitions of the U.S. and Colorado Constitutions al!ainst takinl! of private property for public use without just compensation as those prohibitions are interpreted by the courts of Colorado and the United States. In applyinl! the standards the economic benefits of financial, developmental, and technical assis- tance from the Citv and the utilization of any federal and state rehabilitation tax credit prOl!rams may be considered. Citv Council will be provided with and will consider the analysis ofthe Hearinl! Officer. and a joint report prepared by the Historic Preservation Officer and the Citv Attorney settinl! forth the citv's re- sponse to the eyidence provided by the property owner. Ordinance #_, Series 2007 Page 5 of 15 Section 2: Pursuant to Section 26.3 10 of the Municipal Code, the City Council hereby amends Section 26.415.035, Designation of Historic Properties, which section describes the process and cri- teria for the Identification of Potential Historic Resources to add and delete the following: 26.415.035. Identification of Potential Historic Resources For those properties listed on "Exhibit A" of Ordinance # , Series of2007, Ne no altera- tions (other than interior remodeling, paint color selection, exterior repainting or replastering similar to the existing finish or routine maintenance such as caulking, replacement offasten- ers, repair of window glazing or other such minimally intrusive or reversible work), no land use applications and no building permit applications shall be undertaken or accepted by the Community Development Department until there has been a determination in accordance with this section that the subject property should not considered for inclusion on the Aspen Inven- tory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures. Alterations, land use applications, and building permit applications which exclusively impact the interior of a building shall be exempt from this Section. The purpose of this determination is to prevent the loss of buildings, sites, struc- tures or objects, or collections of buildings, sites, structures or objects that may have historical, architectural, archaeological, engineering and cultural importance and to limit the detrimental effect of development or demolition on the character of the town. Preserving and protecting historic resources promotes the public welfare by making Aspen a more attractive and desir- able place in which to liye and work. No properties shall be added to those identified on "Exhibit A" for a period of ten (10) vears from the date of adoption of this Ordinance, however any property owner mav volunteer for historic desilrnation review. If anv prop- erty on "Exhibit A" is reviewed as described below and denied landmark desi!!:nation. it shall be removed from the list. If the primary structure( s) on any property on "Exhibit A" are destroyed by an act of God or are otherwise declared unsafe bv the Chief Build- in!!: Official, the property shall be removed from the list. A. Procedure: Before any alteration, land use application or building permit application affecting lllluildiBg whieh is in whole or in pllrt, thirt)' (:~O) )'ellrs OF more old a property identified on "Ex- hibit A" may be accepted by the Community Development Department, the Community De- velopment Director shall review the affected property and make a preliminary determination as to whether the property should be considered for inclusion on the Inventory. Ifa building is of unknown age, it shall be assumed that the building is over thirty (30) years old for the pur- pose of this Section. The determination by the Community Development Director shall be based on the criteria stated in Section 26.415.030.B.~ and must be concluded within thirty (30) days after a complete written request is received from the property owner. The written request shall include the property address, the owner's name, address and telephone number, a site plan or survey, photographs of all buildings on the property and their dates of construc- tion. A property owner may make a written request to initiate this process at any time, even if no development is proposed. Ordinance #_, Series 2007 Page 6 of 15 I. If, usinl!: the desil!:nation criteria of Section 26.415.030.B. the Community Development Director determines that there is no probable t1ause evidence to believe that the property should be considered for inclusion on the Inventory, or the Commu- nity Development Director fails to make a determination within thirty (30) days of the submission of a complete application for such a determination, the Community Devel- opment Director shall issue a written verification that the alteration, land use applica- tion or building permit application may proceed without further review under this Sec- tion. The Historic Preservation Commission and City Council shall be provided with a copy of the Community Development Director's determination, along with photo- graph(s) of the property and shall have 7 days to initiate designation according to the procedures of Section 26.415.030, Designation of historic properties. If neither HPC, nor City Council take such action, the Community Development Director's written verification shall be effective for a period of five (iI) )'ears ten (0) years after the date of issuance, and the Community Development Director, HPC or City Council may not file a reapplication for designation of the same property or district on the As- pen Inventory of Historic Landmark, Sites and Structures during that period. 2. If, usinl!: the desil!:nation criteria of Section 26.415.030.B. the Community De- velopment Director determines there is probable eause evidence to believe that the property should be considered for inclusion on the Inventory, then: a.) There shall continue to be a prohibition on any alteration, land use application or building permit application affecting the subject property for a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days beginning on the date that the Community Development Direc- tor makes such a written determination or until the matter of landmark desiroation is decided bv City Council. whichever is sooner. The property owner may appeal the Community Development Director's determination to the City Council pursuant to Section 26.3 I 6, Appeals. The one hundred and eighty (180) day prohibition on the ac- tivities described above will be extended for a time period equal to that required to conclude the appeal process. b.) The Community Development Director shall initiate an application for designation pursuant to Section 26.415.030, Designation of historic properties. All contents ofthe application will be sent to the property owner by registered mail at least thirty (30) days before a public hearing takes place at the Historic Preservation Commission. If an appeal of the Community Development Director's determination is granted, the designation application will be withdrawn. 3. Any owner who takes action to alter or demolish a property, including purpose- ful removal, change or damage to any exterior materials, features, portions of a build- ing, or structural members of a building before the Identification of Potential Historic Resources is complete as described in this Section shall be subject to the penalties es- tablished in Section 26.4 I 5. I 40, Penalties. The Community Development Department must demonstrate to City Council, using date stamped photographs, that the exterior of the building has been altered after the adoption date of this ordinance in order to apply penalties. Ordinance #_, Series 2007 Page 7 of15 Section 3. Effect on Existinl! Aoolications. This Ordinance shall not affect any active Land Use Application, existing development order, existing "Determination of No Historic Significance" certificate, or building permit, as such term is used in the Land Use Code. Pre-Application Conferences, Pre-Application Conference Summary reports, or formal or informal discussions with Community Development staff or review Boards shall not constitute a complete application or any other official status. Applications submitted after the effective date of this ordinance shall comply with the terms of this ordinance and of the Land Use Code, as amended. Section 4. Severabilitv. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5. Existinl! Litil!ation. This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 6: A public hearing on the ordinance was held on the _ day of --,2007, 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 _ day of _,2007. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk Ordinance #_, Series 2007 Page 8 of 15 FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of _,2007. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney Ordinance #_, Series 2007 Page 9 of 15 EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE #_, SERIES OF 2007 720 S. Aspen St, Holland House: Parcel Id: 273513119001. Legal Description: EAMES ADDITION SUBDIVISION, BLOCK 9, LOT I & LOT 2 DESC: & 13, & 14. 809 S. Aspen St, Shadow Mountain: Parcel Id: 273513124014; 273513124010; 273513124008; 273513124022; 273513124017; 273513124016; 273513124015; 273513124007; 273513124013; 273513124005; 273513124003; 273513124002; 273513124001; 273513124012; 273513124006; 273513124009; 273513124019; 273513124021; 273513124020; 273513124004; 273513124011, Legal Description: ALL UNITS, SHADOW MOUNTAIN VILLAGE CONDOMINIUMS. 114 E. B1eekerSt: Parcel Id: 273512437010; 273512437009. Legal Description: BLOCK 65, 114 EAST BLEEKER CONDOMINIUMS. 118 E. Bleeker St: Parcel Id: 273512437012; 27351243701 1. LegaIDescription: BLOCK 65, HOGUET CONDOMINIUMS. 970 Cemetery Ln: Parcel Id: 273512208006. Legal Description: SNOWBUNNY SUBDIVISION, BLOCK I, LOT 3. 408 E. Cooper Ave: Aspen Sports Parcel Id: 2737-182-16-009, Legal Description: BLOCK 89, LOT PART OF L&M. 617 E. Cooper Ave, Aspen Square: Parcel Id: 273718243001; 273718243022; 273718243018; 273718243025; 273718243023; 273718243101; 273718243003; 273718243049; 273718243006; 273718243051; 273718243034; 273718243012; 273718243008; 273718243102; 273718243047; 273718243085; 273718243039; 273718243104; 273718243033; 273718243041; 273718243063; 273718243054; 273718243508; 273718243053; 273718243105, Legal Description: BLOCK 101, ALL UNITS, ASPEN SQUARE CONDOMINIUMS. 832 E. Cooper St, Viking Lodge: Parcel Id: 2737-182-28-007, Legal Description: BLOCK I 1 I, LOT R & S. 1001 E. Cooper Ave, Villager Townhouses: Parcel Id: 273718234012; 273718234010; 273718233504; 273718234008; 273718234007; 273718234005; 273718234009; 273718234006; 273718233801, Legal Description: BLOCK 37, ALL UNITS, VILLAGER TOWNHOUSE CONDOMINIUMS. 1101 E. Cooper Ave, Hildur Anderson: Parcel Id: 273718139801, Legal Description: ANDERSON SUBDIVISION, LOT 1. Cooper Avenue, Hyman Avenue and Mill Street Pedestrian Malls 1411 Crystal Lake Rd: Parcel Id: 273718243004, Legal Description: RIVERSIDE PLACER U.S.M.S. #3905 AM. SECT,TWN,RNG:18-10-84 DESC: TRACT OF LAND IN NE4 OF SEC 18-10-84 & BEING PART OF THE RIVERSIDE PLACER USMS 3905 AM DESC AS FOLLOWS BEG AT A PT WH COR 9 OF SAID RIVERSIDE PLACER BEARS S 00 02'E 242.39 FT TH N 00 02'W 150 FT TH N 89 58'E 150 FT TH S 00 02'E 150 FT TH S 89 58'W 150 FT TO THE PT OF BEG SAID TRACT CONT 0.5 I 7 AC BK 244 PG 944 BK 268 PGS 26-27 BK 293 PG 960 & WNTY DEED IN BK 495 PG 409 BK 511 PG 233 FROM BENEDICT A TRACT OF LAND BK 625 PG 156 PLUS THE SOUTHERN MOST PARCEL OF LAND IN THE GORDON/CALLAHAN RESUBDIVISION. Ordinance #_, Series 2007 Page 10 of 15 1422-1441 Crystal Lake Rd., Aspen Club Condos: Parcelld: 273718131001 THROUGH 273718131020; 273718131800; 273718131801, Legal Description: ALL UNITS, ASPEN CLUB CONDOMINIUMS. 333 E. Durant Ave., Mountain Chalet: Parcel Id: 273718245002, Legal Description: BLOCK 84, MOUNTAIN CHALET PUD SUBDIVISION. 555 E. Durant St, North of Nell: Parcel Id: 273718249002 THROUGH 273718249058; 273718249060; 273718249061; 273718249062, Legal Description: ALL UNITS, NORTH OF NELL CONDOMINIUMS. 100 E. Francis St., Given Institute: Parcel Id: 273512419851, Legal Description: BLOCK 63, LOT A - LOT F, DESCRIPTION: A PARCEL OF LAND BEING ALL OF BLK 63 PART OF FRANCIS ST PART OF CENTER ST & PART OF THENW4 OF THE SW4 OF SEC 7-10-84 & PART OF THE NE4 OF THE SE4 OF SEC 12-10-85 SAID PARCELS DESC AS BGNNG AT A PT OF THE N LINE OF FRANCIS ST & 24.00 FT EL Y OF THE W LINE OF CENTER ST TH N 14 DEG 50'49" E 121.59 FT TH N 33 DEG 03'19"E 42.21 FTTHN 7 DEGl9'05"E 112.35 FTTH S 70 DEG 18'15"E 286.57 FTTH S 6 DEG 18'51 "W 103.11 FT TH 18 DEG 12'00"W 108.73 FT TH 9 DEG 25'21"E 52.10 FT TH S 23 DEG 21 'OO"E 83.49 FT TO THE STHL Y LINE OF FRANCIS ST EXTENDED EL Y TH N 75 DEG09'1 I"W288.99FTTOTHENW COR OF BLK 64 THN 31 DEGOO'50"W 107.29FT TO THE POB. 210 W. Francis Ave: Parcel Id: 273512417005, LegaIDescription: BLOCK 48, LOT P & Q. 621 W. Francis St: Parcel Id: 2735142426011; 2735142426012, Legal Description: BLOCK 22, REEDS HOUSE CONDOMINIUM. 624 W. Francis St: Parcel Id: 273512409012, Legal Description: BLOCK 21, STARRI CONDOMINIUMS, UNIT B. 626 W. Francis St: Parcel Id: 273512409011, Legal Description: BLOCK 21, STARRI CONDOMINIUMS, UNIT A. 631 S. Galena St/ 630 S. Galena! 710 S. Galena St/ 711 S. Galena St/ 710 S. Mill St/ 1039 Waters Ave., Alpenblick: Parcel Id: 273718279001 THROUGH 273718279019; 273718279801, Legal Description: ALL UNITS, ALPENBLICK CONDOMINIUMS. 215 S. Garmisch St., Yellow Brick: Parcel Id: 273512436850, Legal Description: BLOCK57, LOT A - LOT S, PLUS VACATED ALLEY. 233 Gilbert St ., Skier Chalet Lodge: Parcel Id: 2735 I 3 I 19002, Legal Description: BLOCK 9, LOTS 5 - LOT 10 AND LOTS 4 & 11 LESS THE W 22' EAMES ADDITION SUBDIVISION. 700 W. Gillespie St., Aspen Center for Physics: Parcel Id: 273512129803, Legal Descrip- tion: LOT 3, ASPEN MEADOWS SUBDIVISION. 110 E. Hallam St., Red Brick: Parcel Id: 273707313801, Legal Description: BLOCK 71, LOTS K,L,M & FRACTIONAL LOTS A, B, & C, BLOCK 64, LOTS A-I & LOTS K-S AND A STRIP OF LAND. 327 W. Hallam St: Parcel Id: 273512434001, Legal Description: BLOCK 43, LOTS A -C. 928 W. Hallam St: Parcel Id: 273512300015, Legal Description: BLOCK 4, LOTS PARTK, L & M SECT,TWN,RNG:12-10-85, TRACT OF LAND IN SW4 (ALSO SOMETIMES KNOWN AS LOT 9) SEC 12-10-85 DESC BY M!B BK 385 PG 357 & TRACT FORMERLY KNOWN AS PARCEL C OF HERNDON SUB FIRST AMENDMENT. 122 W. Hopkins Ave: Parcel Id: 273512455004, Legal Description: BLOCK 59, LOTS M & N. Ordinance #_, Series 2007 Page 11 of 15 129 E. Hopkins Ave: Parcel Id: 273512458004, LegaIDescription: BLOCK 68, LOTS G- I. 211 W. Hopkins Ave: Parcel Id: 273512463003, Legal Description: BLOCK 53, LOTS F & G. 608 W. Hopkins Ave, Madsen Chalet: Parcel Id: 273512448005, Legal Description: BLOCK 25, LOTS Q, R & S. 700 W. Hopkins Ave: Parcel Id: 273512446015; 273512446018; 273512446012; 273512446011: 273512446021: 273512446020; 273512446022; 273512446014; 273512446013 ; 273512446017; 273512446016; 273512446019; 273512446025; 273512446024; 273512546802; 273512446023, Legal Description: BLOCK 19, ALL UNITS, 700 WEST HOPKINS CONDOMINIUMS. 720 W. Hopkins Ave., Skandia Townhomes: Parcel Id: 273512446007; 273512446009; 273512446010;273512446008;273512446006;273707334006;273512446801, Legal De- scription: BLOCK 19, ALL UNITS, SKANDlA TOWNHOUSES CONDOMINIUMS. 100 E. Hyman Ave., Chalet Lisl: Parcel Id: 273512458005, Legal Description: BLOCK 68, LOTS K-M. 300 W. Hyman Ave., Kitzbuhl Lodge: Parcel Id: 273512464007, Legal Description: BLOCK 46, LOT R & S. 322 W. Hyman Aye: Parcel Id: 273512464005, Legal Description: BLOCK 46, LOTS N & O. 334 W. Hyman Ave., St. Moritz: Parcel Id: 273512464004, Legal Description: ST MORITZ LODGE MINOR PUD SUBDIVISION. 514 E. Hyman Ave., Mason and Morse: Parcel Id: 273718213002, Legal Description: BLOCK 94, LOT N. 606 E. Hyman Ave: Parcel Id: 273718212003, Legal Description: BLOCK 99, LOT K & L. 610 E. Hyman Ave: Parcel Id: 273718212004, Legal Description: BLOCK 99, LOT M. 630 E. Hyman Ave., Patio Building: Parcel Id: 273718212007, Legal Description: BLOCK 99, LOTS R & S. 720 E. Hyman Ave., Aspen Athletic Club: Parcel Id: 273718211008 THROUGH 273718211019; 273718211021 THROUGH 27371821 1031, Legal Description: BLOCK 104, ALL UNITS, ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB CONDOMINIUMS. 301 Lake Ave., Parcel Id: 273512416003, Legal Description: HALLAM ADDITION SUBDIVISION BLOCK 40, EAST 1/2 OF LOT 5 - LOT 7. 120 E. Main St., Design Workshop: Parcel Id: 273512438002, Legal Description: EL Y 20 FT OF LOT M, ALL OF LOTS N & 0 BLOCK 66 & SLY 10FT OF V ACA TED ALLEY ADJACENT ALSO LOT 2 OF US WEST SUBDIVISION. 200 W. Main St., Tyrolean Lodge: Parcel Id: 273512440010, Legal Description: BLOCK 5 I, LOTS R & S. 220 E. Main St., Cortina Lodge: Parcel Id: 273707320707, Legal Description: BLOCK 73, LOTS P&Q. 420 E. Main St: Parcel Id: 273707322801; 273707322014; 273707322015, Legal Description: BLOCK 86, ALL UNITS, GALENA PLAZA CONDOMINIUMS. 435 East Main St., Gas Station/local's corner: Parcel Id: 273707330005, Legal Description: BLOCK 87, LOTS E - I. 520 W. Main St., Ullr Lodge: Parcel Id: 273512498001 THROUGH 273512498027; 273512498801, Legal Description: BLOCK 30, ALL UNITS, ULLR COMMONS CONDOMINIUMS. Ordinance #_, Series 2007 Page 12 of 15 630 W. Main St., Mountain Rescue: Parcel Id: 273512444805, Legal Description: BLOCK 24, LOT M. 730 W. Main St., Hickory House: Parcel Id: 273512445004, Legal Description: BLOCK 18, LOTS M - P. 834 W. Main St/l07 N. Seventh St., Bavarian Housing: Parcel Id: 273512380014 THROUGH 273512380021, Legal Description: ALL UNITS, BAVARIAN INN CONDOMINIUMS. 24 McSkimmingRd: Parcel Id: 273718100054, Legal Description: BLOCK 19, LOT 6 & 7 RIVERSIDE ADDN & A TRACT OF LAND IN SE4 OF NE4 OF SEC 18- I 0-84 BEING A PART OF HIGHLAND PLACER USMS NO 6120 & THE RIVERSIDE PLACER USMS NO 3905 DESC AS FOLLOWS BEG AT A PT ON LINE 2-3 OF SAID HIGHLAND PLACER WH COR 2 OF SAID PLACER BEARS S I 25' W 886.26 FT TH N 47 50'W 19.88 FTTO THE E R-O-W LINE OF A RDTHNELY ALONG SAID R-O-WFTMIL TH S 60 05'E 122.04 FT TO LINE 2-3 OF THE HIGHLAND PLACER TH S I DEG 25'W TO THE PT OF BEG TOGETHER WITH IMPS THEREON BK 231 PG 84. 232 McSkimming Rd: Parcel Id: 273718103007, Legal Description: BLOCK 2, LOT2, ASPEN GROVE SUBDIVISION. 592 McSkimming Rd: 273718102003, Legal Description: BLOCK 3, LOT 4, ASPEN GROVE SUBDIVISION 745 Meadows Rd: Parcel Id: 273512201003, Legal Description: BLOCK I, LOT 3, SNOBBLE SUBDIVISION. 765 Meadows Rd: Parcel Id: 273512201002, Legal Description: LOT 2, SNOBBLE SUBDIVISION. 119 S. Mill St., Wells Fargo Bank: Parcel Id: 273707329009, Legal Description: BLOCK 80, LOTS P - S. 307 S. Mill St., D-19 Restaurant: Parcel Id: 273718217004, Legal Description: ASPEN COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUM, UNIT:B. 536 W. North St., Christ Episcopal Church: Parcel Id: 2735121 I 1808, Legal Description: BLOCK 99, LOTS 1 1- 15 HALLAM ADDITION. 403 Park Ave: Parcel Id: 273707404010 THROUGH 273707404019, Legal Description: ALL UNITS, MARTHINSSON-NOSTDAHL CONDOMINIUMS. 404 Park Aye: Parcel Id: 273707404705, Legal Description: LOT 3, SUNNY PARK SUBDIVISION. 411 Pearl Ct: Parcel Id: 273512110002, Legal Description: BLOCK 101, LOTS 7 & 8 & A STRIP OF LAND SITUATED IN BLK 101 HALLAMS ADDITION BEING ONE HALF OF THE ALLEY WIDTH ADJ TO THE SLY BORDER OF LOT 7 & 8 HALLAM ADDITION. 434 Pearl Ct: Parcel Id: 273512109002, Legal Description: BLOCK 100, SOUTH 1/2 OF LOT 2 AND LOT 3, HALLAM ADDITION. 119 Red Mountain Rd: Parcel Id: 273707213002, Legal Description: LOT 2, ODEN SPLIT SUBDIVISION. 246 Roaring Fork Dr: Parcel Id: 273718120017, Legal Description: LOT 23, EASTWOOD SUBDIVISION. 258 Roaring Fork Dr: Parcel Id: 273718120016, Legal Description: LOT26, EASTWOOD SUBDIVISION. 850 Roaring Fork Rd: Parcelld: 273512126001, Legal Description: LOT I, MERRIAM SUBDIVISION. Ordinance #_, Series 2007 Page 13 of15 54 Shady Ln: Parcel Id: 273707200026, Legal Description: SECT,TWN,RNG:7-1O-84, TRACT OF LAND BEG AT A PT ON THE EL Y R-O- W OF THE D&RGW RR (ASPEN BRANCH) WH THE W4 COR OF SAID SEC 7 BEARS W 602.4FTTH E214.6 FT TO THE WL Y R-O- W LINE OF RED MOUNTAIN RD TH ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS N 12 DEG 56'E215.5FTTOTHE CENTER OFHUNTER CREEK TH S ALONG THE CENTER OF HUNTER CREEK ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS S 68 DEG 02'04""W 296.19 FT TO THE EL Y LINE OF SAID RR R-O- W TH S 08 DEG 57'E 90.6 FT ALONG THE EL Y LINE OF SAID RR R-O-W TO THE PT OF BEG LESS A TRACT CONT 0.0924 AC MIL DEEDED TO PITKIN CO FOR RDWY DRAINAGE EASEMENT BK 554 PGS 159-161 &185 SUBJECT TO US PATENTRESERV ATIONS BK35 PG 116 R-O-W GRANTED BY BK 29 PG 582. 69 Shady Ln: Parcel Id: 273707300012, Legal Description: BEG AT POST STANDING ABOUT 30 FT S OF THE S BK OF HUNTER CREEK & 50 FT W FROM THE CENTER OF THE D&RGW RR TRACK SAID POST BEING AT THE NW COR OF PARCEL OF GROUND DEEDED TO SAID D&RGW RR CO BY THE HALLAM LAND CO TH SLY PARALLEL WITH THE D&RGW RR 266 FT TO THE N BK OF THE ROARING FORK RIVER TH FOLLOWING THE N & ET BK OF THE ROARING FORK RIVER WITH COURSES WL Y & NL Y 78 FT TO S BK OF HUNTER CREEK AT ITS JUNCTION WITH ROARING FORK RIVER TH N. 89 44'E 220 FT TO THE PLACE OF BEG TOGETHER WITH ALL WATER RIGHTS PERTAINING THERETO SITUATE LYING & BEING IN SEC 7-10-84 BK 311 PG 307 BK 512 PG 253. 28 Smuggler Grove: Parcel Id: 273718123002, Legal Description: LOT 2, JUKATI SUBDIVISION. 500 West Smuggler St: Parcel Id: 273512404006, Legal Description: LOTS Q, R &S, BLOCK 26. 949 W. Smuggler Ave: Parcel Id: 273512212001, LegaIDescription: BLOCK 3, LOT A- 1. 1208 Snowbunny Ln: Parcel Id: 273512218800; 273512218002, Legal Description: CEDARWOOD CONDOMINIUMS, UNIT 1. 1210 Snowbunny Ln: Parcel Id: 273512218001, Legal Description: CEDARWOOD CONDOMINIUMS, UNIT 2. 300 S. Spring St., Hannah Dustin: Parcel Id: 273718227800; 273718227101, Legal Descrip- tion: BLOCK 105, LOTS A - D, ALL UNITS, HANNAH DUSTIN CONDOMINIUMS. 900 Stage Rd., Part of Bar X Ranch: Parcel Id: 273502300006, Legal Description: LEGAL DESCRIPTION TO BE DETERMINED. 219 S. Third St: Parcel Id: 273512465005, Legal Description: BLOCK 39, LOTS 0 - S. 407 N. Third St: Parcel Id: 273512413006, Legal Description: BLOCK 34, LOTS P - S. 615 N. Third St: Parcel Id: 273512110001, Legal Description: BLOCK 101, LOTS 9 & 10. 1000 N. Third St., Aspen Institute (area of Trustee Townhomes, Health Club, Doerr Ho- sier, Restaurant, Sculpture and Gardens: Parcel Id: 273512129008, Legal Description: ASPEN MEADOWS, LOT lA. 1000 N. Third St., Aspen Institute (area of seminar buildings): Parcel Id: 273512129809, Legal Description: ASPEN MEADOWS, LOT I B. 700 Ute Ave., Aspen Alps: Parcel Id: 273718255001 thru -01 I; 273718255013 thru -017; 273718272001 thru 016; 273718239001 thru -006; 273718239061; 273718239014; 273718271001 thru_009;27371820700Ithru-009;273718256002;27371829500Ithru-008; Ordinance #_, Series 2007 Page 14 of 15 273718262001 thru-008;273718269001 thru-013;273718272999;273718244001thru-008, Legal Description: ALL UNITS, ASPEN ALPS CONDOMINIUMS, ASPEN ALPS WEST CONDOMINIUMS, ASPEN ALPS NORTH, AJAX, MOSES LOT SPLIT, ASPEN ALPS SOUTH. 1280 Ute Ave., Benedict Building: Parcel Id: 2737 I 8 I 5600 I thru -003; 2737 I 8 I 56005 thru- 020; 273718156023 thru -034; 273718156036; 273718156129; 273718156131; 273718156804; 273718156821; 273718156822; 273718156835, Legal Description: ALL UNITS, POWDERHOUSE CONDOMINIUMS. 1005 Waters Ave: Parcel Id: 273718282001, Legal Description: BLOCK 41, LOTS A-C, EAST ASPEN ADDITION. 1102 Waters Ave: Parcel Id: 273718266001, Legal Description: LOT 14, CALDERWOOD SUBDIVISION. 610 S. West End St., Gant: Parcel Id: 273718267001 thru -015; 273718267017 thru -029; 273718267036thru-046; 273718267048 thru-050; 273718267053 thru-05 6;273718267058 thru -067; 273718267069 thru -070; 273718267072 thru -078; 273718267080 thru -097; 273718267100 thru -107; 273718267109 thru -I I I; 273718267113 thru-143, Legal Descrip- tion: ALL UNITS, GANT CONDOMINIUMS. 95 Westview Dr: Parcel Id: 273718121004, Legal Description: BLOCK I, LOT 7, KNOLLWOOD SUBDIVISION. Ordinance #_, Series 2007 Page 15 of 15 MEMORANDUM VRb TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk DATE: September, 28, 2007 RE: Ordinance #43, Series of2007 - Re-establishing the Commercial Core & Lodging Commission REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staffrecommends adoption of Ordinance #43,2007, on first reading, which ordinance reestablishes the Commercial Core & Lodging Commission as a permanent board. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: At the September II, 2007 work session with the member of the CCLC, Council recommended that staff draft an ordinance with the following changes: Composition shall consist of7 members and 1 alternate who shall serve a term of four years. This is consistent with other appointed boards. In addition Council suggested there be no expiration of the board. No other commissions have a sunset date. BACKGROUND: Council established the CCLC in 1981, to advise and recommend programs for the core such as circulation, signage, mall improvements, graphics etc. The CCLC is involved in existing core activities such as mall leases and the Saturday Market. A sub-committee of CCLC reviews all applications for the Saturday Market. The CCLC is the liaison between businesses and Council. Since their inception, CCLC has tackled newspaper racks, trash compactors, and ordinance. CCLC worked with staff on the Downtown Enhancement Pedestrian Plan which was installed on Mill and Hyman. CCLC was instrumental in establishing the original farmer's market and later recommended to Council its expansion to two blocks. CCLC worked with the city's downtown business catalyst and with individual business to establish a business improvement district. Ordinance 1 was amended by Ordinance 56, Series of 1981, which reduced the quorum from 4 to 3. The term was set to expire December 31,1985. Ordinance 24, Series of 1986, reenacted the board for another 5 years. Ordinance 6, Series of 1988, changed the geographical area under the board's purview to encompass Dean Street, Monarch Street, Spring Street and the Lodge zones at the base of Aspen Mountain. The original geographical area was Main to Durant and Hunter to Monarch streets. The Commercial Core & Lodging Commission term was further extended by Ordinance 49, Series of 1991. In 2001 Council adopted Ordinance 40 (attached) which renewed the term of operation for the Commercial Core & Lodging Commission and increased the number of members to 5 regular members and 2 alternates and set a sunset date of December 31, 2006. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMP ACTS: The CCLC is currently staffed by personnel from the City Clerk's office and creating the CCLC as a permanent board should not incur any additional costs. At the CCLC/Council work session in September, CCLC requested a budget of $40,000. Council directed staff to address this request at budget time. The City Manager recommends any funding requests for specific projects be evaluated on a cash by case basis for funding out of the general fund. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: As this is an existing Board, there should be no enviromnental impacts. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt on first reading the attached Ordinance and set the public hearing for October 22, 2007. ALTERNATIVES: Council could dissolve the board. This would result in Council having to review and approve the mall leases; appoint a staff person to oversee the Saturday market and to deal with the commercial core issues. Council could also adopt an ordinance extending the term ofCCLC for another five years. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to read Ordinance #43 , Series of2007" and "I move to adopt on first reading Ordinance #43 , Series of 2007". CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance #43, 2007 Ordinance 40, 2001 Current CCLC Board Members ORDINANCE NO. Jf3 (Series of 2007) AN ORDINANCE CREATING THE COMMERCIAL CORE AND LODGING COMMISSION, DESCRIBING THE COMPOSITION, TERM AND QUALIFICATIONS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS, THEIR POWERS, AND DUTIES; PROVIDING FOR APPEALS BY PERSONS AGGRIEVED BY ACTIONS OF THE COMMERCIAL CORE AND LODGING COMMISSION AND ESTABLISHING RULES OF PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE COMMERCIAL CORE AND LODGING COMMISSION IN EXERCISING IT'S FUNCTIONS. WHEREAS, the City Council established the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission by Ordinance No.1 (Series of 1981) which was amended by Ordinance No. 56 (Series of 1981) reducing the quorum from 4 to 3. WHEREAS, the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission term was originally set to expire on December 31,1985, and was extended by Ordinance No. 24 (Series of 1986), to December 31, 1991. WHEREAS, by Ordinance No.6 (Series of 1988), the Commission's geographic area of concern was changed and an alternate member was added to the composition of the Commission; and WHEREAS, the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission term was further extended by Ordinance 49 (Series of1991); and Ordinance No. 40 (Series of2001) to December 31, 2006. WHEREAS, staff and Board recommend making this a permanent board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. That the City of Aspen Commercial Core & Lodging Commission is hereby established as follows: Section 2. as follows: (a) The Commercial Core and Lodging Commission shall consist of seven (7) members and (1) alternate who shall serve a term of four (4) years (although there Composition: Term: Oualification. The Commission shall be constituted shall be no restraint on the number of terms any members may serve). Alternates shall vote only in the absence of a regular member. H:cclc coreordinance (b) All original appointments shall be for a period of four (4) years and made by the City Council. (c) All members of the Commission shall serve at the pleasure of the City Council and may be removed by a majority vote of the whole City Council. There shall be no restraint upon the number of terms any member of the commission may serve. (d) No member of the City Council, Mayor, City Employee, not any appointed officials shall serve on the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission. (e) There shall be imposed no age or residency requirement for membership on the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission, nor shall candidates for appointment be required to be qualified electors. Section 3. Powers and Duties. The Commercial Core and Lodging Commission shall have the following powers and duties, all of which shall be exercised subject to the laws ofthe state and municipality, with appropriate conditions and safeguards, and in accordance with the public interest and the most beneficial development of the Aspen Commercial Core and Lodging Area: (a) To advise and recommend further development and implementation of plans and programs for the Commercial Core and Lodging Area such as circulation, parking, sidewalks, landscaping, lighting, signing, graphics, alley improvements, public transit, and improvement to existing mall areas; (b) To develop and recommend methods of funding the above plans and programs, by, for example, exploring and considering special assessment districts, local matching fund programs, capital improvement fund programs and state and federal grant programs; (c) To develop and review programs that various groups may sponsor to promote the Commercial Core and Lodging Area as a whole; (d) To recommend to the City Council such new legislation as it may deem in harmony with its function and the matters given to it for administration, and also to recommend revisions of existing legislation affecting the Commercial Core and Lodging Area's condition, development and administration, as it shall deem advisable for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare; (e) To manage the operation of the Aspen Saturday Market and to advise and H:cclc coreordinance recommend possible future development of future community programs and events in the spirit of the Aspen Saturday Market; (f) To provide a liaison with existing community events and programs and to advise on what efforts might be undertaken to maintain and/or enhance such events and programs; (g) To perform such other duties as the City Council may form time to time by ordinance or otherwise impose upon it. Section 4. Appeals. Any person aggrieved by any action of the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission may appeal such decision or order to the City Council with thirty (30) days from the date of the decision or order appealed from. An appeal is perfected by filing notice thereof with the City Clerk. Such notice shall contain an appropriate reverence to the decision or order appealed from, and duplicate copy of the same shall be forwarded by the City Clerk to the Chairman of the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission. Ifthe City Council fails to provide the remedy prayed for, or any person is otherwise aggrieved by the action of the City Council on appeal, such person may appeal the action within thirty (30) days thereof in a court ofrecord of competent jurisdiction. Review shall not be extended further than to determine whether the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission or City Council has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. Section 5. Rules of Procedure. A quorum for the transaction of business of the Commission shall consist offour (4) of the members. The Commission shall establish regular meetings and special meetings may be called by the Secretary of the Commission on the request of the Chairman or any two members, on at least twenty-four (24) hours written notice to each member of the Commission provided that a special meeting may be held on shorter notice if all members of the Commission are present or have waived notice thereof. No business shall be transacted at any special meeting unless it has been stated in the notice of such meeting. An regular and special meetings of the Commission shan be open to the public except for executive (closed door) meetings as may be permitted by law. Section 6. Severabilitv. 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 shan be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and H:cclc coreordinance shan not affect the validity ofthe remaining portion thereof. Section 7. Public Hearing. A public hearing on the ordinance shan be held on the _ day of ,2007 at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Han, Aspen, Colorado, seven days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shan be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of ,2007. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ,2007. FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this _ day of ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk H:cclccoreordinance Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ORDINANCE NO. Yo (Series of 2001) AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A RENEWED TERM OF OPERATION FOR THE COMMERCIAL CORE AND LODGING COMMISSION UNTIL DECEMBER 31,2006, DESCRIBING THE COMPOSITION; TERM AND QUALIFICATIONS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS, THEIR POWERS, AND DUTIES; PROVIDING FOR APPEALS BY PERSONS AGGRIEVED BY ACTIONS OF THE COMMERCIAL CORE AND LODGING COMMISSION AND ESTABLISHING RULES OF PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE COMMERCIAL CORE AND LODGING COMMISSION IN EXERCISING IT'S FUNCTIONS. WHEREAS, the City Council.established the Commercial Core aild Lodging Commission by Ordinance No.1 (Series of 1981) which ordinance W;lS amended by Ordinance No. 56 (Series of1981); and WHEREAS, the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission term was originally set to expire on D,ecember 31, 1985, and was extended by Ordinance No. 24 (Series of 1986), to December 31, 1991; and . WHEREAS; by Ordinance No. (Series of 1988), the Commission's geographic area.of concern was changed and an alternate member was added to the composition of the Commission; and WHEREAS, the Commercial Core ahd Lodging Commission term was further extended by Ordinance.49 (Series of 1991); and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to re-establish the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission for a period of five (5) years, and to define and establish the geographic area that the Commercial Core. and Lodging Commission should address as that area bounded by Dean Street; Monarch Street; Spring Street; the Lodge and Lodge 1 Zones at the base .of Aspen Mountain; and that pomun of the Ute Avenue area that is primarily devoted to lodging; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to add a second alternate member. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. F.t.hli.hm.",t nft:nmmi..in" . That there is here1;ly established the Commercial Core and Lodging COmnUssion for the City of Aspen, Colorado, for a term ending on December 31, 2006. Nothing herein shall prevent the re-establishment of said Commission on or after December 31, 2006, by appropriate action of the City Council at its electi.on. Section 2. as follows: t:nmpn.itin,,' T~rm' QJ1.liik.tinn The COmnUssi.on shall be constituted (a) The Commercial Core and Lodging Commission shall consist of five (5) members and two alternates who shall serve a term of three (3) years (although there shall be no restraint on the number of terms any members may serve). Alternates shall vote only in the absence of a regular member and when appointed, an alternate shall be designated as acting for the absent mernber. (b) All .original appointments shall be for a period of three (3) years (or the balance of the term of the Commission, whichever is less), and made by the City Council. Nothing herein shall be construed to constitute an extension' of the term of the Commission beyond that provided in Section 1 hereof. (c) All members of the Commission shall serve at the pleasure of the City Council and may be removed by a majority vote of the whole City Council. There shall be no restraint upon the nwnber of terms any member of the commission may serve. (d) No member of the City Council, Mayor, City Employee, not any appointed officials shall serve on the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission. ( e) There shall be imposed no age or residency requirement for membership on the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission, nor shall candidates for appointment be required to be qualified electors. 2 Section 3. Pow",.,. .no Dnn". The Commercial Core and Lodging Commission shall have the following powers and duties, all of which shall be exercised subject to the laws of the state and municipality, with appropriate conditions and safeguards, and in accordance with the public interest and the most beneficial development of the Aspen Commercial Core and Lodging Area: (a) To advise and recommend further development and implementation of plans and programs for the Commercial Core and Lodging Area such as circulation, parking, sidewalks, landscaping, lighting, signing, graphics, alley improvements, public transit, and improvement to existing mall areas; (b) To develop and recommend methods of funding the above plans and programs, by, for example, exploring and considering special, assessment districts, local matching fund programs, capital improvement fund programs and state and federal grant programs;. (c) To develop incentives for participation in and implementation of Commercial Core and Lodging Area programs; (d) To develop and review programs that various groups may sponsor to promote the Commercial Core and Lodging Area as a whole; ( e) Upon referral by the City Council, to review aild recommend approval or disapproval of special uses and programs using downtown streets, sidewalks or malls; (f) To recommend to the City Council such new legislation as it may deem in harmony with its function and the matters given to it for administration, and also to recommend revisionS .of existing legislation affecting the Co=ercial Core and Lodging Area's condition, development and administration, as it shall deem advisable for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare; (g) To perform such other duties as the City Council may form time to time by ordinance or otherwise impose upon it. Section 4. App".l. Any person aggrieved by any action of the Commercial C.ore and Lodging Commission may appeal such decision or order to the City Council with thirty (30) days 3 from the date of the decision or order appealed from. An appeal is perfected by filing notice thereof with the City Clerk. Such notice shall contain an appropriate reverence to the decision or order appealed from, and duplicate copy of the same shall be forwarded by the City Clerk to the Cbairman of the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission. If the City Council fails to provide the remedy prayed for, or any person is otherwise aggrieved by the action .of the City Council on appeal, such person may appeal the action within thirty (30) days thereof in a court of record of competent jurisdiction. Review shall not be extended further than to determine whether the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission or City Council has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. Section 5. Rll1". "fPmr"""T" A quorum for the transaction of business of the Commission shall consist of three (3) of the members. The Commission shall establish regular meetings and special meetings may be called by the Secretary of the Commission on the request of the Chafunan or any two members, on at least twenty-four (24) hours written notice to each member ofthe Commission provided that a special meeting may be held on shorter n.otice if all members of the Commission are present or have waived notice thereof. No business shall be transacted at any special meeting unless it has been stated in the notice of such meeting. All regular and special meetings of the Commission shall be open to the public except for executive (closed door) meetings as may be permitted by law. Citizens shall have a reasonable opportunity to be heard and all minutes and other records of action s of the Commission shall be made available to the public. The Commission shall adopt by-laws for the conduct of its business not inconsistent with the ordinance and shall adopt such rules of procedure as it deems necessary. Section 6. S"v"T"hility If any s.ection, 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 portion thereof. 4 Section 7. Pnhli" H".nng ,A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the J!=I- day of SJ( fyf- , 2001, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the ~ . day of 0 ~ ' 2001. . V .' c ATTEST; . -r. .,.... ~ ,~~-~ Kathryn s. h,ClClerk .. FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this d. day of . CJK-Oaj29!2001-G:\David\COREordinances.doc 2001. 5 COMMERCIAL CORE AND LODGING COMMISSION appointed term Bill Dinsmoor, Chair John Starr Terry Butler, Vice-chair Mark Goodman Don Sheeley, alt Shae' Singer Vacant 4/93 4/96 2/97 12/2003 1/2005 1/2005 1/2005 12/2006 12/2006 1/2008 12/2006 1/2008 1/2008 1/2008 Enablina Leaislation The CCLC was established by Ordinance #1, 1981, and the terms were set at five years or December 31, 1985, whichever is first. Ordinance #24, 1986 extended the commission to December 1991, and Ordinance #49, 1991 extended the commission. Ord. 40, 2001 extended the commission to Dec. 21, 2006; added a second alternate member and revised the term from two years to three years. Powers and Duties A. Advise and recommend on circulation, parking, sidewalks, landscaping, lighting, signing, graphics, alley improvements, public transit, malls. B. recommend methods of funding these programs. C. develop incentives for participation in these programs D. review programs that groups may sponsor to promote the commercial core. E. review special uses and programs using downtown streets or malls F. recommend legislation affecting the commercial core and lodging area's condition, development. Appeals _ Any person aggrieved by any action of the CCLC may appeal to the City Council within 30 days. An appeal is perfected by filing notice with the City Clerk. Meetinas First and third Wednesdays at 8:30 a.m. Membership Qualification - Preference for members "", PETITION FOR DISCONNECTION BY ORDINANCE (De-Annexation of a 6.487-Acre Parcel) OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR CITY COUNCIL TO DIRECT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO EXPEDITE REVIEW OF A LAND USE APPLICATION FOR REZONING, GMQS EXEMPTION AND STREAM MARGIN REVIEW Before the Aspen City Council Applicant: Representatives: Little Star Foundation formerly known as Silver Lining Foundation and Kids Stuff Foundation, Inc. 256 Milagro Way Hesperus, CO 81326 Richard Y. Neiley, Jr. Neiley & Alder, Attorneys 201 North Mill Street, Suite 102 Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 925-9393 Property: Glenn Horn Davis Horn, Incorporated 215 South Monarch Street Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 925-6587 Lot 5, Stillwater Ranch Subdivision, 1490 Ute Avenue City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado 1. INTRODUCTION The Applicant Little Star Foundation!, through its founder Sister Andrea Jaeger and its Board of Directors, has determined that it can no longer continue to operate its non-profit facility in the City of Aspen. Little Star Foundation has been providing long-term care and lifetime opportunities for children with cancer and their families for 16 years, all at no cost to the families. Financial pressures and logistical difficulties, along with the fact that approximately 70% of the Foundation's work is performed at various hospitals around the country, have compelled the Foundation to relocate from its facility at the end of Ute Avenue adjacent to the Aspen Club to a ranch outside of Durango, near Hesperus, Colorado. As a consequence, the Foundation needs to sell its Aspen facility so that it can continue to fund its charitable mission and adapt to the needs of its recipients. The Applicant seeks an Ordinance of the City of Aspen disconnecting its property located at 1490 Ute Avenue from the City of Aspen. The procedure for this request is set forth in the "Disconnection by Ordinance" statute, C.R.S. S 31-12-501, and is sometimes referred to as "de-annexation." De-annexation would effectively return and restrict the property to the single- family residential uses permitted under Pitkin County's approval of the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision. De-annexation would be the most expeditious means of achieving the Applicant's objective. Pitkin County has already allocated a residential allotment to the property. Alternatively, the Applicant requests that City Council direct the City C.ommunity Development Department to expedite an Application for Land Use Review seeking rezoning of the property from its current status, partially Academic (A) and partially Conservati.on (C), to zoning consistent with the surrounding residential land uses, Rural Residential (RR) or Moderate Density Residential (R-15), Growth Management Quota System exemption for change .of use and stream margin review for a single family residential structure. An application for "de-annexation" for the subject property was heard by City Council on May 14, 2007, at which time the application was denied on a 3 to 1 vote. The application was denied based upon a conclusion that de-annexation of the property would not be in the best interests of the City of Aspen. The Applicant is dissatisfied with the outcome of the application. First, subsequent to the hearing, the Applicant learned that City Councilmember Torre had an impermissible conflict of interest but nonetheless had participated in discussions concerning and voted on the application. The letter from the Applicant's attorney to City Attorney John Worcester dated May 25, 2007 regarding the conflict of interest is appended I The Applicant's Foundation was initially incorporated in Colorado under the name Kids Stuff Foundation, Inc. As the work of the Foundation evolved, the name was changed to Silver Lining Foundation to better reflect the Foundation's work. The Foundation is now known as Little Star Foundation. Sister Andrea Jaeger describes the Little Star Foundation name as follows, "There have been thousands upon thousands of children and families we have had the honor to know and provide with love and help. Cancer has claimed the lives of so many children. Families are in a constant state of grief, sorrow and loss. Out of respect to those families, we felt that the Little Star Foundation name would be a wonderful tribute to the daughters and sons, sisters and brothers, friends and family members that lost their lives to cancer and are missed every day, knowing that we all can look for a little star in the sky and imagine that it is a child's heart and spirit shining on all of us." Page 1 of7 hereto as Attachment 7. In brief, Councilman Torre was employed by the Aspen Club at the tirne of the hearing. The Aspen Club is an adjacent property and its principal Michael Fox sought to acquire the subject property at a discounted price through the Cancer Survivor Center which is housed in the Aspen Club and of which Mr. Fox is on the board of directors. As a consequence of Torre's opposition to the application, the Applicant does not believe it received a fair hearing on May 14, 2007. Second, at the May 14, 2007 hearing, City Planning Director Chris Bendon informed City Council that he believed a rezoning application for the subject property could be accomplished in 4 to 6 months. One of the reasons that the Applicant had pursued de-annexation of the property was that City Planning Staff had previously informed the Applicant's representative that rezoning and related land use proceedings would take a considerably longer amount of time than "de-annexation" of the property. Additionally, the consensus was that it would be more expeditious to return the property to single family residential zoning under the pre-existing County regulations and PUD approvals. The implication at the May 14, 2007 hearing was that rezoning of the property could be accomplished as quickly as a de-annexation and subsequent rezoning by Pitkin County. The Applicant's representative has since been informed by Mr. Bendon that the 4 to 6 month time estimate was based upon the Community Development Department receiving direction from City Council to expedite the land use application, direction that was not discussed or given at the May 14, 2007 hearing. Third, at the May 14,2007 hearing, Riggs Klika, a board member of the recently formed Aspen Cancer Survivor Center, had testified that that organization had offered to purchase the subject property for continued non-profit purposes and that other non-profits in the Valley were interested in utilizing the facility. The Aspen Cancer Survivor Center is affiliated with Michael Fox's Aspen Club. The "offer" about which Mr. Klika testified was, however, illusory in that it was for a price of approximately 25% of the value of the property and was not supported by any financial capability. The "offer" was from a newly established non-profit that has no money with which to buy the property and no track record of raising substantial sums of money. Mr. Klika also testified that he had contacted other non-profit organizations in the Valley who expressed interest in using the Little Star facilities. While non-profits might well be interested in the facility, the Specially Planned Area ("SPA") regulations applicable to the property would not permit uses other than those specifically approved for the Applicant's operations. Thus, the suggestion that the property might be appropriate for use as a "non-profit center" is not realistic given the lack of fmancial resources and the restrictive zoning. Furthermore, any change in use would have to be approved by the Stillwater Ranch Homeowners Association, which has already expressed a preference that the property be returned to single- family zoning. Ongoing quasi-commercial uses are in conflict with concerns recently expressed by the City Council in connection with the Aspen Club's application for expansion, related to traffic on Ute Avenue and the appropriateness of such uses in single-family neighborhoods. II. HISTORY/CURRENT STATUS OF THE PROPERTY At the present time, the property is not being utilized as a facility to assist children and families of children with cancer and is listed for sale. The Applicant has concluded that it is simply not economically or practically feasible to continue its mission out of its facility in Page 2 of? Aspen. The Applicant believes that rezoning the property for single-family residential purposes will allow for the prompt sale of the property. The proceeds will be utilized to further the charitable mission of the Little Star Foundation. In December of 1994, the Applicant was deeded the real property that is the subject of this application. Mrs. Benedict conveyed to the Applicant's predecessor Kids Stuff Foundation, Inc., by Bargain and Sale Deed, the real property as a "charitable gift and donation" without any limitation or condition as to its use. Mrs. Benedict expressly informed Sister Andrea Jaeger that she was free to sell the property. A copy of the Bargain and Sale Deed is appended hereto as Attachment 1. The Applicant was free to then sell the property, develop it for charitable, non-profit purposes, or us it for any other purpose it deemed desirable. There are no deed restrictions on the use or sale of the property other than subdivision and zoning regulations (see the title commitment appended hereto as Attachment 9) The Applicant determined that the best use of the property would be the development of a facility for the care and treatment of children with cancer and their families. After a lengthy planning process and extensive fund raising, the Applicant proceeded through the City's annexation and rezoning process to establish its campus on the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision property. In 1997, the Applicant sought annexation into the City of Aspen for purposes of developing a facility to pursue its charitable mission of providing health and related services to children with cancer and their families. By Ordinance No. lC, Series of 1997, the Aspen City Council approved the annexation. A copy of that Ordinance is appended hereto as Attachment 2. As part of the annexation process, the subject property was rezoned, in part to the Academic (A) Z.one District and in part to the Conservation (C) Zone District. The property was designated as a Specially Planned Area ("SPA"). The rezoning and SPA designation were accomplished through a public hearing process resulting in approval of Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1997, a c.opy of which is appended hereto as Attachment 3. Subsequent to rezoning and approval of the SPA plan, the Applicant constructed a facility on the property which is comprised of approximately 13,750 square feet of Floor Area Ratio. The improvements include residential, treatment, food service, recreational and other facilities. The Applicant operated its non-profit facility for the benefit of children with cancer on the property until 2006. During the approximate 7 years of operation, Applicant headquartered its programs at the facility and provided services to thousands of children and their families. During that period of time, the Applicant has established itself as the pre-eminent foundation for providing these unique services. The Applicant, through the tireless efforts of its founder Sister Andrea Jaeger, has gained an unparalleled national and international reputation for quality and compassionate care of children with cancer and their families. However, over the course of its operations, Applicant has realized that maintaining a facility in a city where the cost of services and employees is exceptionally high, where it has proven extremely difficult to fmd qualified Page 3 of? employees, and where the costs and logistics of transportation are frequently challenging, was not the best and most efficient use of the Foundation's resources. Although the Applicant has concluded that continuing its operations in Aspen is not the most economically efficient use of its resources and is not the best logistical location for the children and families it serves, it rernains dedicated to providing these services in the State of Colorado, with all it has t.o offer, as well as nationally and internationally. In the spring of 2006, the Applicant moved its facilities in southern Colorado, southwest of Durango. The Applicant determined that the availability of recreational and related activities at lower costs of operation in the Durango area would enhance the long-term sustainability of the Foundation's work. As a result, the Applicant has decided to sell the property which is the subject of this application and utilize the funds generated from that sale to support, continue and expand its charitable work. The Applicant has contacted the Stillwater Ranch Homeowners Association and has been advised that the Association supports this application. Legal counsel for the Homeowners Association has provided a letter in support of this application, a copy of which is appended hereto as Attachment 5. The subject property will be reincorporated as a residential component of the Subdivision subject to the control of the Association with respect to permitted uses and the extent and design of development and will be restricted to one single-family residence. In summary, the Applicant has concluded that the campus it created for the care and treatment of children with cancer is no longer viable in Aspen. Although the improvements on the subject property are substantial, they may not be suitable for residential use in their current configuration. The Applicant anticipates that, if removed, the improvements will be salvaged and recycled to the greatest extent possible or that the existing building will be remodeled to single-family residential uses. The Applicant, based upon rec.ommendations from its advisors, has concluded that the highest and best use for the property is for a single family residence. It is the Foundation's conclusion, based on extensive atternpts to sell the property with its present improvements to another non-profit, that other non-profits will have a difficult time affording and operating this facility in the same way as the Foundation. The sale of the property for that purpose will generate funds to allow the Applicant to carry on its work with sick children and their families. Since the May 14, 2007 hearing (indeed, since well before that time), the Applicant has attempted to sell the property but has been unable to do so because of the narrowly constrained uses to which the property is restricted. III. DE-ANNEXATION PROCEDURE The practical effect of "de-armexation" is that the subject property will revert to the zoning applicable to the balance of the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision and will be subject to the covenants of that Subdivision, the subdivision approvals and the jurisdiction of Pitkin C.ounty. Those Subdivision approvals expressly restrict development to one single-family Page 4 of? residence and accessory uses on the property. The property will revert to residential use and will be subject to the zoning and floor area ratio restrictions generally applicable to the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision. The Applicant has met with Pitkin County Planning staff and has engaged in a work session with the Pitkin County Commissioners. A copy of Glen Horn's letter of November 14, 2006 to Cindy Houben of the Pitkin County Community Development Department discussing the subdivision approvals for Stillwater Ranch Subdivision and the consequences of de-annexation is appended hereto as Attachment 4. The Applicant believes that Pitkin County will support this application subject to a requirement that the Applicant proceed through a County zoning and site plan review to insure that future development is consistent with the Stillwater Subdivision development approvals.2 The Aspen Municipal Code contains no provisions related to disconnection or de- annexation of properties. However, the Colorado statutes provide a mechanism whereby a property owner can seek to have its property disconnected frorn the City. That statute reads as follows; 31-12-501. Application - enactment - filing. When the owner of a tract of land within and adjacent to the boundary of a city or town desires to have said tract disconnected from such city or town, such owner may apply to the governing body .of such city or town for the enactment of an ordinance disconnecting such tract of land from such city or town. On receipt of such application, it is the duty of such governing body to give due consideration to such application, and, if such governing body is of the opinion that the best interests of the city or town will not be prejudiced by the disconnection of such tract, it shall enact an ordinance effecting such disconnection. If such an ordinance is enacted, it shall be irmnediately effective upon the required filing with the county clerk and recorder to accomplish the disconnection, and two certified copies thereof shall be filed by the clerk in the office of the county clerk and recorder of the county in which said tract lies. The county clerk and recorder shall file the second certified copy with the division of local government in the department of local affairs as provided by section 24-32-109, C.R.S. The procedure to accomplish disconnection is adoption of an ordinance from the City Council following disconnecting the subject property from the City of Aspen. simple and requires only the the required public hearing As stated in the statute, a 2 The memorandum of City Planning Staff of May 8, 2007, a copy of which is appended as Attachment 6, demonstrates that upon rezoning the Floor Area Ratio for the property would be between 11,251 and 13,997 square feet under the City Land Use Code if all of the property was rezoned, and between 8,540 and 9,930 square feet if only a portion of the property was rezoned. As discussed in Glenn Horn's memo to Cindy Houben, redevelopment of the property under the County Subdivision Approvals would result in a residence in the lower range of that permitted under the City Land Use Code. Page 5 of7 disconnection ordinance shall be enacted if the City Council is of the opinion that the best interests of the City of Aspen will not be prejudiced by the disconnection. While the standard for disconnection obviously involves an element of discretion, it is the Applicant's view that the reversion of the subject property to single-family residential uses will not in any way prejudice the best interests of the City. Rather, "de-annexation" will result in a reduction in traffic on Ute A venue and will minimize conflicting uses with surrounding residential properties. IV. REZONING PROCEDURE - CITY OF ASPEN Rezoning to single-family residential uses within the City would be consistent with surrounding zoning and the covenants of the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision. It would also comport with the City's objectives of minimizing traffic on Ute Avenue. The rezoning process is, however, complex, expensive and time consuming. The Applicant was surprised that Mr. Bendon testified at the May 14, 2007 hearing that the rezoning and stream margin review process could be accomplished in as little as 4 to 6 months. Had the Applicant been informed of this when it initially conferred with City staff in 2006, the Applicant would have been in a position to request an expedited review process at the May 14, 2007 hearing. The City rezoning process involves the submission of an application for rezoning, a change of use Growth Management Exemption and stream margin review. The application would have to be considered by both the Planning & Zoning Commission and the City Council. The practical effect of this process would be the vacation of the SPA plan for the property and the inclusion of the property in a residential zone district. If City Council determines that de-annexation is not appropriate for the property, the Applicant believes it would be appropriate for City Council to direct staff to expedite the rezoning process. The Applicant is currently constrained by lack of sufficient fmancial resources to pursue its charitable mission to the fullest extent. Sister Andrea Jaeger has repeatedly stated that the lack of funds to pursue its mission severely restricts its ability to provide comfort and relief to children suffering :from cancer and their families. This lack of funds literally has a negative effect .on the quality of life of children suffering frorn cancer. Each month of delay through the rezoning process is a month during which life supporting work can not be performed by the Applicant with the funds it will realize from the sale of its property. In its memo to City Council in advance of the May 14, 2007 hearing, Planning Staff identified only one specific reason why de-annexation should not be approved for the property. That reason was the loss of tax revenues to the City of Aspen. The property does not presently generate tax revenues to the City. The sooner the property can be rezoned and sold, the sooner the City will receive tax related revenues from the property. City Staff did not identify Page 6 of? any planning or land use reasons why the property should not revert to single-family residential use. V. CONCLUSION The City initially approved the annexation, rezoning and SPA status in 1997 based upon a specific development proposal to create a facility to provide charitable services to children with cancer and their families. Applicant's mission continues despite the fact that it has determined that conducting its operations in a facility in Aspen is impractical. Applicant's facility is now sitting empty and, thus, neither benefits the children that the Little Star Foundation serves nor generates revenues to be used to further its charitable mission. At present, the property is a [mancial burden to the Applicant. Because of the strict limitations of the SPA approval, the facility cannot be used by third party non-profits or others without being rezoned. The result of disconnection will be a reduction of impacts on the City and surrounding properties and, specifically, a significant reduction in historic traffic volume on Ute Avenue. Disconnection would be the most expeditious means of achieving a rezoning of the property. Because of the reduction of impacts, de-annexation with its concomitant reversion of the property to single-family residential use would serve the best interests of the City of Aspen and would facilitate the Applicant's charitable mission. If City C.ouncil directs the staff to expedite rezoning, the property could be converted to single-family residential uses as much as a full year or more sooner than proceeding through the usual land use review time frame. Given the mission of the Applicant, expedited processing of the Application for rezoning would allow the Applicant to more vigorously and effectively assist thousands of children and family members that seek its assistance in times of great personal, emotional and fmancial hardship. Direction to expedite the land use review process would grant to the Applicant a significant benefit in recognition of the work the Foundation has performed in the Aspen community for the past 7 years. A denial of this application would leave the Applicant in limbo regarding its property for perhaps as long as two years. The Applicant is obligated as a non-profit, charitable foundation to seek the greatest value it can for its property. This can best be achieved through disconnection and the subsequent application of Pitkin County zoning and subdivision regulations. Although rezoning through the City land use review process would also achieve this objective, the costs associated with the process will be substantially greater than those related to "de-annexation." The City's land use review process also represents a significantly higher level of uncertainty with respect to the fmal outcome than do existing County land use approvals. The net result of either process would be the return of the property to single- family residential uses, a reduction in .overall traffic impacts on Ute Avenue, and consistency with the uses of the bulk of the neighboring properties. We urge City Council to lend assistance to the work of this longstanding charitable Foundation so it may continue and expand its mission. Thank you. Page 7 of7 ORDINANCE NO. Cf-1i (Series of 2007) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING THE DISCONNECTION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY FROM THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, KNOWN AND DESIGNATED AS THE "LITTLE STAR FOUNDATION RANCH DE-ANNEXATION." WHEREAS, on March 7, 2007, the owner of the property proposed to be disconnected from the City of Aspen did file with the City Clerk of the City of Aspen a "Petition for Disconnection by Ordinance" pursuant to Section 31-12-501, C.R.S; and WHEREAS, Section 31-12-501, C.R.S. sets forth the procedure required to disconnect a tract of land within and adjacent to the boundary of a city. WHEREAS, the City Council does hereby find and determine that approval of the Petition forDisconnection of said territory to be in the City's best interest; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1. That the tract of land described in the Petition for Disconnection, commonly referred to as the "Little Star Foundation Ranch de-annexation", and as legally described below, is hereby disconnected from the City of Aspen, Colorado, in accordance with Section 31-12- 501, C. R.S. Lot 5, Stillwater Ranch Subdivision/PUD, according to the Final Plat thereof recorded December 30, 1994, in Plat Book 35 at Page 86 of the real property records of Pitkin County, Colorado. Section 2. The City Clerk of the City of Aspen is hereby directed as follows: (a) To file one (1) certified copy of this ordinance in the office ofthe City Clerk of the City of Aspen. (b) To certifY and file two (2) copies of this ordinance with the Clerk and Recorder of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the _ day October, 2007. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk J - ',., DavisHom~c;. PLANNING & REAL ESTATE CONSUlTl,NG ''I' . November 14, 2006 ',i Cindy Houben Pitkin County Community Development;Director 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO. 81611 i- RE: Silver Lining Ranch, Stillwater Rahch Lot 5 Dear Cindy: The Kids First Foundation has moved the Silver Lining Ranch to southwest Colorado and is selling the Aspen property where the Ranch has been operating since it was built in 1999. The Silver Lining Ranch is a facility which assists children with cancer..'The Foundation found that cancer patients who visited the Aspen facility had difficulty adjusting to the altitude in Aspen. It is also far more affordable to operate the Ranch in southwest Colorado. Davis Horn Inc has been hired to research the existing development approvals for the property, Stillwater Ranch Lot 5, for p.otential future owners. Of particular interest is the possibility of "disconnecting" the property from the City of Aspen and again becoming a part of unincorporated Pitkin County under the existing Stillwater Ranch approvals which applied to the property prior to annexation into the City of Aspen in 1997. We therefore are providing you this summary of land use actions and approvals related to the property in hopes of returning to these original Pitkin County approvals. Stillwater Ranch Subdivision is a Pitkin County subdivision which contains six lots plus an open space parcel. The Subdivision was approved by the Board of County Commissi.oners pursuant to Resolution 94-223 on December 20, 1994 and is recorded at Book 770, Page 783 of the County records. The Final Plat for the Subdivision is recorded at Plat Book 35,~age 86. Five Growth Management Quota System allotments were granted for five of the she lotspw-suant to BOCC Resolution 94-125. The fathering parcel is Lot 6 which had an existing house (Fritz and Fabi Benedict's house) and did not need a GMQS allocation. (See Attachments 1,2 'and 3 for Resolution 94-233, the recorded plat and Resolution 94-125.) , , , The six lots in Stillwater Ranch Subdivision include the following: t, Lot 1: Approved as a free market lot at general submissi.on; ultimat~ly donat~d by the Benedicts as an affordable housing lot since the project was one GMQS allotmeb.t short after the - first competition. This avoided going to a second year of GMQS cornpetition the following year. At first Lot I wasto be sold as a free market lot with fi.rD.ds going to the affordable housing program, but later approvals were obtained for an affordable housing project which is now built and occupied. ALICE DAVIS AICP I GLENN HORN AICP 215 SOUTHMONARCHST.' SUITE 104'A5PEN,COLORADO 81611 .970/925-6587'fA)(:970/925-5180 adavis@rol.net ghorn@roI.net ;., . Lot 2: ., . f Free market lot, now developed with a 9,701 * square foot house owned by Frederic II; '. ,::J Home*; . Lot 3: Free market lot, now developed with a 9,809* square foot house owned by Thomas Reagan *; Lot 4: Free market lot; under construction; major plat amendment approved to shift and enlarge the approved existing principal building envelope, to establish an accessory building envelope and to amend the floor area for the lot to allow for a day-lighted basement. (See BOCC Resolution #124-2004 in Attachment 4.) This lot is owned by Charles R. Bellock and is approved for I 1,250 aggregate square feet: 8,600 square feet with 2 I 00 sf on the lower level, a maximum of 1,900 square feet exempt sub-grade square feet and a 750 square foot exempt garage. Lot 5: The subject property was originally approved as a free market lot and was granted a GMQS allotment through BOCC.Resolution 94-125. The Kid's First Foundation (Silver Lining Ranch) was the beneficiary of the gift of Lot 5 by the. Benedict family for use as the Silver Lining Ranch. After the, gift, the property was annexed into the City of Aspen through City of Aspen Ordinance No. II of 1997 and Resolution 97-04, both approved in March, of 1997. (See Attachment 5 for these documents.) These documents granted. approval of the annexation, a rezoning from AFR-2 to Academic (A) / Conservation (C)SP A; a GMQS exernption for developrnent associated with a n.on-profit entity, consolidated Conceptual and Final SPA Review, Conditional Use Review and Special Review. All approvals were granted in order t.o develop and operate the Silver Lining Ranch. The facility has 18,000 square feet including several affordable housing units. Lot 6: The former home of Fritz and Fabi Benedict and the fathering parcel of the subdivision, now owned by Peter and Julie Gerson. * Square footage and owners are per Pitkin County Assessor. The Pitkin County approvals for Stillwater Ranch Subdivision are for four free market bedroorns per lot plus additional free rnarket bedr.ooms with further affordable housing mitigation. The approvals for the first four bedrooms require an above grade, deed restricted one-bedroom affordable housing unit to be located within the approved building envelope. More bedrooms would require approval for more affordable bedrooms or cash in lieu. As shown above in the previous individual lot discussions, much larger homes with more than four bedrooms are typical for the Subdivision. The subject property is developed with 15 bedroorns ih 18,000 square feet. Prior to the development .of the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision, Stillwater Ranch Parcels was subdivided into three parcels by state legislation which allowed subdIvision.of land over 36 acres in size. Stillwater Ranch Parcels include Parcel One, with 52 acres that was subdivided into six lots plus the open space parcel in the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision, and Parcels Two and Parcel -2- .'. Three, both 36.02 acre parcels now owneq by the Roll International Corporation. Parcel 3 is developed with a 14, 688 square foot home and Parcel 2 is vacant. There is a 2.45 acres outparcel within the: six l.ot Stillwater Ranch Subdivision owned by Susan and Helen Hunt. This property is surrounded by the subject property, Lot 5 Stillwater Ranch Subdivision. The improvements were built in 1949 and included a 2,686 square feet house, a 306 second separate unit and a 676 square foot shed. , Other surrounding uses are the Fleck house, Callahan Subdivision Lot 12 &12A with 1.9 acres, 6,447 square feet plus a3,275 square foot second unit used as a caretaker unit; Lot 11 Callahan Subdivision with 1.1 acres under construction and the Aspen Club, adjacent to the west. In surmnary, since the Silver Lining Ranch has moved to southwest Colorado, the Kids First Foundation wishes to pursue abandoning .the City approvals, disconnecting from the City, returning to the original single family approvals of the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision and making the subject property subject to and entitled to benefits from the zoning and,subdivision approvals applicable to the other free market lots in the subdivision. This single family u~e was intended for this 6.457 acre lot and is most compatible with the neighborhood and uses in the area. Please let us know if you have any questions or if we can provide further information. At this point, we are simply interested in your opinion regarding this proposal. For your information and convenience, the following attachments have been included. Thank you for your assistance. i ~ , Attachment 1: BOCC Resolution 94-233,approving Stillwater Ranch Subdivision; Attachment 2: Recorded Final Plat for Sti,1,1water Ranch Subdivision; H! 1.(1': Attachment 3: BOCC Resolution 94-125 granting five GMQS allotn;J.entsJor t!:Ie Stillwater Ranch Subdivision Lots 1 through 5; , ',i" Attachment 4: BOCC Resolution 124-2004 granting a major plat amendment approval pertaining to Stillwater Ranch Lot 4; the Bellock property; and Attachment 5: City of Aspen Ordinance No. 11 of 1997 and Resolution 97-04 regarding City approvals for the Silver Lining Ranch. Sincerely, DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED ~ if\. GLENN HORN AICP -3- "", ATTACHMENT-----L- 377678 B-770 SILVIA DAVIS P-783 12/30/94 04.05P PG 1 OF a PITKIN"CoUNTV CLERK & RECORDER REC 0.00 DOC ."DL1l'.l'XCIII Ol' 'f1III lICIUIl Ol' ClOUII'l'Y camaaaxOIIDII Ol' l'X'l'1tDI """.d. COym......., GIIUI'1'DIlI DI'fAILaD UD nDL l'U'l' upall9Uo '1'0 'l'B. a'1'ILLlIA'lBIl KAIICII aVIIDIVIUOII/PDD ll"OlUtiOD 1t4..a3) R:lCI!'U.. 1. Fabienne Benedict, (hereatter "Applicant"), has applied to the Board ot County Commissioners ot Pitkin COunty, (hersatter "Board"), to subdivide the stillwater Ranch into six lots. 2. The subject property ie z.oned AFR-2, PUD.' , J. The property is located adjacent to and e';;st of the city cf Aspen, southwest ot Highway S2, mors specifically desriribed in Exhibit "Au, attached hereto. 4. 'The Planning and Zoning CO....ission reviewed this application at their regularly scheduled publio hearing on January'ls, 1994, and recOlllIllended Gsneral Submission.. approval subject to conditions. ' 5. The Board granted five GlfQS allotments to the applicant by Resolution No. 94-125. 6. The Board heard ths General . Submission application at a regularly scheduled and noticed pUblic hearing on August 3D, 1994, at which tiae evidence and testimony was presented in regard to thie application. 7. The Planning and Zoning commiseion reviewed the Detailed and Final Plat application at their regularly scheduled public meeting on November 8, 1994, and recollllended approval subject to I conditions. S. The Planning and Zoning commission reviewed this application t"j, ,. ,. 377678 6-770 P-784 12/30/94 04.05P PB 2 OF B a..olutioD .0. '4-~ 1>&we a for Scenic Overlay r.quir....ent. at a r.qularly schedul.d public h.arinq on Novuber' 29, 1994, and approv.d the Sc.nic Ov.rlay review subject to conditions by th.ir Resolution No. PZ-94-15. _, 'I'IIJIRBMIIB, BiiI I~ RUOLVlID by the Board of County commissioners that it "hereby grants Detail.d and Final Plat approval to the applicant subj.ct to the following conditions: 1. All utility .xt.n8ione .hall be located underqround, and appropriate ....em.nts shall be dedicated to the various public and private utili1=-ies as may be requir~d. All utility exten.ion. shall be located in the property's existing road system to miniaize eite disturbance. If utility extensions are proposed outside of approved road alig/Ulents , these extensions shall be shown for review and approval 'at' Detailed Submission. 2 . All development on Lots 1 through 5 sh4ll be limited to .cc..e road., the individual driv.ways, utility extensions, irriqation ditches, fences .eetinq Divi;'ion" of i 'Wildlife requirnente and the buildinq envelopes;' 'No disturbance, includinq veqetation reaoval, (unl... requir.d by'the County for 'tire protection) shall occur outside these" areas. Landscapinq outside of buildinq envelopes may be permitted upon approval by the Planninq D.partment. 3 . The applicant ehall d.dicate a fiShing easement 'along the eouth.rly bank of th. riv.r to includ. the river and' five f..t 1'~' \ .< of bank above the hlqh water mark. A fiShing eas..ent shall al.o b. qr.nt.d between the common boundary of the out parcel 377678 8-770 P-785 '12/30/94 04r05P PB 3 OF B ae.ol11~io. 110. ..~ ..q. 3 and Lot 6 and the centerline of the river. The applicant shall work with the County to realign ~hoee portions of the .win~er" trail that are loeated within hazardous avalanche zone., to the extent teseible. 4. All rs.idencae ahell be connected to the Aspen Consolidated Sanita~ion Districts (ACSD) main sewer line ,that runs through the property. The owners of said lots shall pay the ncrmal connection tees, along with an additional prorated surcharq8 tha~ wil.l. be used to rscover the costs of repairing a dOWl\lltreall constraint. The pro rata share shall be determined by the ACSD. If as.wsg's pUlllping' system b nsceesary on any parcel., a conventional. septic tank shall pretreat. effluent prior to discharge into a pUlllping chamber, as recommended by the EnvironllBntal Health Department. S. The applicant shall. _ a ,contribution of $12,600 to the county trails prll9"r.. prior to recordation ot th.. tinal plat. No building' perlllit,shall be issued within the stillwater Ranch Subdivision until the -county shall have expended the oontribution on epecific trails improvemente. 6. The applicant shall obtain access permits and submit erosion and ..diment: control plana .s required to the county Engineer for revisw and approval prior to building permit issuance. 7. The Fire District shall be allowed on the propelrty to check tire hydrants and:watsr' prsssure prior to building permit issuance. 8. The Applicant or owners shall provide one, above grade, low . . '" "- "- ] rtJ OJ "- "' "- "- '" ..aolutioD ~. ,._~1< Paq. I II<,;-J 12. On or bet'ore Karch 1, 1995, the applicant shall form a Homeowners' As.ociation coapri..d of the owner. ot the six (6) lot. in tha stillwater Ranch Subdivi&ion, and ahall convey the Open Space Parcel to the Homeowners' Association. The deed shall reserve the exclusive uae, control and expense of the Open Space parcel to Fabienne Benedict and Fredric A. Benedict for the rest of their lives. 13. Removal of mature veqetation outeide of any buildinq envelope on Lots 1 throuqh 5 is prohibited except as provided .for in OJ "- o Condition 2 above. Removal of mature trees within the buildinq envelopes shall require approval of a tree removal plan by the Planninq Office. 'Mature tree. ,meana any deciduous tree of &ix-inch caliper at diameter-breaet-heiqht or any evergreen taller than six feet in heiqht. 14 . The northern boundary of the buildinq envelope on Lot 1 ehall b1 co a. a. b1 '" " '" " '" "- '" '" "- C\l ~ , be relocated twenty (20) feet to the south to reduce potential visual impacts. The applicant may relocate the e~stern and/ or western boundar_lea of the building envelope so as to .aintain the eize of the buildinq envelope. 15. The buildinq heiqht on Lot 1 ehall be limited to a maximum of 20 feet meaeured from exiatinq grade or finished qrade, whichever is lower, to the top of a flat root or the midpoint ot a pitched roof. The ridqe of a pitched ropf shall not r- OJ r- I 0. exceed 25 :teet above existinq or t'inlshed qrade, whichever is lower. 16. I Tha buildinq height on Lot 2 shall be limited toCi) a maximum 1.< to ...0lutioD .0. '4-~ Pa'l. . of 20 feet measured frOll the existing elevation of the northeaet corner of the building envelope to the 'top of a flat roof or the midpoint of a pitoh.d roof, or (ii) the maximum height allowed in the AFR-2 Zone District, whichever is lower. Th. ridge of a pitched roof shall not exceed 25 feet above .eid existing elevation. The applicant shall establish said elevation by fi.ld survey and shall incorporate the same in the 'Protective Covenants for ths Stillwater Ranch Subdivision. 17. The height limitations imposed on Lots 1 and 2 may be varied subject to obtaining a new scenic Overlay approval pursuant CD "- o to the etendards and procedurss in effect at the time of a new lS. application. The owner of Lot 1 shall submit a landscape plan for review and approval by the Planning Office prior to the issuance of a building permit for the residence on Lot 1. The purpose of the landscape plan shsll' be to reduce the visual impact of '" L!l 0. 0. ., 51 ... 51 ,Ii ... development on Lot 1 from Highway 82. '" .... ~ 19. section 2(f) of the covenants (lighting) shall be revised to .... ~ preclude outeide lights on the north side ~f the!bui;dings on CD CD t- t 0. Lots 1 and 2 (facing Highway S2). The architectural 51 to- t- r CD "quidelines" shall be renamed to "requirl!llents". 20. With the exception of one entrance light at the intersection of Highway 82 and stillwater Road, and one outdoor light for " CD t- .. to- t- r" the qarage or home entrance (unless otherwis8 required by the Uni~ora Buildinq Code), access drive and landscape "accent" . , lighting shall be prohibited on Lots 1 and 2. Low level ...olutioa .0. ,._?~2 ,.;. 7 I4Ij walkway liqhtinq, however, shall. be allowed for safety purpo.... All .~.rior liqhtinq shall comply with the applicable requirement. of the Pitkin County Land Uee Code. 21. Livestock qrazinq and livestock impoundinq is prohibited on Lot. 1 throuqh 6, with the exception of horses, Which may be impounded on Lots .4 .nd 6. Li vestooJc qraz inq and livestock impoundinq is permitted within the Open Space parcel and 6. <ll LL o 22. All ,material representations made by the .applicant in the application and publiCI meetin",s shall be adhered to and considered Clonditiona of approval, unless othsrwise amended by other Clonditions. ,.. to lJ. lJ. I() '" .. ... '" ... .. .... '" '" .... OJ APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1994. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO ~ .AS ..' airman Date: . . .. <ll ,.. I lJ. .. ,.. ,.. I '" APPROVED AS TO CONTENT' ;:;1:.-.. ~...;..~.;"..{ ~Suzanne Ko an; u.. . .. County Pl nninq Director co ,.. '" ,.. ,.. '" elw/fk.benedict.detail.d.reso . lExI1ib11: "A" PAIlCZI. 1. STIU.lfATl!Il RUCK PARCELS, according to the Piret bended Plat thereat recorded Decuber 2. 1993 in Plat Book 33 at Page 34. COllN'l'Y OP PIT1tIll, STATE OF COUlRADO. . <0 U. o <0 "' a. a. III ., ~ ., ~ "" '- .. l') '- OJ .. "" /'. I a. ., /'. /'. I '" <0 /'. '" /'. /'. l') ( . JAN. 16.2007 2: OOPM OATES KNEZEVICH GARDENSWARTZ , NO. 9248 P. 2 lEONARO M. oATes RICHNlOAKffliiEVlCiH TED D. BARDfHSWM:1Z DhVID6.I<EllY MAAlA MOAAO\oV LAW OfFiceS OF OATES, KNEzEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ & KEllY, P.C. PRO'USIOHAL eoRPoRATION 1lol1R,D FLOOR, ASPEN I"':lAZA 8IJLDI'4G S3S E, HOP~S A\lENU6 AEiPEN.CClOIW:lO,l1e11 TELEPHONE (970)&'20.1700 MCSlt.tll.E (910) !1ZO-1121 OF COUNSel. JOHN T KellY dbk~,=rn ANNEMAR.lEMcPHl!G January 16, 2007 VIA F ACSlMlLE (970) 588-3786 Little Star F onndation c/o Andrea Jaeger, Director 405 Rancho Milagro Way Hesperus, CO 81326-8752 Re.. Lot 5 Stillwater BlUlch Dear Ms. Jaeger: I am the attorney for the Stillwater Ranch Open Space Association. At our last annual meeting held on August 2, 2006, the Silver Lining Ranch indicated its desire to sell Lot 5 at Stillwater Ranch for single family use. This would require a ro-zoning from its current academic zoning. The Association instructed me to prepare a letter indicating that the Associati.on would support a change in zoning on Lot 5 from acadElll1i.c to single family use, but would not support any other rezoning. The pmpose of this letter is thus to indicate the support of the Stillwater Ranch Open Space Association for a change in zoning on Lot 5 from academic to single family use. This letter will also confirm that upon the sale of Lot 5 to a third party and upon its retutn to single farilily zoning, the newowner.of Lot 5 would be entitled to voto as a member .o;rthe Association pursuant to the terms of the Protective Covenants. . Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, OATES, KNEzEvICH, GARDENSWARTZ & KELLY, P.C. ~~/ John T. Kelly f.or Davi~ B. Kelly DBK/maf zoo/zoo ~ Xl1V3H NOSHoovr NNV10HV3 IVd Zt:Sl HaL LOOZ/91/10 .. TO: FROM: THRU: MEMORANDUM Mayor and City Council Jessica Garrow, Planner Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Director DATE OF MEMO: May 8, 2007 MEETING DATE: May 14,2007 RE: 1490 Ute Ave Petition for Disconnection from the City of Aspen REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Council has been asked to approve a petition for disconnection by ordinance of the 6.487 acre parcel located at 1409 Ute Avenue. The parcel is also known as Lot 5 in the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision. BACKGROUND: In 1997 the property owner, Silver Lining Ranch, requested annexation into the City and requested rezoning and a Growth Management Exemption. Subsequent to the annexation, the parcel was rezoned to Academic (A) and Conservation (C), both with a Specially Planned Area (SPA) overlay. The Applicant was also granted a Growth Management Exemption for a non-profit entity qualifYing as an essential public facility. Prior to annexation, the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision was approved by the Pitkin County BOCC. Below is a map indicating the lots in the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision; all are within the Growth Boundary. Page 1 of4 The subdivision includes six lots and a large open space parcel. The Land Use approvals from the County included five growth management allotments for single-family homes on Lots 2 - 6. These Lots were zoned AR-2 (Residential- 2 Acre) and under the approved subdivision were permitted to include 6,500 square feet of floor area, plus 4,000 square feet of exempt sub-grade floor area and 750 square feet of exempt garage area. Of the six lots, only one, Lot 5, was ever annexed by the City. DISCUSSION: Based on the Petition for Disconnection, it appears the property owner is interested in disconnecting from the City in an effort to revert back to the previous zoning and approvals received in the County prior to Annexation. Regardless of if the property is disconnected or not, the property would be required to undergo a land use process in order to either change zoning in the City or establish zoning in the County. Attached as Exhibit A is a map of the area. The areas in blue are located within the City, and the areas in green are located in the County. Lot 5, located in the City, is in pink. A large version of this map will also be available at the public hearing. Citv Zoning If the Petition is not granted and the property stays in the City, the property owner would be permitted to retain the current zoning, but a similar activity or use would be required to occur on the Lot in order to comply with the permitted uses in the Academic (A) and Conservation (C) zone districts (See Exhibit B for a list of the permitted uses in these zone districts). If, however, a change in use is desired, the property would need to be rezoned in order to accommodate that use. As indicated in the map attached as Exhibit A, the surrounding areas in the City include an Affordable Housing development zoned AHlPUD (Ute Park Townhomes), the Aspen Club zoned Rural Residential (RR PUD), and single-family and duplex homes zoned R-15B and R-15 PUD. The adjacent zoning in the County is AR-2, Residential - 2 Acre, which is intended "to provide for a moderate density, transition zone between moderate and low density residential land uses." (Pitkin County Land Use Code) If the parcel was zoned to a residential use for the purposes of constructing a single-family or duplex dwelling unit, the property would be required to undergo a Growth Management Review and provide affordable housing mitigation for the new square footage. The lot is 6.487 acres, or approximately 282,573 square feet. If the property owner pursued (and the City granted) rezoning of the entire parcel to R-15 (Moderate Density Residential), R-30 (Low-Density Residential), or RR (Rural Residential) to accommodate a single family residence or duplex on the property, the allowed Floor Area Ratio for a single family home would be approximately 11,251 square feet and the allowed Floor Area Ratio for a duplex would be approximately 13,997 square feet. Staff, however, would recommend that the area currently zoned as Conservation (C) remain in that zone district in order to continue to preserve the natural resources in the area, and would recommend that only the Academic (A) zone be considered for re-zoning to residential. If this occurred, the area able to be built on and the allowable floor area would be reduced, per Section 26.710.022 of the Land Use Code. (See Exhibit C) This portion of lot includes approximately Page 2 of 4 147,000 square feet of lot area. If only this portion of the property was re-zoned to a residential use (R-15, R-30, or RR), the allowed Floor Area Ratio for a single family home would be approximately 8,540 square feet and the allowed Floor Area Ratio for a duplex would be approximately 9,930 square feet. Currently, the parcel contains a structure of approximately 18,000 square feet. If the parcel was re-zoned in the City and the structure was not demolished, it would be a non-conforming structure with respect to Floor Area. This could be remedied by placing a PUD on the Lot which would establish dimensional requirements for the property. Staff would recommend that a PUD replace the existing SPAin this circumstance. The Applicant has not indicated an interest in zoning the property to a multi-family zone district, but this is another potential avenue the Applicant could pursue should the property remain in the City. Countv Zoning Should the Petition be granted, the owner would be required to receive land use approvals from the County. This would entail site plan review and zoning. While it is not certain exactly what zoning would be granted in the County, it is likely the property would be re-zoned to AR-2 (Residential- 2 Acre) in accordance with the original subdivision approval and the zoning in the rest of the subdivision. Exhibit A indicates the area of the subdivision and the current County zoning for Lots 1 - 4 and Lot 6. If the parcel were zoned in accordance with the rest of the subdivision, it is likely the lot would have the same dimensional requirements as the other single family lots in the subdivision. Further, it is likely the property would be subject to the covenants and restrictions in the Subdivision as well as all subdivision approvals. This would include 6,500 square feet of floor area above-grade plus 4,000 square feet of exempt sub-grade floor area and 750 square feet of exempt garage area. Lot 5 received a Growth Management Allotment from the County when it was originally approved by the BOCC in the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision. Growth Management Allotments do not expire in the County, so if the Lot reverts back to the County no Growth Management review would be required. Part of the original subdivision approvals required that each lot provide an on-site ADU as mitigation for the first four bedrooms built; if the home is built with more than four bedrooms, further mitigation would be required. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMP ACTS: Under its tax-exempt status as a non-profit company, the property has been exempt from paying property tax since its armexation into the City. The petition for disconnection states that the applicant believes the sale of its property for single-family residential development will provide the highest monetary benefit, and it is presumed the parcel will revert to a single-family home should the de-armexation be approved. If this parcel reverts to a single-family use, or any other use not associated with a non-profit entity, it will lose its tax exempt status and will begin paying property taxes. The City will lose this potential revenue if the petition is granted. City services such as police, fire, utilities, and administrative services have been provided since the time of armexation. These services will not be impacted negatively if the property remained in the City. It is even likely that City services may be reduced with the development of a single-family use. Page3 of 4 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends City Council not approve the Petition for Disconnection. If the property remains in the City there is an opportunity for it to remain an Academic use or turn to a single family use. Further, if the property was changed to a single- family use and lost its tax exempt status property tax revenue would be generated for the City. If the Petition for Disconnection is granted, the City loses this potential revenue. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Map Exhibit B - Academic and Conservation Zone District permitted uses Exhibit C - Section 26.710.022, Zoning of lands containing more than one underlying zone district Page 4 of 4 Cl <:: .!: 0 '00 , ~ c .;;; ~ 0 '0 CIl N .c Q) "C ::> a. <:: >- en 0 ::> ~ 0 - ~ 0- CO C Cl "* 1) .J:: ::J => 0 <l: Q) ~ '" 0 I- 0- ~ '" LO LO ~ - , , :c' e "C 0 0 J: 0:: 0:: ~ ~ ::> CIl , , :;::l ~ <l: <l: <l: 0:: 0:: en en Cl 0 c ~ :ii2 I- 11100 ~D I - U) a:: c Cl tl c c 'J:: - 0 '" N is c Q) Cl <:: CI) 0 Cl => Cl C. N it => 0- CO => III ~ it <C Q) I- 0- LO LO 0- .J:: 0 en en J: ~ ~ 0:: , - , , ., ~D~iiiiii - . Exhibit B Stillwater Ranch De-Annexation 26.710.230 Academic (A). A. Purpose. The purpose of the Academic (A) zone district is to establish lands for education and cultural activities with attendant research, housing and administrative facilities. All development in the Academic zone district is to proceed according to a conceptual development plan and final develop-ment plan approved pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 26.440, Specially Planned Areas. B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Academic (A) zone district: I. Private school or university, teaching hospital, research facility or testing laboratory, provided that such facilities are enclosed and there are no adverse noise or environmental effects; 2. Auditorium and other facilities for performances and lectures; 3. Gallery; 4. Museum; 5. Library; and 6. Administrative offices. C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Academic (A) zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425. 1. Boardinghouse and dormitory for housing students and faculty of schools and other academic institutions; 2. Student health care facility; 3. Student and faculty dining hall; and D. Dimensional requirements. The dimensional requirements which shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Academic (A) zone district shall be set by the adoption of a conceptual development plan and final development plan, pursuant to Chapter 26.440, specially planned area. 1 Exhibit B Stillwater Ranch De-Annexation 26.710.220 Conservation (C). A. Purpose. The purpose of the Conservation (C) zone district is to provide areas of low density de- velopment to enhance public recreation, conserve natural resources, encourage the production of crops and animals, and to contain urban development. B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Conservation (C) zone district: 1. Detached residential dwelling; 2. Park, playfield, playground and golf course; 3. Riding stable; 4. Cemetery; 5. Crop production, orchards, nurseries, flower production and forest land; 6. Pasture and grazing land; 7. Dairy; 8. fishery; 9. Animal production; 10. Husbandry services (not including commercial feed lots) and other farm and agricultural uses; II. Railroad right-of-way but not a railroad yard; 12. Home occupations; 13. Accessory buildings and uses; and 14. Accessory dwelling units meeting the provisions of Section 26.520.040; and 15. Temporary special events associated with ski areas including, but not limited to, such events as ski races, bicycle races and concerts; with special event committee approval. C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Conservation (C) district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425. 1. Guest ranches; 2. Recreational uses including a riding academy, stable, club, country club and golf course; 3. Ski lift and other ski facilities; 4. Sewage disposal area; 5. Water treatment plant and storage reservoir; and 6. Electric substations and gas regulator stations (not including business or administration offices). D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Conservation (C) zone district. 1. Minimum lot size (acres): 10. 2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (acres): 10. 3. Minimum lot width (feet): 400. 4. Minimum front yard setback (feet): 100. 5. Minimum side yard setback (feet): 30. 6. Minimum rear yard setback (feet): 30. 7. Maximum height (feet): 25. 8. Minimum distance between principal and accessory buildings (feet): No requirement. 9. Percent of open space required for building site: No requirement. 10. External floor area ratio: (applies to conforming and nonconforming lots of record): same as R-15 zone district. 2 NEILEY & ALDER A'I''I'ORN1WS 201 North Mill Street, suite 102 p.spen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-9393 Fax (970) 925-9396 roc}ll\RDY. NEILEY, lR. EUGENE M. ALDER lOHN F. NEILEY 6800 Highway 82, suite " Upper Level _~~~~ri!J..z-SI Colorado 81601 (970) 928-9393 Fax (970) 928-9399 please }leply To: May 25, 2007 VIA HAND DELIVERY John Worcester, Esquire Aspen City Attorney 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Little Star Foundation; Petition for Disconnection by Ordinance Dear John: On MaY 14, 2007, th' "'"'~'"'~""'" ,,ution ,""~to b,f"'" th' ^"~ Ci" Co""" f<< ",,,,..,,,,,on "'" ww d""'" on . 3 '" ,voto Tho """'" of thi' ,otta " to oxP'''' on< "",,,,, ".-g th' _'" of tho h".ring on th' .,ution "'" <<<P"'I "'" th' City of ""~ "I , _ h".ring, " whiob bin' th' ,,ution '"' '" ,..,- to · fn<"'" th" f' not urintod by ,,;o!>tio'" of th' """,,;pM Cod' R>llW of conduct go,,,,,;ng Cf" eooncil lO""b"', Ss 2.02.030 and 2.02.050. sP-y, w' obi~1 to th' "" "'" ConociJmonl<< T""" ._"",;n th' h,.,;"g "'" ,.t'" ;n _,;hon '" th' .,ulion W' boll'" "" p.,hcip.,;on inftu~"" nth" lO""b'" of th' 6" Co""'" to "to ..,m>1 th' ,,uti~ ",d d""'" tho ..,li,,,1 th' right '" · fair and Unpartial hearing. Th' P"'P"'Y "'" i, ib< ..bi"" of ib< .,ulion f, ,,,,,,,,, on Uto A<~~ wi-' '" th' ""~ 0"". In th' ,~"" p"", tho own. ofth' ""~ crob, wob>cl FOX, bW .,_to! to p''''''''' th' ,ubi"" _,"", with"'" ..-. 1M. FOX ." on th' """,,, of th' ""~ ",,",a S"";'o' c""a whiob " hi>-' ;nib< ""~ CI"". ^ rep<O'~hin" of th' ^"" ",,",. S,.,,;vo' "",,., rogg']. KJIk' -""" th' May 14,2007 ""'"" "d_"'" opposition to the Petition. Un""""- '" '" ,t th' bin' of th' h".rin~ Co"",ilm" To"' " " _'oY" ofib< ""~ 0"". APp_tly, hol"n th' ".._ .,., ,t tho """" ,"".. Su"'",u,", to tho h".ring, w' '_'" that until .,ro' bin' ",t fnll, Ton''''' , full-bin' _'oY" W th, h"" """" pro " tho ""~ 0"". W' onda"",d h' now _I,,", " ongoing _'o",,~t relationsbiP with the Club. Letter to Mr. Worcester May 25, 2007 Page 2 As you are aware, Municipal Code SS 2.02.030 and 2.02.050 prohibit a Councilmember frorn performing a direct official action in circumstances in which he has a substantial interest in the outcome of the proceeding. Given the circumstances of this case, it is clear to us that Torre should have disclosed his conflict of interest and refrained frorn participating in the hearing and voting on the Petition. Indeed, he recused himself from participation in the appeal of Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution No.9 - 1001 Ute Avenue, which also came before City Council on May 14, 2007. We understand the reason for his recusal was that he sometimes teaches tennis at the Gant tennis courts which are located on the 1001 Ute Property under a long term lease. Clearly, if this represented an acknowledged conflict of interest, participation in the Little Star Petition hearing was prohibited. Instead, following presentation of the Petition by the applicant and staff, Torre was the first Councilmember to speak, and his comments were directed at insuring that the Petition was denied. We believe Torre's conduct represents a fundamental violation of my client's right to a fair and impartial hearing before an unbiased and objective City Council. We further believe that the only way to remedy this violation is for the Petition to be presented to the City Council for consideration without the participation of Torre. As a result of the outcome of the hearing on May 14, 2007, my client has proceeded to work with the City Planning Staff to seek a rezoning of the property under the provisions of the Municipal Land Use Code. We obviously do not know the outcome of such proceedings, and we have not yet been able to determine how long it will actually take to process the application despite the fact that the Community Development Director stated at the hearing that he believed an application could be expedited in 4 to 6 months. Weare unable to determine how this can be accomplished at the present time despite numerous attempts by our land use planner to establish a basis for this time frame with the City staff. Thus, we believe the only appropriate course of action is for the City to set this matter for a new hearing before a fair and impartial City Council. - Please let rne know your thoughts on this matter at your earliest convenience. Y & ALDER Richard Y. Neiley, Jr. RYN/agk cc: Sister Andrea Jaeger Rick Stone, Esquire Glenn Horn MEMORANDUM V",.., FROM: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council Chris Bendon, Community Development Director (l/A,(;vJ TO: DATE OF MEMO: October 1,2007 MEETING DATE: October 9, 2007 (cont. from September 24, 2007) RE: Dean Street Right-of-Way Vacation (Parcels 3 & 4 of Block 4, Eames Addition) Public Hearing for Second Reading of Ordinance N 0.24, Series of 2007 REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The request before City Council is to vacate a portion of the Dean Street right-of-way that borders both the Timber Ridge Condominiums and the proposed Lodge At Aspen Mountain PUD. The area of focus is shown highlighted in pink in Exhibit A. The City Council has jurisdiction over the vacation of any public right-of-way and the process is formalized by the adoption of an ordinance following a public hearing. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Portions of Dean Street (in this vicinity and further east) have in the past, through vacation or court action, reverted to private ownership and are shown in green in Exhibit A in the immediate area of the subject right-of-way. First reading of Ordinance No. 24, Series of2007 was conducted on May 29, 2007. BACKGROUND: The area under consideration for vacation is land that City Council has discussed as part of the Lodge At Aspen Mountain proposal. This pink area shown in Exhibit A would be vacated and revert to ownership to Timber Ridge Condominiums. Normally when right-of-way vacations are approved, the subject land is split down the middle, with adjoining properties each taking ownership of half of the area. In this case, the Lodge At Aspen Mountain will allow for "their share" to be transferred over to Timber Ridge. The site plan for the Lodge At Aspen Mountain plans for the use of the proposed vacated area to be parking and landscaping for the Timber Ridge, who historically, have used this portion of Dean Street. DISCUSSION: This vacation proposal has been discussed as part of the evaluation ofthe Lodge At Aspen Mountain proposal and has thus far not been an issue of City Council in terms of the land use planning for the area. The subject vacation area is not proposed for actual development as part of the Lodge At Aspen Mountain's development scenario, but the vacation has been coupled by the applicant in their application as a way of clarifying the bigger picture for the vicinity. Page I of3 A concern that has been raised regarding this area has been by the Trainor's Landing Homeowner's Association. Timber Ridge Condominium Association supports the vacation. (See letters in Exhibit B.) Trainor's Landing would like to see the subject right-of-way remain public. This area has been and continues to be used primarily by the Timber Ridge owners and visitors for over 35 years. On occasion, this Dean Street parking area is used by the public when attending special events in the area. The Timber Ridge Homeowner's Association have entered into an agreement with the Lodge At Aspen Mountain and Lift I Condos to pursue this right-of-way vacation. All three of these parties are in favor of the vacation. The Lodge At Aspen Mountain proposal adds public parking to the revised South Garmisch Street and Juan Street streetscape designs to accommodate spaces lost or rearranged by the development. The timing of the Dean Street vacation is such that it would be linked to the PUD development proposal of the Lodge At Aspen Mountain review process. This 2nd Reading public hearing is being timed to coordinate with the final 2nd Reading public hearings of the Lodge At Aspen Mountain. The Engineering Department has no objection to the action of vacating this subject section of Dean Street. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: There are no financial impacts to the City of Aspen that would go along with the vacation of the subject portion of Dean Street. Not vacating the right-of- way and taking on maintenance could have cost for additional operation costs of the Street Department. The City of Aspen has not maintained this right-of-way and through the years, as the Timber Ridge Homeowner's Association has purchased gravel, graded the parking, provided snowplowing, and enforced parking themselves for parking. This has been a benefit to the City of Aspen by not having the responsibility to maintain this area. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Parking already exists on this portion of Dean Street with a permeable surface of dirt and gravel. Nine parking spaces currently exist and Timber Ridge does not intend to expand the parking area or reconfigure the lot. Options for reconfiguration or changes are limited due to large trees that delineate the usable area. The existing landscaping (about 25 feet along the north side of the right-of-way, adjacent to the Timber Ridge building) would be kept in place. At this time, there is no proposal for the parking area to be paved causing the need for storm water planning for the water collected on an impervious surface. In some ways, paving would serve to cut down on the existing dust and silt run off from the dirt/gravel surface. RECOMMENDED ACTION: If the Lodge at Aspen Mountain project is approved by City Council, Staff recommends that the City Council approve the vacation of the subject right-of-way of Dean Street. The land area does not contain public utilities and the area has for decades been out of public use other than sporadic parking associated with public events. The Timber Ridge Page 2 00 Condominium (100 Dean Street) identifies its frontage as Dean Street, where its front door is located. It seems appropriate to allow the property to revert to private ownership under these circumstances and allow for continued parking use. If the Lodge at Aspen Mountain project is not approved, staff recommends the City Council not approve the vacation of Dean Street. The "townhomes" project relies on this public way for access and vacating the public way would prohibit access to the previously approved project. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2007, upon second reading, vacating a portion of the Dean Street right-of-way as described in the ordinance." ALTERNATIVE MOTION: "I move to deny Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2007." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Lift One Boundary Adjustment Plat (showing proposed vacation areas) Letters from 1.) Trainor's Landing Homeowner's Association (Denis Murray, 3/26/07) and 2.) Timber Ridge Condominium Association (David Ellis, 3/20/07) Page 3 of3 ORDINANCE NO. 24 (Series of 2007) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, TO VACATE A PORTION OF DEAN STREET IN THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. WHEREAS, the Aspen Land Fund II, LLC c/o Centurion Partners, LLC has petitioned the City of Aspen to vacate a portion of Dean Street between E. Durant and Juan Streets between Blocks 4 and 6, Eames Addition to the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, the right-of-ways or portions thereof proposed to be vacated are located entirely within the corporate limits of the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, the Right-of-Way Vacation Plat and legal description, appended hereto as Exhibit A has been reviewed by the Community Development Department and City Engineer and they have made a determination that the exhibit complies in all respects with the City's Public Rights-of-ways Vacation Policies and the land proposed to be vacated is eligible for vacation pursuant to said policies; and WHEREAS, the proposed vacation will not leave any land adjoining the same without a means of access over an established public right-of-way connecting such lands to an established public street. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1. That the portion of Dean Street between E. Durant and Juan Streets, described as Parcel 3 and Parcel 4, between Blocks 4 and 6, Eames Addition to the City of Aspen, and depicted on Exhibit A appended hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, shall be, and the same hereby is vacated subject to the conditions set forth below. Ord. No. 24, Series of 2007, Page 1 Section 2. That the petitioners file a final street vacation map, suitable for recordation, with the Community Development Department within 90 days of final approval of the vacation. Section 3. That ownership and title to the lands so vacated shall vest as provided in and by Section 43- 2-302. C.R.S. Section 4. That the City Clerk be and hereby is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the Office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 5. That the City Engineer be and hereby is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to make all corrections necessary to the Official Map of the City of Aspen. Section 6. That 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 7. That this ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. Ord. No. 24, Series of2007, Page 2 A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on June 25, 2007, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 29th day of May, 2007. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of 2007. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Ord. No. 24, Series of2007, Page 3 '- _7 .1....3 --1~ '-I~ _Ul w :=~o Jc.u~ :; t65 =06 ')I~ uj~ w.. ~:: ) v 0 ~~ :J v we'"' :J u r-';j~ r:\~~;! z _~l:: w ~15~ - , '':O"~ i \ .~'" .~~ ~.a 0-- -.J tJ >- ~~ 7' I-I-~"" - <CZQ'5 ::J C'iSog ) Vi u~~ o t:i t5-~~ ~ D..~:;! L.J tn ~~~ )ZlL , <(0 -.J w>- -0>-- tlLe; o Oi J" 0(3 -"- ~,q: I-'Id ';il!! 'i"'l ;,'l!!. 0-11"" fJ'?'- 5 ~ h~: ~.- ~ \ - &-\,1- :lH1U'\"3B'.JOSWi'lI 1ID"1ID1 s s s '. , , g~ ~- . s ~ " " 63 ~ NE: ~I -y-~.. ~ g <t:s ~~ -'Ul row ::E ,; -j: ~ s 11 1"- S !.., 'I ';IU1 Illl'l ,1.!!l. iili!;; "- ;' \ ~..~ .~ I ! _I ~h~ II ~! \ ~ :il~~ It q: , l::,,~i 'IL., "I !f5B .. ~ ..n"~ J... ~~ l!l ..,II'!I ; ~~~i5 ,. " "'~.I.l w'riSh ;'1' .~ b:~h~t: I! ,l.i.ll! ~h =r":; " ~5 ei ~'!;i !. ~';~~~ it !l'~l' ~ , --<: :j; .' ililrJ::5i..... '" g'" '!i hi \ii ,. I,. ., 'g""! !,.". i ~h '10- 5ai~~l ~r::;i! ~!:Ig ;,!!,~'o A !;f ~d: t~~oi... I: l!ll~! ~~:t t1~ " s "I I" ~,~li:,' ~. ~~kil ",2B~;;; tI ~~ ~,h:I!' '!i~~~~E - ...... ~l;J~" I 1!1 i I:,;.;I! · ptl' lj, '-I I. m ' , l:~;~ 'g ;..1::" , 1;- ! hEI5.&:="~~ is! I'~;~;~ , HI \ VI. c:;t-. ~:i Ii I ii~ !"~~;~!~ ~~ E~;;~e::~ lil.'" 1""1 i:l ~~ 'i "I' ..~ "'! , ::~:::ll!~~!~ l::!!! .'lil! l'l tli:~ I, d"s l~ ~~~ , ; ..: , ~~~~~..,,11: !:I~ ol"El ~ ll!!ii . ~~~ ! ~t1~ :~~..'l:" ~ 'l::::g II I ." J "'>dF.O>'~'=~ . 9 , i I . '---1-' 1 I ~. . o ... '" u o -' ro ~. .t.s',IU.i}J' . .,~,D~.~l r ./.'-. t ~, ~ , u ~~ 0 ~l S ~ , , " s . . < ! " ., - .. ::: ~-,,~,.. "",," , !l I' L s s ~ .13 01 \ s ! , J!I l! !' . -, . , , ~ i ! i ~. . z~ g= -~ ~8 ~ g ~ wa 00 z;;r' ii' "- o tn 3 ." " -"'-,'j . 0 _I . "tDi= Ii: i I S _ ....... , 0 "'-.. : 130 "l! ,;_o~..~ 't .....JV! -,'I !iIIlW '" << w . s !! III b~ i:i-.~~'" " 'I' , !"'I! III !iili ij!\'!'III/,. iH ""';1 loll I. .~" :1 ;; intll!'l" t } .~ ~ It r. Sllr I" . I Ii! 1%: ,j!!l~!:,il '! i!! ;1;:;1 !/!I'li'lj'lfli I '1' I<~~~ ~ !lfl'~; 1'1 ""11'" "1"\1 I .. \1 ~!~! I ~.~ ~~ -U"r I : ~!t :l~:,!: !!!~ !i!;l!li~ ip!'il!I,I,! il~!!illl!l:! ill~'. I, "I, 'ill! ~!!! ~l .. ,;il"I""'!II' 'i'l! ! n,1 !. :"1' .I i' i...d.lC,;' ..!.. III ~ 1-. :11'''''''''f , 1 Iu ~~~ ~ {{ili ;:;~- '!~\ll. :l,!:i . , 11], ill"~ .(;11 'I'" "-< t~;~- ~ "r,;! II..,: :l illS ,'.,' 5 I ,~~~~ i'~':'~":~l}. - ,:-~ ,~,f.;~, " ~. . ( l~ .1. S 19 -~! 'i 4:-~ l _.~ ";;~ ..,:;, , g !, llli ,j I'~I liil ! II' ," ,;!l Ill; ";i 11,. I,l Ill! (Wii,lr.l dI'P'l ~"lGd "MfTIj pdlOO -"""",",,,", ,Iill"l I I i'I'!.I;~! I'! . -;~I"':I;' I'! I !i.'I'l!i! ,I i l;iI~l!li! !! i ! .!ll'i,l,'; III 1 'l:!"I!!'!1 I I 1!;lul',!: ,I Ii I lil.ll"!!'l' 1'1 I !!!llllilll!i j~!.r ,I ,Ill "h,i~ I .1 I ',I! I !'~' -Ill" ;~~f;~i li4!11 1,1111, I 'n ! ~)!l .....1. 'II I,. I i b~~ ,. '\!J" H !.U!g: I "I : iil ! Ii. I iil i I, ..JI!, ~ II I '~I' ! I ~ . ! If! ' I 'Ii ii.i!IL " ~ ;; ~(f,\ ~((~ ~ co ". <. ~~ . . < u .ftlA -tv re ~k,t P160 , l j 3/26/07 Clty of ~spen City C01IDcil Members and. Mayor City Hell 13G Sot:ch Galena Street f.->-pen Co.8161l De2T Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council Members, This ktter is on behalf of the Trainor's Landing HOD.eo7r1Je~s }..ssociation and T.e R.O. residents of the Barbee FamilyPUD.We wO'.ud lib to voice our concoms in regard to the proposed Lodge at f.->"1'en M:)'.:..,"'" ond the :1eg"-1ive impacl3 the proposoo Ledge wili have Dn 'JUT neiS<-DG:hood. VIe are a"posed tD the elimination of as many as 25 on s:reet ')"-,kina waces r ~ ::::J .. in the t,\;-ee block area of TUEll, Garmish, and Deme S'::ree~ ri;cect1y adjacent t::l Dill subdi\tision. These spaces represent a large 'Portie:!. of ill::. av::.il3..ble 0:1 street parking in the B parking zone wbere we reside. We oppose the vacation of Deane Street as proposed by fris Dew devdopIJOent We do not believe it is integral to the project and will not adversely 2.ffbct the project in any way lithe vacatiDn is denied.. Along with our request for the Council to deny the vacation of De,-,-,e St-eet We are askj.ngthat the developer provide fill improved i."tefsec.tion at fre CDIDer of Durant aad GarnllSD Streets. We hDpe tD slow traffic and eliminate the confusiDn that is already oc=ring at this intersection. Thank you for your conSideration of this request Denis Murray President Trainor's Landing Homeowner:; Association J-/J~ i \ 8tMi1t13 Ybtf1. cd-. VANN ASSOCIATES, LLC Planning Consultants October 9, 2007 RECEIVED Mr. Chris Bendon, Director Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 on (I C) 2007 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HAND DELIVERED Re: Vacation of Dean Street Right-of-Way Dear Chris As we discussed, Aspen Land Fund II, LLC wishes to withdraw it request to vacate the remaining portion of the Dean Street right-of-way. The vacation request was submitted in connection the Applicant's final PUD application for the Lodge at Aspen Mountain. With the denial of that application, vacation of the right-of-way is no longer required. I would appreciate it if you would inform the City Council of the Applicant's desire to withdraw the application and remove it from consideration at tonight's Council hearing. It is my understanding that no further action is required on behalf of the Applicant to terminate the application review process, and that the original vacation request will not be subject to any prejudicial treatment pursuant to the Land Use Regulations. Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Yours truly, cc: John Sarpa Arthur C. Daly, Esq. c: loldclbuslcity .ltrlltr44802 .cb2 230 East Hopkins Ave. . Aspen, Colorado 81611 . 970/925-6958 . Fax 970/920-9310 MEMORANDUM Vlllb TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager FROM: Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager DATE: October I, 2007 RE: Withdrawal of Ordinance 40: Code Amendment - Restricted Parking in Residential Areas SUMMARY: In light of council members' questions about the prospective timing and technology options related to the expansion of paid parking into residential areas adjacent to the core, staff is recommending that proposed Ordinance 40 be withdrawn at this time. Withdrawal of the ordinance prior to 2nd Reading and Public Hearing will allow staff time to conduct further research into the most appropriate means to implement any parking system expansion. It will also allow more time to coordinate with RFT A and with the bus lane construction project to ensure that there is sufficient transit system capacity at the time of a change to the parking system. Staff will return to council at a work session this winter to further explore parking system expansion alternatives. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that there be a motion to approve Ordinance No. 40 on 2nd Reading, followed by a vote to deny approval. MEMORANDUM VII'c.. FROM: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ~W1 Amendment to Commercial Core Moratorium. Second reading of Ordinance No. 37, Series of 2007. TO: RE: DATE: October 9, 2007 SUMMARY: Ordinance No. 51, Series of 2006, established a temporary moratorium on the issuance of building permits in the Commercial Core Zone District, and was adopted on December 12, 2006. This moratorium was extended through the adoption of Ordinance No. 26, Series 2007, and is currently set to expire December 12, 2007. The moratorium prohibits the Community Development Department from issuing building permits for properties in the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District ifthe effect of the building permit will change the profile or intensity of the use ofthe property. The Mill Street Plaza building is located in the Commercial Core Zone District on the corner of Mill Street and Hopkins A venue. The corner of the building is currently occupied by the Grand Hyatt timeshare sales office. This use (office) is no longer allowed on the ground floor of Commercial Core buildings. The timeshare office was a pre-existing condition when the ground-floor office prohibition was adopted and is considered a grandfathered use. The owner, M&W Properties, would like to replace the timeshare office, in part, with a retailer - the J-Crew - and an adjacent restaurant - Cache Cache. This conversion is prohibited by the moratorium. However, Staff believes that the proposed change in tenancy is desirable and could be considered an improvement in keeping with the spirit and intent of the moratorium ordinance. Office use was eliminated as a ground floor use in part due to this specific timeshare office replacing the former retail tenant. Recovering this space as a retail space would eliminate a non-conforming use and improve the vitality, tourist experience, and economic strength of the downtown retail district. Staff is recommending a change to the moratorium to exempt this type of tenancy conversion (office to retail). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance No. 37, Series of 2007, upon second reading. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: (all motions must be made in the positive) "I move to approve Ordinance No. _, Series of 2007, modifYing the Commercial Core moratorium." I ORDINANCE NO. 37 (Series of 2007) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ADOPTED PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NUMBER 51, SERIES OF 2006, AND AS AMEDED PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO.2, SERIES OF 2007, AND AS AMENDED PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 26, SERIES OF 2007. WHEREAS, the City of Aspen (the "City") is a legally and regularly created, established, organized and existing municipal corporation under the provisions of Article XX of the Constitution of the State of Colorado and the home rule charter of the City (the "Charter"); and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen currently regulates land uses within the City limits in accordance with Chapter 26.104 et seq. of the Aspen Municipal Code pursuant to its Home Rule Constitutional authority and the Local Govemment Land Use Control Enabling Act of 1974, as amended, 9929-20-101, et seq. C.R.S; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Aspen enacted a temporary moratorium pursuant to Ordinance Number 51, Series of 2006, as amended pursuant to Ordinance Number 2, Series of2007, and Ordinance No. 26, Series of2007; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department recommended and amendment to the types of development activity exempt from the provisions of the moratorium - specifically building activity replacing a ground floor office use to a retail use; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the proposed amendment, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds the application meeting or exceeding all applicable standards of the land use code of the City of Aspen Municipal Code and that the approval of the proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1 - Chanl!:es to Moratorium: Ordinance Number 51, Series of 2006, as amended pursuant to Ordinance Number 2, Series of 2007, and Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2007, shall continue in its full force and effect and nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to alter the substantive content of Ordinances 51, 2, and 26, except as follows: . The Community Development Director shall exempt from the provisions of this moratorium building permit applications that replace, in whole or in part, basement Ordinance No. 37, Page I Series 2007 or ground floor office space with restaurant or retail use. Section 2: This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 4: The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 4: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 24th day of September, 2007, at 5:00 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 20th day of August, 2007. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of ,2007. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: John Worcester, City Attorney Ordinance No. 37, Series 2007 Page 2 MEMORANDUM VI" " TO: THRU: FROM: RE: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council Chris Bendon, Community Development Director e1tvYl Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning DirectorGP Jerome Professional Building (201 N. Mill Street) Subdivision and Extension of Vested Property Rights Review Second Readine: of Ordinance No. 25. (Series 2007) MEETING DATE: October 9, 2007 SPECIAL NOTE: This staff report is new since the June 25th first reading and addresses the issues raised by City Council at the first reading of this application. It contains the following: . A summary of the issues raised from the last meeting with additional information provided by Staff and the Applicant; . Staff recommendation & motion; and . A revised ordinance. Also attached is the original staff report of June 25, 2007. This is attached primarily to show the development proposal, background and dimensional standards table associated with the development so that you have this information at hand. Please refer to the orie:inal June 25th staff report to reference the exhibits. SUMMARY: At the June 25th first reading for the Jerome Professional Building application, the City Council raised a number of issues that they asked to have addressed in further detail prior to the scheduled second reading and public hearing on the application. Below, the concerns voiced by the City Council are itemized issue by issue. The Applicant's representative has responded to the questions in Exhibit I. Comments from Staff follow in a separate, italicized paragraph. I) Provide more detail on the Special Review process and review criteria allowing an increase in Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the commercial and free-market component within this application. Under the regulations in place at the time of this land use application, an applicant has two FAR schedules to operate under when designing a project: 1) the overall maximum allowable FAR for the parcel of land (2:1), and 2) individual FAR caps based upon the type of use such as commercial, affordable multi-family housing, or free-market multi-family housing. For both the commercial and free-market multi- family uses, the maximum individual FAR cap is. 75:1 which may be increased to 1:1 by the Planning and Zoning Commission through Special Review as provided in section 26. 430. 040.A., Dimensional Requirements. Additionally, the free-market multi-family housing FAR cannot exceed the commercial FAR in this project. Below are listed the two review criteria provided in Section 26.430.040 A., Dimensional Requirements. In granting any increase in FAR via Special Review, the Planning and Zoning Commission is required to determine that both standards are met. 26.430.040 A. Dimensional requirements. Whenever the dimensional requirements of a proposed development are subject to special review, the development application shall only be approved if the following conditions are met. 1) The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district. 2) The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts or surrounding land uses or will mitigate those impacts including, but not limited to, the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking, or blocking of a designated view plane. The Special Review requests were approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. 26, Series of 2006. 2) Provide more information on the Vested Rights request including the vested rights criteria used to review the request. Chapter 26.308, Vested Property Rights (Exhibit B) regulates the conferring of a vested property right to a site specific development plan. As written in the chapter, "A vested property right shall preclude any zoning or land use action by the City or by an initiated measure," that would impact the approval. As written, a vested property right is granted for a period of three years, although a residential subdivision may request an exemption from this time frame. The City's counsel has maintained that any other request for a variation in the three year vesting period is at the sole discretion of the City Council. A vested property right provides a timeline in which a developer can rely on the approvals granted with the expectation that a developer will act upon the approvals within a reasonable time frame. Conversely, once the time frame expires, if the developer has not acted upon his or her approvals the development is then subject to the rules and regulations in effect at the end of the vesting period. For example, since this application was submitted both the maximum height for this zone district and the commercial design standards have been amended. As noted in the Applicant's application, the reason for the request of a five year vesting period rather than a three year period is the need to accommodate the terms of existing leases for some of the office space in the building. Also mentioned in the exhibit submitted by the Applicant is the statement that the Applicant no longer needs the extended vesting period for the existing leases, although the five year vesting period is still being requested. An Applicant that has an existinf! vested rif!ht may request an extension or reinstatement of the vested property right through Section 26.308.010 C, Extension or Reinstatement of Vested Rights. Reasonable conditions can be imposed on the Applicant such as compliance with any amendments to the land use code. In reviewing the request, "City Council shall consider, but not be limited to, the following criteria: a. The applicant's compliance with any conditions requiring performance prior to the date of application for extension or reinstatement; b. The progress made in pursuing the project to date including the effort to obtain any other permits, including a building permit, and the expenditures made by the applicant in pursuing the project; c. The nature and extent of any benefits already received by the city as a result of the project approval such as impactfees or land dedications; d. The needs of the city and the applicant that would be served by the approval of the extension or reinstatement request. " 3) Provide a list of tenants and the duration of the existing lease terms. The Applicant has provided a list of tenants and the terms of their leases in Exhibit I As noted in the exhibit, the Applicant no longer needs extended vesting for existing leases but is requesting the five year vesting period. 4) Why are affordable housing units deed restricted at a Category 4 level? Most growth management reviews in the land use code, and the reviews specific to this application, require affordable housing mitigation at Category 4 level. The Aspen/Pitkin County Employee Housing Guidelines provide for seven income categories (1-7) plus Resident Occupied units. According to the housing guidelines, Category 4 is defined as "middle-income level" in Aspen and Pitkin County. The categories and related income amounts were derived from a number of sources as outlined in the guidelines. 5) Rent control in relation to the Telluride Case. When required affordable housing units are to be rental units, a 1/10 of one percent interest in the ownership of each unit is required to be deeded to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA). This ownership interest has been deemed adequate by the City and APCHA to address rent control issues. 6) Who can buy units if they are "for sale" and who has the first right of purchase? The Planning and Zoning Commission granted approval of the affordable housing units as rental units on August 15, 2006. According to the provisions of Resolution No. 26, Series of 2006, the homeowners association may own the units and rent them to qualified residents, however, if any unit is deemed out of compliance for over a period of one year all units will be listed for sale through the Housing Authority's lottery system. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes 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 to the commercial core. The refined design of the project, as shown in the exhibits ofthe June 25th memo, enhances the visual compatibility, character, and charm of Aspen. The housing provided is located near the commercial core and close to mass transit options. Due to changes in the land use code since this application was submitted and potential future changes, staff does not recommend extending the vesting period to five years. If a five year vesting period is granted by the City Council, The five year vesting timeline should be included in the motion so that staff may change the ordinance accordingly. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMITIVE): "I move to approve Ordinance No. 25, Series of 2007, approving with conditions, the Subdivision and granting of Vested Property Rights of Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment on second reading." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: A TT ACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Review Criteria and Staff Findings (provided in June 25th packet) Exhibit B - Planning and Zoning Commission minutes dated August I, 2006 (provided in June 25 packet) Exhibit C - Planning and Zoning Commission minutes dated August 15, 2006 (provided in June 25th packet) Exhibit D - Resolution No. 26 (series of2006) of the Planning and Zoning Commission (provided in June 25th packet) Exhibit E - Definition of Subdivision (provided in June 25th packet) Exhibit F - Renderings of the building reviewed and approved by the Commission (provided in June 25th packet) Exhibit G - Application(provided in June 25th packet) Exhibit H - Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit I - Applicant's Response to June 25th Questions, memo dated 9/24/07 June 25th Staff Memo ApPLICANT /OWNER: Jerome Professional Building Condominium Association, Inc. REPRESENTATIVE: Mitch Haas, Haas Land Plarming, LLC. LOCATION: Lots P, Q, R, and S, Block 78, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO, commonly known as 201 N. Mill Street. CURRENT ZONING & USE: Located in the Mixed Use (MU) zone district. The building is a two/three story office building containing nineteen condominium units. PROPOSED LAND USE: The Applicant is requesting to develop a mixed-use building containing sub-grade parking, three (3) affordable housing units, six (6) free-market housing units, and commercial/office uses. REQUESTED COUNCIL ApPROVALS: The Applicant requests ofthe City Council approval ofthe subdivision and extension of vested property rights for a five year period. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Plarming and Zoning Commission granted approval of three growth management reviews, commercial design review, special review, and made a recommendation of subdivision approval STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the subdivision request and a standard three year period for the vested property rights request. Photo: 201 N. Mill Street GENERAL BACKGROUND This application was submitted in April of 2006, prior to the passage of the moratorium and therefore not affected by it. The application was heard by the Plarming and Zoning Commission in August of the same year. As a result of the hearings conducted by the Plarming and Zoning Commission, Resolution No. 26 (Series of 2006) was passed by a five to zero (5-0) vote (Exhibit D of June 25th memo). The Plarming and Zoning Commission's resolution approved three growth management reviews, commercial design review, special review, and made a recommendation of subdivision approval. During the hearing of August 15, 2006, the Applicant's representative stated that three of the off-street parking spaces associated with the proposal will be dedicated for use by the affordable housing units (Exhibit C of June 25th memo). This representation is included in the attached ordinance. 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 (see section 26.104.100, Definitions, and Exhibit E June 25th memo). This is a procedural rather than technical subdivision in the sense that the creation of multiple dwelling units is considered an act of subdivision rather than a typical subdivision in which land is divided into lots. If the Applicant is interested in creating individual ownership interest in the units, condominiumization must be undertaken. 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. This is required to demarcate ownership units within a single building. LAND USE REOUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals of City Council to redevelop the site: . Subdivision for the construction of multiple dwelling units pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480 (Citv Council is the final review authoritv who may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposal after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). . Vested Propertv Rights for the development proposal, which allows the development to be built after approval without meeting any zoning or land use changes during a prescribed time period, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.308 (Citv Council is the final review authoritv). The Applicant is requesting a vesting period of five years rather than the standard three year period. The Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) reviewed the Application on August 1, 2006 and August 15, 2006. The minutes from these meetings are attached as Exhibits B and C. The Applicant received the following approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Resolution 26, Series 2007 (Exhibit D June 25th memo): . Growth Management Review for Expansion/New Commercial. Lodge. or Mixed- Use Development in the development of a new mixed-use building pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.040 C.2.(The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authoritv, who may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposal). . Growth Management Review for Free-Market Residential Units within a Mixed- Use Project in the development of new free-market residential units within a mixed-use project pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.040 C.6. (The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authoritv. who may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposal). . Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing in the development of affordable housing pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.040 C.7. (The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authoritv. who may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposal). . Commercial Design Review for a mixed-use development within the City of Aspen requiring a building permit pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.412. . Special Review for an increase in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of both the Commercial use and Free-Market Multi-Family Housing use of the building pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.430.040 A. PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant, Jerome Professional Building Condominium Association, Inc., has requested approval to demolish an existing office building located at the corner of North Mill Street and East Bleeker Street that is located on a 12,000 square foot lot and redevelop the site with a new mixed-use building containing commercial, affordable housing, and free market residential uses. The existing property is located in the Mixed- Use zone district. The site is sloped and the new five story building (some of which is below grade) proposed contains: . A completely sub-grade parking garage. Vehicular access to the property and the garage will be from the platted, but currently unimproved, alley right-of- way that is adjacent to the north property line of the subject property. The garage will provide twenty parking spaces, four of them in a tandem configuration. . The next level is partially above and below grade and contains the lower level of two (2) of the affordable housing units and commercial/office space. . The third level is above grade on all sides and contains the upper levels of two (2) affordable housing units and commercial/office space. . The fourth level contains three (3) free-market units and one (1) affordable housing unit. . The fifth level contains three (3) free-market units. The following table compares the proposed development dimensions with the dimensional requirements of the Mixed-Use (MU) zone district. Minimum Lot Size Minimum Lot Width Minimum Lot ArealDwellin Minimum Front Yard Setback Minimum Alternative Front Yard Setback 12,000 sq. ft. 120 Feet N/A 10 Feet 7 Feet Minimum Side Yard Setback Minimum Rear Yard Setback Maximum Hei ht Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 5 Feet 5 Feet 32 Feet 23,957 sq. ft. .88 or 10,515 sq. ft. .25 or 3,000 s . ft. .87 or 10,442 s . ft.* 20 spaces* * Residential: 9 spaces Commercial: II spaces Minimum Off- Street Parking 3,000 sq. ft. 30 Feet Not applicable to a mixed use development 10 Feet (which may be reduce to 5' by Special Review) 6.66 Feet (Corner lots are required to provide one front yard meeting the minimum setback and one at 2/3 the required front yard setback) 5 Feet 5 Feet 32 Feet (for a mixed use buildin ) Cumulative Maximum: Commercial: .75:1 up to 2: 1 or 24,000 sq. ft. I: 1 (b S ecial Review Affordable Housing: No limitation Free-Market: .75:1 up to I: I (by S ecial Review) Residential Multi-Familv within a mixed-use building: One space per unit or 9 spaces. 100% may be provided through a payment-in-lieu. Commercial: One space per 1,000 net leasable sq. ft. of commercial space or I 0.75 spaces. 100% may be provided through a payment-in-lieu Notes: * - The Mixed-Use zone district requires that the total free-market residential Floor Area on the parcel be no greater than the commercial Floor Area. ** - Four ofthe parking spaces are in a tandem configuration so that access to two ofthe spaces are potentially obstructed. Unless approved by Special Review, the proposed configuration can only count as eighteen (18) spaces towards the parking requirements. The existing development contains eighteen parking spaces and the Land Use Code allows for an existing deficit in parking to be maintained when redeveloped. Conse uently, the Applicant meets the parking requirement. STAFF COMMENTS: 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. In reviewing the subdivision portion of the application, Staff believes that the proposal meets the applicable subdivision review standards established in Land Use Code Section 26.480.050, Review Standards. Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the infill development goals established in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan. VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS: The Applicant is requesting a vested property right for the proposed development plan for a period of five (5) years rather than the standard three (3) year period. The Applicant is requesting the longer vesting period "to accommodate the terms of existing leases for some of the office space in the building." Vesting provides an Applicant a timeframe in which the Applicant can rely on the approvals granted in a site specific development plan. It allows the Applicant to undertake and complete the development and use of said property under the terms and conditions of the site specific development plan. Once vested, a development plan shall not be required to be amended as a result of "any zoning or land use action by the city or by an initiated measure" during the vesting period. If the vested rights expire, the project will be subject to any new regulations that may impact the approval granted. The Land Use Code typically provides for a three year vesting period and a variation from that period is at the sole discretion of the City Council. The City does have a process for extending or reinstating vested rights (Section 26.308.101 c., Extension or Reinstatement of Vested Rights). An extension, if granted would be approved by the City Council. Staff recommends that the longer vesting period not be granted, as it does not provide a community wide benefit. SCHOOL LANDS DEDICA nON: Given that the proposed development constitutes a full subdivision review, Land Use Code Section 26.620, School Lands Dedications, requires that the Applicant either dedicate lands for school function or pay a cash-in-lieu payment. The Applicant has proposed to pay a cash-in-lieu payment pursuant to the fee schedule established in Land Use Code Section 26.620. Staff has included a condition of approval in the proposed ordinance requiring that the Applicant pay the School Lands Dedications fee prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed development. PARK DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE The Applicant is required to pay a Parks Development Impact Fee for additional bedrooms added to the site and additional net leasable created, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Impact Fes. As the submitted plans do not show the number of bedrooms for the free-market units and the net leasable is an estimated figure, the Park Development Impact Fee for this project shall be calculated at the time of building permit submittal. The application for this project preceded the adoption of the new Transportation Demand Management (TDM)/Air Quality impact fee. Therefore, the TDM/Air Quality impact fee shall not be assessed. Staff has included a condition of approval in the proposed ordinance requiring that a Parks Development Impact Fee be paid at prior to building permit issuance. 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. ORDINANCE NO. 25 (SERIES OF 2007) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS SUBDIVISION REVIEW AND VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR THE JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING REDEVELOPMENT AND SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 201 NORTH MILL STREET, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel Nos. 2737-073-17-010 through 2737-073-17-028 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from all of the owners and directors of the Jerome Professional Building Condominium Association, Inc., requesting of the Planning and Zoning Commission three (3) Growth Management Review approvals, Commercial Design Review approval, Special Review approval and a recommendation of approval for Subdivision to redevelop a building known as the Jerome Professional Building located at 201 N. Mill Street; and, WHEREAS, the growth management reviews were for approval for a new mixed-use building which contains 10,750 sq. ft. of net leasable area, approval for the development of six (6) free-market residential units totaling a Floor Area Ratio of .87:1, and approval for the Development of three (3) affordable housing units with a total of 3,099 sq. ft. of net livable area; and, WHEREAS, as part of the land use review, the Applicant requested Commercial Design Review approval for the proposed mixed-use building; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant also requested Special Review approval to increase the individual floor area ratios (FAR) for both the commercial and free-market multi- family use of the property. The effective zoning at the time of application allows an overall cap of2:1 (24,000 sq. ft.) for the entire parcel and permits an applicant to request, through Special Review, an increase in both the free-market multi-family use and commercial use of the property from. 75: 1 to a maximum of I : 1. For the commercial use, the Applicant requested an increase from .75:1 to .88:1 (or an additional 1,515 sq. ft. in floor area) and for the free-market multi-family use, the Applicant requested an increase from .75:1 to .87:1 (or an additional 1,442 sq. ft. in floor area); and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requested a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission of 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; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the application at a public hearing on August I, 2006, and upon recommendation of the Community Development Department, continued the public hearing to August 15,2006; and, Page I of 10 Ordinance No 25, Series of2007 WHEREAS, upon further review of the application at the August 15th continuance, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and took and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, on August 15,2006, via Resolution No. 26 (Series of 2006), the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission found that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approvals and recommendation of approval of the land use requests were consistent with the goals and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted approval of the three (3) Growth Management Review requests; the Commercial Design Review request; and the Special Review request. The Planning and Zoning Commission also recommended approval of the Subdivision request to allow for the development of a mixed-use building that contains 10,750 sq. ft. of net leasable area and a commercial F.A.R of .88:1, six (6) free-market units totaling a Floor Area Ratio of .87:1, and providing three affordable housing units with a total of 3,099 sq. ft. of net livable area by a vote of five to zero (5- 0); and, WHEREAS, once the land use approvals and recommendation of approval were granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Applicant requested Subdivision approval and Vested Property Rights approval (for a period of five rather than three years) of the City Council; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval, with conditions, of the proposed subdivision request and a three year time period for vested property rights; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on October 9, 2007, the City Council opened the hearing, took public testimony, considered pertinent recommendations from the Community Development Director, and referral agencies and adopted Ordinance No. 25, Series of 2007, approving with conditions, Subdivision and Vested Property Rights. WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council fmds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all the applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: Page 2 of 10 Ordinance No 25, Series of 2007 Section l:General Development Approval Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council hereby approves Subdivision Review and Vested Property Rights for the Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment and Subdivision. The Commercial use F.A.R. is approved at .88: I and the Free-Market Multi-Family use F.A.R. is approved at .87: I for the development of a mixed-use building containing six free-market units, three affordable housing units containing a minimum of 3,099 sq. ft. of net livable area, and a commercial component containing a maximum of 10,750 sq. ft. of net leasable area. The exterior design of the building shall be constructed as represented to the City Council and shown in Exhibit A ofthis ordinance. Section 2: Plat and Aereement The Applicant shall record a subdivision agreement that meets the requirements of Land Use Code Chapter 26.480, Subdivision, within 180 days of approval if City Council provides final approval of the subdivision request. The Applicant has requested and the Community Development Director has agreed, as provided for in Section 26.480.070 E., Recordation, to allow the subdivision plat to be recorded concurrently with the future condominium plat. Once construction is nearly completed but prior to an issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the developer shall file a condominium plat and associated documents for review and approval by the City Engineer and Community Development Director as outlined in land use code section 26.480.090, Condominiumization. Section 3: Buildine Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final recorded Ordinance (Ordinance No. 25, Series of 2007) and recorded P&Z Resolution (Resolution No. 26, Series 2006). b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. d. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 5-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. Any applicable fees will be required for a storm drainage connection to the City system. e. An excavation stabilization plan, construction management plan (CMP), and drainage and soils reports pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. The CMP shall include an identification of construction hauling routes for review and approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent. Special emphasis should be directed to the CMP because of the close quarters on the lot. Material Page 3 of 10 Ordinance No 25, Series of2007 staging, parking and material handling are major concerns. A tower crane should be considered for material handling on site to minimize traffic disruptions. f. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the Enviromnental Health Department. g. A detailed excavation plan that utilizes vertical soil stabilization techniques, or other techniques, if appropriate and acceptable, for review and approval by the City Engineer. h. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall be addressed to satisfactorily meet adopted building codes. Section 4: Dimensional Requirements The redevelopment of the building as presented and approved by the City Council complies with the dimensional requirements of the Mixed-Use (MU) zone district, including the FAR limits approved by Special Review and noted in Section I of this ordinance. Section 5: Eneineerine Replacement of the sidewalks, curbs, and gutters need to be addressed with development of the project. If snow melting sidewalks are installed, the adjacent curb and gutter will also need to be heated so the runoff can go into the City of Aspen existing collection system. Permits will be required for any work within a City Right-Of-Way. No penetration, inclusive of soil nails, is allowed within the city right-of-way. Section 6: Affordable Housine a. The affordable housing requirements of the project shall be met with provision of three (3) two-bedroom Category 4 units. b. Rental units are allowed with the following conditions: I) The units have the ability to become ownership units at such time as the owners request this change and/or at such time as the APCHA deems one of the units out of compliance for over a period of one year. At such time, all units will be listed for sale with the Housing Office as specified in the deed restriction at the Category 4 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. 2) Rental of the units shall be open to all qualified employees in Aspen and Pitkin County and shall not be tied to employment; however, the owner(s) of the commercial or free-market residential units may still choose qualified renters and the tenants may still be employed by the commercial component. The HOA may maintain ownership of the units. Page 4 of 10 Ordinance No 25, Series of 2007 3) The governing documents of the development shall be drafted to reflect the potential for the rental units to become ownership units; i.e., the Protective Covenants, By-Laws, Articles of Incorporation, etc. Since the project is a mixed free-marketldeed-restricted project, the assessments shall be determined based on the price values of the free-market component compared to the deed- restricted component. This language shall be required in the Covenants associated with the project. No changes to this restriction shall be allowed without the APCHA's approval. 4) As long as the units remain as rental units, APCHA or the applicant shall structure a deed restriction for the employee housing units only such that an undivided 1/IOth of 1 percent interest in the ownership of each of the employee units 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. c. The homeowners' association shall be established to reflect the potential for the units to become ownership units. The assessments shall be based on the differential between the market values of the free-market component compared to the deed-restricted component. This language shall be required in the Covenants associated with the project. The Covenants shall be reviewed by Housing Office staff prior to approval. No changes to this restriction shall be allowed without the APCHA's approval. d. Three off-street parking spaces within the development's parking garage shall be provided and designated for the occupants of the deed-restricted units. e. The deed-restriction shall be recorded at the time of recordation of the Condominium Plat and prior to Certificate of Occupancy. Section 7: Fire Mitil!:ation NFPA 13 needs to be applied to the residential component of the project. Fire alarms are required. Carbon monoxide detectors are required. Stand Pipes for fire protection need to extend into the basement. Service size needs to account for the required fire flows. The alley size needs to accommodate aerial fire truck access for a minimum width of 20 feet or as otherwise approved by the Fire Marshal. Section 8: 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. Page 5 oflO Ordinance No 25, Series of2007 Section 9: Sanitation District Requirements a. 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. 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 is tenet finish, 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 shafts drains must flow thru o/s interceptor. 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. 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 contaimnent facilities. 1. Soil Nails are not anowed in the public ROW above AS CD main sewer lines and within 3 feet vertically below an ACSD main sewer line. J. Applicant's civil engineer will be required to submit existing and proposed flow calculations. Section 10: 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 has sufficient capacity for the redevelopment. If a new supplemental transformer is required to be installed, the Applicant shall provide for a new transformer and its location shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior to installation. The Applicant shall dedicate an easement to allow for City Utility Personnel to access the supplemental transformer for maintenance purposes, if a supplemental transformer is installed Section 11: Environmental Health Page 6 of 10 Ordinance No 25, Series of2007 Using standard Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Rates, this development will generate 94 additional trips per day, and 13 pounds of PM-IO per day. Thus this development will have a negative effect on the air quality if mitigation measures are not implemented. To provide such mitigation, the Applicant may consider providing free bus pass for employees, having the businesses and Homeowner's Association actively participate in the City's Transportation Options Program (TOP), and provide secure bike storage. Section 12: Exterior Liehtine All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting. Section 13: School Lands Dedication Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.620, 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 effect at the time of building permit submittal. The Applicant shall provide the market value of the land including site improvements, but excluding the value of structures on the site. Section 13: Impact Fees Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Impact Fees, the Applicant shall pay a Parks Development impact fee assessed at the time of building permit application submittal and paid at building permit issuance. The amount shall be calculated using the methodology and fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submittal. As the land use application was submitted prior to adoption of the Transportation Demand Management (TDM)/Air Quality impact fee, the fee shall not be required. Section 14: Parks a. Excavation: any excavation under the drip line of a tree to be preserved will need to approved and receive a drip line permit along with the tree permit. The existing foundation wall may need to remain in place at the location adjacent to a tree that is to be preserved, and vertical excavation may be required and over digging will be prohibited in such zones; work in these zones will need to be coordinated with the Parks Department. The Parks Department will require a detailed plan showing the location of the existing foundation and how it corresponds with the proposed new foundation. This note must be represented on the building permit set. b. Tree Protection: A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site and their represented drip lines. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the building permit set. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree remaining on site. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee before any construction activities are to commence. Root damage is required Page 7 of 10 Ordinance No 25, Series of2007 to be minimized by preserving the eXlstmg foundation, unless an alternative IS acceptable and approved by the Parks Department, around the large Spruce Tree. c. An approved tree permit will be required before any demolition or access infrastructure work takes place. Mitigation for tree removals shall be required. d. The applicant will need to contract with a tree service, and have them on-call in order to address all roots greater than 2 inches in diameter. Roots 2" or greater shall be professionally pruned by the on-call tree service. Root trenching will be required around all trees that will be subject to excavation under the drip line or next to the drip line. This can be accomplished by an experienced tree service company or trained member of the contractor's team. e. Landscaping and Sidewalk landscaped area: Landscaping in the public right of way will be subject to landscaping in the ROW requirements, including: o Street tree plantings shall be evenly spaced a minimum of 20 foot on-center. o ROW plantings require adequate irrigation pressure and coverage. o Improvements to the soil profiles of the ROW (amending the current soils to improve air, water filtration and increase longevity of the new plantings) may be necessary and shall be reviewed by the Parks Department. o Tree trenches will need to be utilized for the street tree plantings. Bleeker Street planting can be accomplished with an attached curb and sidewalk with a brick paver accent. f. Applicant should work with the developer of the adjacent property (to the west) to coordinate the access issues, tree removals and grading associated with opening of the alley. Section 15: Vested Ril!:hts The development approvals granted pursuant to Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Number 26, 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 property: 201 N Mill Street, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO, by Ordinance No. 25 Series of 2007, of the Aspen City Council. Page 8 of 10 Ordinance No 25, Series of2007 Section 16: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 17: This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 18: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office ofthe Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 19: A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 9th day of October, 2007, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 25th day of June, 2007. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of ,2007. Attest: Page 9 of 10 Ordinance No 25, Series of2007 Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Approved Exterior Elevations Page 10 of 10 Ordinance No 25, Series of2007 Exhibit H 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 Findinz The project provides affordable housing within the city limits which meets one of 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. With the location of the development, the building supports the opportunity for choice in travel modes: transit, walking, and bicycling. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. Staff Findinz Staff believes that the proposed mixed- use is consistent with the land uses in the immediate vicinity which include commercial office uses, affordable housing uses and free-market multi-family uses within the downtown area. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Staff Findinz As the application indicates, the surrounding properties are close to fully developed. Therefore, Staff does not believe that the proposal will adversely affect the future development of the surrounding properties. Staff finds this criterion to be met. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. Staff Findinz The proposed development is in compliance with the mixed-use zone district requirements and meets all other land use regulations. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. B. Suitability of land for subdivision. a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. Staff Findinf! Staff believes that the property is suitable for subdivision. The sloped 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. In addition, Staff believes that there will not be a duplication or premature extension of public facilities because the property to be subdivided is already served by adequate public facilities. Therefore, Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and/or the goals of the community. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. Staff 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. Staff Findinf! The Applicant is providing affordable housing units as required by the Land Use Code and meets the affordable housing review standards of the GMQS system. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. Staff Findinll The proposed subdivision is required to meet the School Land Dedication Standards pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630. The Applicant has proposed to pay cash-in-lieu of providing land, which will be paid prior to building permit issuance. Thus, staff finds this criterion to be met. F. Growth Management Approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development (AH-PUD) without first obtaining growth management approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney. (Ord. No. 44-2001, ~ 2) Staff Findinll Allotments for the proposed six free-market units, three affordable housing units, and an additional 3,200 of net leasable are available. HAAS LAND PLANNINGt LLC September 24, 2007 Mayor Ireland and the Aspen Gty Council c/o Ms. Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Director 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 via email to:jennifep@ci.aspen.co.us RE: Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment, Subdivision Application Dear Mayor Ireland and the Aspen Gty Council: This letter has been prepared in an effort to provide concise and direct responses to the questions raised on June 25, 2007 during first reading of the Jerome Professional Building OPB) subdivision application. Based on our notes from that evening, seven separate information requests were presented: 1) an explanation of the special review requests and the criteria used by the Planning and Zoning Commission in reviewing and granting those approvals; 2) the criteria to be used in the review of a request for extended vested property rights; 3) a list of existing tenants in the JPB with the amount of time remaining on each lease; 4) an explanation of why the proposed affordable housing units are to be deed restricted at the Category 4 level; 5) an explanation of how rent-control legislation and the so-called Telluride case are being addressed with rental deed restrictions; 6) a description of how initial sales are to be handled in the event that the affordable housing become ownership units; 7) an explanation of how the proposed affordable housing satisfies codified mitigation requirements. 1) Special Review Criteria and Approvals The applicant had been preparing plans and an application for a 2006 GMQS submittal when, on March 28, 2006, City Council adopted Ernergency Ordinance No. 12. The emergency ordinance was introduced to the public and adopted in a period of just two days, and there was no way of anticipating the code changes that resulted. With project design near completion, said ordinance changed the rules to establish for the first time a maximum residential unit size of 2,000 net livable square feet and to require that commercial Floor Area be not less than free market residential Floor Area. RECEIVED 201 N. MILL STREET. SUITE 108 PHONE: (970) 925-7819 ~q' . - "007 . ASPEN. COLORADO' 8 15"11'..] Z . FAX: (970) 925-7395 CITY OF ASPEN -c: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT r-X1t1BlTI September 24, 2007 GMQS submittals are a closed competition where the first submittal would be the first in line to receive a limited nurnber of available allotments; consequently, it is imperative that submittal for an allotment be made as quickly after the start of the GMQS year as practicable. Due to the emergency adoption of the new rules, the applicant unexpectedly found themselves required to quickly complete several revisions to the proposed design. A result of the emergency ordinance limiting unit size was the originally planned units having to be split up into a greater number of smaller units. Smaller units are not as efficient as larger units in their use of floor area for circulation, corridor space and egress needs, so the overall square footage of the building had to increase. When this increase was coupled with the requirement that the square footage of the commercial space not exceed the free market residential space, the commercial space had to increase to at least equal the increase in the residential space. Virtually all the floor area approved in the special review request is necessary to provide the aforernentioned circulation and egress needs. Due to the rather immediate conception and adoption of the emergency ordinance, we believe that the increases in floor area resulting from the need to provide circulation to meet building codes were unintended consequences of the emergency ordinance. A further effect of these new regulations was a need to increase the size of the affordable housing units to ensure that the additional square footages (even though in circulation space) would be fully mitigated to the level required by the Code, which we have done. Another, and possibly unintended, consequence of the emergency ordinance was an increase in our parking requirements under the Code due to the additional number of units. In reviewing our special review approval, it is worthy to note that we are providing the affordable housing units with assigned parking spaces even though we are not able to provide assigned parking to all the users of the non-deed restricted space in the building. The above-described course of events caused the need to request special review approvals. Prior to adoption of the ernergency ordinance, the applicant intended to avoid the need for any special review approvals. The portion of the submitted application addressing the special review requests and applicable review standards has been excerpted and attached hereto for easy reference as Exhibit SR-l. On August 15, 2006 the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the special review request by a five-to-zero (5-0) vote as part of Resolution No. 26, Series of 2006 (recorded on September 11, 2006 as Reception Number 528466). - 2- September 24, 20G7 2) Review Criteria for the Extended Vested Property Rights Request The Code includes review criteria for an extension of previously granted vested rights beyond a period of three years. Section 26.30S.010(C), states that 1. In reviewing a request for the extension or reinstatement of vested rights the City Council shall consider, but not limited to [sic], the following criteria: a. The applicant s compliance with any conditions requiring performance prior to the date of application for extension or reinstatement; b. The progress made in pursuing the project to date including the effort to obtain any other permits, including a building permit, and the expenditures made by the applicant in pursuing the project; c. The nature and extent of any benefits already received by the city as a result of the project approval such as impact fees or land dedications; d. The needs of the city and the applicant that would be served by the approval of the extension or reinstatement request. Most of these standards are not directly applicable to review of the current request for a five year period of initial vested rights. That said, the request will serve the needs of and be consistent with the goals of the City, especially with respect to growth management. That is, the City of Aspen has gone to great lengths to revamp its growth management system and to limit (or at least phase to moderation) the impacts of development and construction on its citizens' and visitors' quality of life. At the same time, the last two-to-three years has seen approval of a great many redevelopment projects, some of which are quite large by local standards. Given the three year vesting period that came with such approvals, it is reasonable to anticipate this pipeline clearing by the year 2010. The recently adopted code arnendrnents will decrease the nurnber of approvals and, in turn, the rate of growth! development that can be approved in the coming three year period. Further, the newly adopted codes establish three years as the term of validity for new GMQS approvals. Accordingly, it follows that allowing the Jerome Professional Building redevelopment a five year vested rights period will facilitate its associated construction and growth related impacts to be phased into what figures to be a slower development period. Conversely, forcing its development within the coming three year period rneans the impacts of construction will be felt at a magnified level as it will have to occur within the same time period as the current backlog of approved pipeline projects. -3- September 24. 2007 3) Existing Tenants & Remaining Lease Periods Please refer to the attached tenant list at Exhibit T -1. As the attached list shows, existing lease options no longer extend as far out as was the case when the application was filed. At that time the tenant in space 109 had an option that had to be exercised by October 1, 2007, that would extend the lease until October 31, 2010. This tenant has terminated its lease and the space has since been taken with a termination upon renovation provision. There was also another tenant with an option to renew until November 31,2011, but they did not exercise that option. At this point, although the longest term of an existing lease is January 31, 2011, the leases are terminable upon 90 days notice of the commencement of the redevelopment and if the redevelopment were to commence at the earliest time allowed under the lease, the latest date that a tenant has a right to remain is August 1, 2008. Therefore, the applicant no longer needs extended vesting to accommodate existing leases. However, the relocation necessities of existing businesses housed in the Jerome Professional Building and the general desire of the community to slow down the pace of construction still represent valid reasons for approving a five year term of vested rights. The law firms of Klein Cote Edwards, P.c., and Krabacher Sanders, P.c. will need to find approximately 6,000 square feet of office space during the redevelopment of the building and will relocate into the new building once it is completed. This amount of office space is very hard to find in Aspen and is likely to result in relocation to the mid valley while maintaining only small offices in town for the duration of the construction period. This burden will also fall upon the other businesses, including the law firm of Neiley and Adler, P.c., as well as on the planning offices of Haas Land Planning, LLC and Alan Richman Planning Services. Each of these small business owners contributes to the Aspen community and will need flexibility and time to find adequate spaces for relocation. 4) Reason for Category 4 Affordable Housing Deed Restrictions The affordable housing mitigation requirements of the Code are outlined in Sections 26.470.040(C)(2) and (7). The governing standard of the Code states that, Sixty (60) percent of the employees generated by the additional commercial/lodge development, according Section 26.470.050.A, Employee Generation Rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash-in-lieu thereof Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470. 040. C.7, - 4- September 24. 2007 Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. Mitigationfor Free-Market residential units within a mixed-use project shall be pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.6 - Free-Market Residential Units within a Mixed-Use Project. [emphasis added] This adopted and codified Code provision is consistent with the AACP, which states that, "We should endeavor to bring the middle class back into our community. We should discourage sprawl and recognize its cost to the clwracter 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 rnaintain 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 high-quality Category 4 units in the heart of the community and thereby serves to forward all aspects of this AACP goal. 5) Rent-control and the so-called Telluride Case Over the past several years, the City has been approving rental affordable housing mitigation units pursuant to Section 26.470.040(C)(7)(e) of the Code, which states in relevant part that, The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, or its Board of Directors, at its sole discretion, may authorize affordable housing units owned and associated with a lodging or commercial operations to be rental units if a legal instrument, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, ensures permanent affordability of the units. In the current case, the APCHA Housing Board has approved the proposed mitigation units (owned and associated with commercial operations) to be rental units. This approval was finalized by the Planning and Zoning Commission's approval of the growth management requests under which the above-cited standard was considered. The legal instrument offered by the applicant and accepted by the City is identical to the method of ensuring affordability and enforceability that has been used and accepted in association with several projects over the last several years. That is, Section 6, sub-article b.4. of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Nurnber 26, Series of 2006 (recorded September 11,2006 as Reception Number 528466) states that, -5- September 24. 2007 As long as the units remain as rental units, APCHA or the applicant shall structure a deed restriction for the employee housing units only such that an undivided l/lOth of 1 percent interest in the ownership of each of the employee units 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. It has consistently been the City Attorney's position that an ownership interest vested in the Housing Authority is adequate to address rent-control and related enforceability issues. 6) Initial Sales should the Affordable Housing become Ownership Units Section 6, sub-article b.l. of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Number 26, Series of 2006 (recorded September 11, 2006 as Reception Number 528466) states that, 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 one of the units out of compliance over a period of more than one year. At such time, all units will be listed for sale with the Housing Office as specified in the deed restriction at the Category 4 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. Thus, initial sales of the affordable housing units will be handled by APCHA through its lottery system; however, there remains one approved exception to this rule, namely that the homeowners' association (HOA) can maintain ownership of the units for rental under the terms of the APCHA Housing Guidelines. This approval and the language contained in the cited consistent with the applicable Code standard found 26.470.040(C)(7)(e), which states in relevant part that: condition are In Section The proposed units shall be deed restricted as ''for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. -6- September 24. 20()7 Consistent with this Code standard, the APCHA and the Planning and Zoning Commission have approved the owners' ability to select the first qualified purchasers provided said purchasers are the HOA, with subsequent rental of the units done in accordance with the APCHA Guidelines. 7) Satisfaction of Codified Affordable Housing Mitigation Requirements Satisfaction of all codified affordable housing mitigation requirernents is explained in detail on pages 11-16 of the submitted application. The portion of the submitted application addressing satisfaction of all applicable affordable housing mitigation requirements has been excerpted and attached hereto for easy reference at Exhibit AH-1. While not mentioned in the attached excerpt, it is worth noting that the project's free market residences are relatively small: Unit 1 contains 1,020 square feet of net livable area; Unit 2 contains 1,701 square feet of net livable area; Unit 3 contains 1,994 square feet of net livable area; Unit 4 contains 944 square feet of net livable area; Unit 5 contains 1,575 square feet of net livable area; and, Unit 6 contains 1,647 square feet of net livable area. By comparison, the affordable housing units contain 1,050, 1,105 and 944 net livable square feet, respectively. This project's free market unit sizes average 1,480 square feet of net livable area while the affordable housing units average 1,033 net livable square feet. The free market and affordable units are integrated within one building within shared floors/ stories. The point being made is that the affordable housing units are of excellent quality and of comparable size to the free market units. Furthermore and of equal importance, the free market units of the size and location proposed herein are not going to be large employee generators like the large homes found in the peripheral areas of Aspen and Pitkin County. These apartments will not require the hiring of caretakers as an association will manage and maintain the common areas and their relatively small size, means that they will not generate the number of employees associated with their construction or long term occupancy as compared with larger free market residences which have historically been allowed to be built. Moreover, as previously mentioned, although not required by the Code, each of the affordable units will be given a designated on-site parking space within the subgrade garage. We look forward to further discussing the Jerome Professional Building subdivision application at the second reading hearing now scheduled for October 8, 2007. Should you have any additional questions or desire greater -7- September 24. 2007 clarification, please do not hesitate to contact Haas Land Planning, LLC at the numbers and address provided or by email atmhaas@sopris.net. Very truly yours, HA ND PLANNING, LtC Mitc aas, AICP Owner/Manager EXHIBITS: SR-l: Special Review Excerpt T-l: Tenant List AH-l: Affordable Housing Excerpt - 8- "--_.,'<...~.~ EXHIBIT I S1H- Special Review The MU zone district establishes maximum Free-Market Multi-Family Housing and Commercial floor area ratios (FAR) of 0.75:1 each, but allows each of these maximums to be increased to as much as I: I by special review. The proposed development uses: I) a Free-Market Multi-Family Housing FAR of 0.87:1 (0.79:1 without common circulation areas); and, 2) a Commercial FAR of 0.871:1 (0.774:1 without common circulation areas). As such, special review approvals are necessary to allow each of these FAR. The applicable review standards are found in Section 26.430.040(A) of the Code and are provided below in indented and italicized print. The standards are followed by response demonstrating consistency and/or compliance therewith, as applicable. 1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district. The proposed redevelopment provides a mixed-use building that adds commercial and office space and integrated free-market and affordable housing in an appropriate location, on a bus route and in immediate proximity to the rnunicipal parking garage, the public library, the Rio Grande park, Clark's Market, Carl's Pharmacy, several banks, bars and eateries, and the entire downtown. The proposed mass, height, density, configuration, and amount of open space are consistent with the dimensional requirements of the underlying MU zone district. All of the proposed setbacks meet or exceed the requirements of the MU zone district. The pedestrian experience along both East Bleeker Street and North Mill Street will benefit from: the opportunity to provide commercial uses of benefit to the community along this heavily used pedestrian link to the commercial core, bringing interest, vitality and convenience to the pedestrian experience; sidewalk and landscape buffer improvements; increased visual interest will be created by replacing a blank brick wall along the sidewalk with an articulated building that includes windows at the pedestrian level; and, a building that simply better integrates with the pedestrian experience than does the existing structure by providing inviting entryways and a better relationship with surrounding grades. The building design is compatible with the surrounding land uses, which include the two- story brick Moss Entertaimnent/old KSPN office building; the "Blue Vic" property, for which a lot split was recently approved to create a 6,000 square foot, MU-zoned parcel immediately adjacent to the subject property; the rear side of the five-story brick Hotel Jerome and its parking garage and trash area; the two-story brick Community Banks building; and, the three-story brick Children's Library side of the Pitkin County Library. The proposed structure employs brick as a primary building material to provide for consistency with adjacent structures, while integrating "softer" building materials on the upper levels to reduce the feeling of weight and mass. The corner location is accentuated, as suggested by the City's Commercial Design Standards. ~---_..~,-- The mass of the proposed structure and its upper levels are appropriately shifted away from downhill properties and towards the five-story rear fayade of the Hotel Jerome. This also serves to maintain view corridors from residential properties to the west/northwest, and reduce the effects of shading on adjacent properties. The commercial FAR special review request is for 1,455 square feet of additional floor area, of which some 1,162 square feet are actually in cornmon circulation areas (non-unit spaces). Similarly, the free-market residential FAR special review request is for 1,442 square feet of additional floor area, of which some 1,018 square feet are actually in common circulation areas (non-unit spaces). In essence, therefore, special review is being requested for approximately 293 square feet of commercial space and 424 square feet of free-rnarket residential space. These are very modest requests when considering that the Code allows an applicant to request a great deal more. 2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts including, but not limited to, the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the neighborhood, or blocking of a designated view plane. The proposed development will not adversely impact surrounding uses. As briefly explained above, the mass of the proposed structure and its upper levels are appropriately shifted away from dowtihill properties and towards the five-story rear fayade of the Hotel Jerome. This also serves to maintain view corridors from residential properties to the west/northwest, and reduce the effects of shading on adjacent properties. Bleeker Street is impacted and shaded by the historic Hotel Jerome structure and the proposed development, located north of the Hotel Jerome building, has no effect whatsoever on the shading of Bleeker Street. Removal of the existing encroachments into the North Mill Street right-of-way will serve to enhance traffic and pedestrian safety by increasing sight distances both from the Bleeker Street stop sign and from vehicles traveling up North Mill Street to turn onto Bleeker. Removal of the vehicular access drive into the existing parking lot and replacement with alley access will also serve to ensure that there will not be two curb cuts/vehicular access points within fifteen feet of each other on North Mill Street. This will increase safety for pedestrians and drivers alike. The parking needs of the development are being satisfied on-site with a sub grade garage accessed from an alley. No designated view planes will be affected by the proposed redevelopment. To the extent that the development might create any impacts relative to shading, traffic, parking or anything else, such affects will not result from the modest amount of additional floor area requested through special review. The requested special review approvals are very modest in scope and even more modest in affect. EXHIBIT I.~ JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING TENANT LIST Legal Property Tenant Term Size s.f. Option JPB 1-B Suite #102 Neiley & Alder 2 yrs to 501 sf No 9/30/06 JPB I-C Suite #103 Klein, Cote & 4 yrs to 936 sf 90 day notice Edwards, LLC 1/31/2011 if renovation JPB l-D Suite #103 Krabacher & 4 yrs to Share w/l-C 90 day notice Sanders, PC 1/31/2011 if renovation JPB I-EF St Regis 11/19/03 1091 sf No Suite #106 Residence Club to of CO 10/31/07 JPB 1-G Alan Richman 3 yrs to 237 sf No Suite #107 Planning Services 7/31/08 JPB 1-H Haas Land 9 yrs to 310sf No Suite #108 Planning, LLC 6/30/08 JPB I-I Krabacher & 4 yrs to 304 sf 90 day notice Suite #109 Sanders, PC 1/31/2011 if renovation JPB I-A Suite #101 Cyr & Company 2 yrs to 301 sf 90 day notice 4/30/09 after April 30,2008 EXHIBIT tAli Affordable Housing c) Sixty (60) percent of the employees generated by the additional commercial/lodge development, according Section 26.470.050.A, Employee Generation Rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash-in-lieu thereof Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470. 040. C. 7, Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. Mitigation for Free-Market residential units within a mixed-use project shall be pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.6 - Free-Market Residential Units within a Mixed-Use Project. The proposed development's consistency with Sections 26.470.040.C.6 and C.7 of the Code is demonstrated in the next sub-section of this application. Pursuant to Section 26.470.050.A.5 of the Code, Whenever affordable housing is provided on-site (with actual units) in order to satisfY one requirement, the same on-site affordable housing may also be used to satisfY any other affordable housing requirement concurrently. For example: A mixed-use project may require two affordable housing units to mitigate an increase in commercial employee generation, and two affordable housing units to mitigate free-market residential development. In this case, providing two on-site affordable housing units shall satisfY both requirements concurrently. Therefore, in the case of a mixed use project, it is necessary to analyze the affordable housing mitigation requirements attributable to each use type in the proposal and meet the higher of the two requirements. In the current case, the mixed use project includes a free market residential component as well as a commercial/office component, each with its own affordable housing requirement. The two requirements must be established and compared to determine the effective/combined requirement. With regard to the project's commercial component, Section 26.470.050.A of the Code provides that development in the MU zone district generates 3.7 FTE per thousand square feet of net leasable first-floor area, and 2.775 FTE per thousand square feet of upper and lower floor net leasable area (NLA). The standard above, explains that the mitigation is required only for the employees generated by "additionaf' commercial development. Given these Code provisions, in order to determine the mitigation requirement, one must calculate the employee generation of the various levels of commercial NLA in both the existing structure and the proposed structure, then calculate the difference. This difference is the number of employees generated by the redevelopment. Category 4 housing must be provided for 60% of the employees generated, and the housing must be provided in a marmer consistent with the requirements of Section 26.470.040.C.7 ofthe Code. The existing structure contains 3,775 square feet of first floor NLA and 3,775 square feet of upper floor NLA. Therefore, the existing first floor generates 13.97 FTE ([3,775s.f./l,000s.f] x 3.7), and the existing upper floor generates 10.48 FTE ([3,775/1,000] x 2.775). In total, then, the existing structure generates 24.45 FTE (13.97 + 10.48). While the project includes approximately 12,650 square feet of commercial/office space, it is conservatively estimated that 85% of this total will be NLA since not yet designed tenant-driven finishes will include circulation corridors, bathrooms, and storage area that the Code excludes from NLA. By way of cornparison, approximately 81 % of the existing lPB commercial space is NLA per the Code definition. Therefore, for purposes of determining employee mitigation requirements, the development includes 10,750 square feet of NLA, of which 5,590 square feet are basement and upper floors and 5,160 square feet are on the first floor. Because of the slopes adjacent to the site, a portion of level two is considered basement space while the remaining area is considered first floor space; likewise, most of level three is considered first floor space while the remaining portion is considered upper level space (see floor plans). In total, one full level is considered first floor space. As such, the basement and upper floor NLA generates 15.51 FTE (5.59 x 2.775), and the first floor NLA generates 19.09 FTE (5.16 x 3.7). In total, the redevelopment generates 34.6 FTE (15.51 + 19.09). The 24.45 FTE credit from the existing building is now applied, bringing the total increase in employee generation to 10.15 FTE (34.6 - 24.45). Since 60% of the incremental increase in employee generation must be rnitigated, the end requirement attributable to the commercial component of the redevelopment is housing for 6.09 FTE (10.15 x 60%). With regard to the project's free market residential component, Section 26.470.040.C.6 of the Code explains that, "Affordable housing Net livable space, for which the finished floor level is at or above Natural or Finished Grade, whichever is higher. shall be provided in an amount equal to thirty (30) percent of the additionalfree- market residential net livable space, for which the finished floor level is at or above Natural or Finished Grade, whichever is higher." The existing structure does not contain any residential square footage; thus, all free market net livable area in the proposal is "additional." The proposed development includes 8,881 net livable square feet of free market residential space, all of which is above natural and finished grade. Therefore 2,665 square feet of above-grade net livable affordable housing space (8,881 x 30%) is required. Per Section 8 of the 2006 Housing Guidelines, every 400 square feet of affordable housing is equivalent to housing for one (1) FTE; therefore, the end requirement attributable to the free market residential component of the redevelopment is housing for 6.66 FTE (2,665 -;- 400). Since the proposal includes on-site provision of affordable housing (with actual units), pursuant to Section 26.470.050.A.5 of the Code, the effective affordable housing requirement is 2,665 square feet of affordable housing net livable area, housing not less than 6.66 FTE. The proposal includes three (3) two-bedroom affordable housing units. Pursuant to Section 26.470.050(A)(2) of the Code, each of these units houses 2.25 FTE. The three proposed two-bedroom units provide housing for 6.75 FTE in 3,099 square feet of net livable area, all of which is above-grade. These units exceed the requirement. Each of the proposed affordable housing units are consistent with or exceed the 2006 Housing Guidelines requirements for minimum net livable area in a Category 4 two-bedroom unit. Overall, the redevelopment plan is consistent with the APCHA Guidelines, the AACP, and all applicable Land Use Code criteria. d) The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services. The project is a redevelopment of an existing building. The property is already served with public infrastructure, services, and facilities. The additional demand represented by the proposal will not in any way exceed existing capacities and will be mitigated through payment of tap fees, permit fees, impact fees, and the like. b. Free-Market Residential Units within a Mixed Use Proiect. Section 26.470.040(C)(6) Section 26.470.040.C.2.c of the Code (as addressed above), requires that mitigation for free-market residential units within a mixed-use project be reviewed pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.6 of the Code. Standards "a)", "b)" and "d)" of Sections 26.470.040.C.6 and 26.470.040.C.2 are identical, and these standards have been addressed above. As such, the lone remaining review standard of Section 26.470.040.C.6.c is provided below in indented and italicized print and followed by a response demonstrating consistency and compliance therewith. c) Affordable housing net livable space, for which the finished floor level is at or above Natural or Finished Grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to thirty (30) percent of the additional free-market residential net livable space, for which the finished floor level is at or above Natural or Finished Grade, whichever is higher. Additional net livable affordable housing space beyond this requirement may be developed below Natural or Finished Grade but shall not count towards this criterion. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C. 7, Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. The existing structure does not contain any residential square footage; thus, all free market net livable area in the proposal is "additional." The proposed development includes 8,881 net livable square feet of free market residential space, all of which is above natural and finished grade. Therefore 2,665 square feet of above-grade net livable affordable housing space (8,881 x 30%) is required. Per Section 8 of the 2006 Housing Guidelines, every 400 square feet of affordable housing is equivalent to housing for one (1) FTE; therefore, the end requirement attributable to the free market residential component of the redeveloprnent is housing for 6.66 FTE (2,665 -i- 400). The proposal includes three (3) two-bedroom affordable housing units. Pursuant to Section 26.470.050(A)(2) of the Code, each two-bedroorn unit provides credit for housing 2.25 FTE. The three proposed two-bedroom units provide housing for 6.75 FTE in 3,099 square feet of above-grade net livable area. These units exceed the requirement. Each of the proposed affordable housing units are consistent with or exceed the 2006 Housing Guidelines requirements for minimum net livable area in a Category 4 two-bedroorn unit. Overall, the redeveloprnent plan is consistent with the APCHA Guidelines, the AACP, and all applicable Land Use Code criteria. c. Affordable Housinf!. Section 26.470.040(C)(7) The development of affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the new units, pursuant to Section 26.470.030. C. Development Ceiling Levels. This standard has been addressed above in response to the standards of Section 26.470.040.C.2. b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. This standard has been addressed above in response to the standards of Section 26.470.040.C.2. c) The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors. The proposal includes three (3) affordable housing units: Unit I contains two-plus (2+) bedrooms and 1,105 square feet of net livable area; Unit 2 contains two-plus (2+) bedroorns and 1,050 square feet of net livable area; and, Unit 3 contains two (2) bedrooms and 944 square feet of net livable area. Two of the three units are described as two-plus bedroom units since each includes an area for office/guest use. All three units include plenty of storage space as well as private laundry facilities. All (100%) of the finished floor area in the affordable housing is above grade and provided with ample natural light. The proposed affordable housing units are consistent with or exceed the 2006 Housing Guidelines requirements for minimum net livable area in the unit-types proposed. As required by the Code, the units will be deed restricted at the Category 4 rate. This proposal is consistent with the APCHA Guidelines, the AACP, and all applicable Land Use Code criteria. d) Affordable Housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or buy-down units. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty (50) percent or more of the unit's net livable square footage is at or above Natural or Finished Grade, whichever is higher. Off-site units shall be provided within the City of Aspen city limits. Units outside the city limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to 26. 470. 040.D. 2. Provision of affordable housing through a cash-in-lieu payment shall be at the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. The proposed affordable housing mitigation is being provided in the form of actual newly-built, 100% above-grade on-site units. The on-site units are within both the city limits and the Injill Area. e) The proposed units shall be deed restricted as ''for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City of Aspen to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, or its Board of Directors, at its sole discretion, may authorize affordable housing units owned and associated with a lodging or commercial operations to be rental units if a legal instrument, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, ensures permanent affordability of the units. Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, or other similar governmental or quasi-municipal agency shall not be subject to this mandatory ''for-sale'' provision. The proposed affordable housing units will either be: a) "for sale" and transferred to qualified purchasers in accordance with the APCHA Guidelines provided, however, that the applicant shall retain the right to select qualified first purchasers; or, b) owned and associated with on-site commercial operations to be rental units, provided, a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The remaining provisions of this standard are understood by the applicant. [NOTE: this description was revised during hearings before the APCHA Board and the Planning and Zoning Commission; the resulting approvals outline the revisions to allow rental of the units and ownership by the HOA.] 'VI 'Ie MEMORANDUM Mayor and City Council Jessica Garrow, PlannerJMb Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ~W1 TO: FROM: THRU: DATE OF MEMO: September 27, 2007 MEETING DATE: October 9, 2007 508 E. Cooper Ave Subdivision (Cooper Street Pier) - Ordinance No. 28, Series 2007 (Parcel 2737-182-24-007) ApPLICANT /OWNER: SUMMARY: Cooper Street Co-Tenancy The Applicant requests the City Council approve Subdivision Review to construct a mixed-use building. CURRENT ZONING & USE Located in the Commercial Core (CC) Photo of the subject property zone district containing a three storv mixed-use building, including: . 4,373 sq. ft. of net leasable space, and . one (1) free-market unit in 1,966 sq. ft. of net livable space. RE: REPRESENTATIVE: Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning, LLC; & Poss Architecture and Planning LOCATION: Portions of Lots L, M, N, Block 95, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO, commonly known as 508 East Cooper Ave. PROPOSED LAND USE: The Applicant is requesting to redevelopment the property as a four storv mixed-use building, including: . 3,827 sq. ft. of net leasable space, and . one (1) free-market unit in 2,008 sq. ft. of net livable s ace. ZONING COMMISSION PLANNING AND RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission granted Growth Management reviews for free-market residential, affordable housing, and commercial space, a Special Review to vary the dimensions of the trash/utility/recycle area, and recommended City Council grant a Subdivision Review. ST AFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council Subdivision Review with conditions. approve the Staff Memo - 508 E. Cooper Subdivision G:\cityVessica\Cases\Cooper Street Pier\Council\CooperStPier _10.9 .07Memo.doc Page 1 of7 REQUEST OF COUNCIL: City Council is asked to grant Subdivision approval for the development of a multi-family residential unit on the property known as the Cooper Street Pier, located at 508 East Cooper Ave. The residential unit is part of a mixed-use development. BACKGROUND: The 2,842 square foot lot is located in the Commercial Core (CC) Historic District, but is not a contributing structure. The parcel has alley access, but an adjacent building (the Andres Building, currently housing Prada) extends behind the subject property leaving a 6.34 foot wide "flagpole" of access to the alley for the subject site (see picture below). The building currently contains a three story mixed use building with 4,373 square feet of net leasable commercial space and one (1) free-market residential unit of 1,966 square feet. .~.~... '-~ N A The Applicant has received approval to demolish the existing building and develop a four story mixed-use building comprising: a total of 3,827 square feet of net leasable space divided between the basement, first, and second floors; and one (1) free-market residential unit of 2,008 square feet of net livable area on the third and fourth floors. The redevelopment will include fewer square feet of net leasable space than the existing building, and will include the same number of free-market residential units with 42 more square feet of net livable area. The PI~inf and Zoning Commission granted the growth management reviews required for this proJect. Design Approved bv Historic Preservation Commission (HPC): The HPC granted a Certificate of Appropriateness, Demolition approval, and Commercial Design Standard Review for the redevelopment proposal. 2 I Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 6, Series 2007 (Exhibit E) granted three Growth Management Reviews for commercia] space, for a free-market residential unit, and for affordable housing; Special Review for the trash/utility/recycle area; and recommended City Council approve Subdivision Review. The Commission reviewed the proposal at their March 20, 2007 and May], 2007 meetings. These minutes are attached as Exhibit D. 2 Historic Preservation Commission Resolution 17, Series 2006 is attached as Exhibit C. The Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the applications three times before granting approval. The minutes from these meetings (April 19, 2006, June ]4,2006, and Ju]y ]2,2006) are attached as Exhibit B. Staff Memo - 508 E. Cooper Subdivision G:\cityVessica\Cases\Cooper Street Pier\Council\CooperStPier _10.9 .07Memo.doc Page 2 of7 Growth Management and Special Review Granted bv Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z): The P&Z approved Growth Management Reviews for the commercial space, free-market residential unit, and the affordable housing mitigation as part of the mixed use redevelopment.3 Because the new free-market unit is 42 square feet greater than the existing unit, affordable housing mitigation 12.6 square feet is required.4 The P&Z granted a cash-in-lieu payment for the 12.6 square feet of net livable space. The P&Z also granted Special Review to vary the trash/utility/recycle area due to the unique flagpole shaped lot. Multi-Familv Replacement Reviewed Administrativelv: Because this application was submitted prior to the adoption of the recent code changes which amended the review procedure for Multi- Family Housing Replacement, this is an administrative review that is conducted by Staff at the time of building permit submittal. The mitigation under this review requires 50% of the units, bedrooms, and net livable area be provided by the application. The existing multi-family unit is one unit, with one bedroom, in 1,966 square feet of net livable area, generating mitigation of Yz a unit, Yz a bedroom, in 983 square feet of net livable area. The Housing Authority reviewed the redevelopment and recommended cash-in-lieu for the partial unit required. The cash-in-lieu proposed by the Applicant and recommended by the Housing Authority meets the requirements of the replacement program.5 DISCUSSION: Subdivision: The Applicant is requesting subdivision approval because the development of multi-family dwelling units requires approval of subdivision, pursuant to the definition of a subdivision.6 The creation of multiple dwelling units (or one unit within a mixed use building) is considered an act of subdivision. If the Applicant is interested in creating individual ownership interests in the units, condominiumization must be undertaken in order to demarcate ownership units within a single building.7 In reviewing the Subdivision request, Staff finds that the proposal meets the applicable subdivision review standards established in Land Use Code Section 26.480.050, Review Standards, as outlined in Exhibit A. Staff finds that the proposal is consistent with the infill development goals established in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan. 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 and the Park 3 The redevelopment includes less commercial space than the existing building, and there already exists one (1) free-market residential unit, therefore commercial and free-market residential al10ments were not required for this froposal. This is based on Land Use Code Section 26.470.040.C.6, which states that mitigation is equal to 30% of the new free-market net liveable space. The P&Z granted cash-in-lieu because a fraction of a unit was required. 5 Exhibit F outlines the Housing Authority's recommendation of cash-in-lieu, which will be paid at the time of building permit submittal. The fee is calculated at $305,705.22 for the multi-family replacement program. 6 Subdivision, pursuant to Land Use Code section 26.104.100, is dermed as "The Drocess act or result of dividing land into two or more lots. Darcels. or other units of land or seDarate legal interests. for the Duroose or transfer of ownershiD. leasehold interest. building. or develoDment..." 7 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 Memo - 508 E. Cooper Subdivision G:\city\Jessica\Cases\Cooper Street Pier\Council\CooperStPier _10.9 .07Memo.doc Page 3 of? Dedication Fee. The project has received all appropriate Growth Management Reviews and allocations. The land is suitable for development and subdivision, and provides the affordable housing mitigation that is required by the Land Use Code. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of Subdivision to City Council by a vote of five to one (5 - I). Minimum Lot Size Minimum Lot Width Minimum Front Yard Setback Minirnum Side Yard Setback Minimum Rear Yard Setback Maximum Height Pedestrian Amenit S ace Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 37 Feet o Feet o Feet o Feet; P&Z granted Special Review to vary the trash/utility/recycle area dimensions to an alley frontage of nine and a half (9.5) linear feet with a ten (10) foot vertical clearance, and seventeen and a half (17.5) feet in depth. Building: 34 Feet along Cooper Ave 44 Feet for top floor (setback from property line) Cash-in-Lieu fee of $50 per square foot (284.2 s.f.) = $14,210 for this lot Cumulative 4,263 sq. ft. or 1.5: I Maximum: 7,105 sq. ft. or 2.5:1 N/A N/A 2,842 sq. ft. or !: 1 No requirement No requirement No requirement No requirement No requirement except trash/utility service area shall be required abutting an alley, pursuant to Section 26.575.060 42 feet for all areas ofthe property, and 46 feet for areas setback 15 or more feet from lot lines adjoining a Street right-of-way. Pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Pedestrian Amenity Cumulative Maximum: Commercial: 1.5:1 3:1 upt02:! (with affordable housing increase) Lodging, Arts, Cultural and Civic, Public, Recreational, Academic uses: 3:1 Affordable Housing: No limitation Free-Market: I: I Staff Memo - 508 E. Cooper Subdivision G:\city\Jessica\Cases\Cooper Street Pier\Council\CooperStPier _10.9 .07Memo.doc Page 4 of? Maximum Residential Unit Size (sq. ft.) Free-Market Unit: 2,008 sq. ft. 2,000 sq. ft. Note: The 2,000 sq. ft. maximum permitted was established by Ordinance 12, Series 2006. This application was submitted prior to the passage of Ordinance 12 and is, therefore, not sub 'ect to the 2,000 s . ft. maximum. Landscaoine: During the Plarrning and Zoning Commission's review of the project, the Commission discussed the planting of a new street tree in front of the redevelopment. The proposed tree was requested by the Parks Department and recommended as a condition of approval. The Commission discussed the impact the street tree would have on the Cooper A venue View Plane, and voted to delete the condition requiring a street tree from Section 12, Landscaping, of the Plarrning and Zoning Commission Resolution 6, Series 2007 (see Exhibits D and E). Staff has added the condition requiring the Applicant provide a street tree to Section 12, Landscaping of the Ordinance. The Parks and Community Development Department believe the street tree is important to the overall pedestrian experience along Cooper Street. Further, Staff does not consider a tree to be "development," and therefore considers trees and like landscaping features to be exempt from view plane review.8 Council Questions Raised at First Readine:: The City Council asked for clarification on a number of items at first reading. Staff has highlighted these questions and responded below: 1. Council asked about the nature of the two parking spaces in the adiacent building. The spaces were purchased at the same time as the Cooper St. Pier property. According to the Applicant, these spaces were not used by tenants or visitors of the Pitkin County Dry Goods building and were instead rented on the free-market. Under this proposal the two spaces will be dedicated to uses in the redevelopment, rather than being rented on the free-market. Staff and the Applicant are prepared to answer any further questions regarding the parking at the Public Hearing. 2. Council requested clarification on the Affordable Housing mitigation requirements under the proposed redevelopment. Affordable Housing mitigation is generated in redevelopment scenarios when new commercial or free-market residential space is created. 8 Land Use Code Section 26.435.050, Mountain View Plane RfNiew, states in part "When any orooosed develooment infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located in front of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will further infringe upon the view plane, and the likelihood that redevelopment of the adjacent structure will occur to re-open the view plane. In the event the proposed development does not further infringe upon the view plane, and re-redevelopment to reopen the view plane cannot be anticipated, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall exempt the development from the requirements of this section." Staff Memo - 508 E. Cooper Subdivision G:\city\Jessica\Cases\Cooper Street Pier\Council\CooperStPier _10.9 .07Memo.doc Page 5 of? The proposed redevelopment generates less commercial space (net leasable) than currently exists in the space, so mitigation is not required for the commercial component. The code requires that 30% of the new net livable area in the free-market component of a redevelopment be mitigated with affordable housing net livable space. In the proposed redevelopment, the new free-market residential space created is 42 square feet. Therefore, 12.6 square feet (30% of 42 square feet) is required to mitigate for the additional free-market net livable square footage. The Land Use Code states that the Planning and Zoning Commission may approve cash-in-lieu for required affordable housing mitigation.9 The Housing Authority recommended cash-in-lieu be permitted because only a fraction of a unit is required (see Exhibit F), and the Planning and Zoning Commission approved cash-in-lieu in Resolution 6, Series 2007 (see Exhibit E). 3. Council requested information on who lives in the existing free-market residence. There is no information available to Staff indicating who lives in this unit. The Applicant will be prepared to address this question at the Public Hearing. 4. Council requested additional information on how long the existing uses have been located in the building, and what previous uses were located there. According to Staff at the Cooper Street Pier Restaurant and Bar, the business has been located in that space for "at least 30 years." The Pitkin County Treasurer's data goes back 17 years (to 1990) and shows the following uses on the property: a. Cooper Street Pier: 17 years (I 990-today) b. Siamese Basil: 3 years (2004-today) c. Lucci's Italian Restaurant: 13 years (1990-2003) Referral Ae:encv 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. These comments are attached as Exhibit F. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 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 in the infill area, less than one block from the Ruby Park bus station, and is within walking distance of commercial and office uses. The project also meets the Managing Growth section as it does not require any growth management allotments and falls within the 2% desired growth rate for the City. Staff recommends approval of this project. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to adopt Ordinance No. 28, Series of 2007, approving a Subdivision for the redevelopment at 508 East Cooper Ave." 9 Land Use Code Section 26.470.040.C.7 states, "Provision of affordable housing through a cash-in-Iieu payment shall be at the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority." Staff Memo - 508 E. Cooper Subdivision G:\city\Jessica\Cases\Cooper Street Pier\Council\CooperStPier _10.9 .07Memo.doc Page 6 of? CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B - HPC Minutes from April 19, 2006, June 14,2006, and July 12,2006 Exhibit C - HPC Resolution 17, Series 2006 Exhibit D - P&Z Minutes from March 20, 2007 and May I, 2007 Exhibit E - P&Z Resolution 6, Series 2007 Exhibit F - Development Review Committee meeting minutes dated December 13, 2006 and Housing Referral dated January 4, 2007 Exhibit G - View Plane language Exhibit H - Subdivision Definition Exhibit I - Application Staff Memo - 508 E. Cooper Subdivision G:\city\Jessica\Cases\Cooper Street Pier\CounciJ\CooperStPier _10.9 .07Memo.doc Page 7 of? ORDINANCE NO. 28 (SERIES OF 2007) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A SUBDIVISION AND CONDOMINIUMIZA TION FOR 508 E. COOPER AVENUE, PORTIONS OF LOTS L, M, N, BLOCK 95, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, CO, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL NO. 2737-182-24-007 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Cooper Street Co-Tenancy, represented by Haas Land Planning, LLC, requesting approval of three (3) Growth Management Reviews, Subdivision Review, and Special Review to construct a mixed-use building consisting of 3,827 square feet of net leasable commercial space, and one free-market residential unit; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 12,2007, the Historic Preservation Commission approved Resolution No. 17, Series 2007, by a five to zero (5- 0), approving Commercial Design Review for the property at 508 E. Cooper Ave, Portions of Lots L, M, N, Block 95, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned CC (Commercial Core); 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 May I, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No.6, Series of 2007, by a three to one (3-1) vote, approving three (3) Growth Management Reviews for the development of a mixed- use building that includes commercial space, and free market housing, approving a Special Review to vary the dimensional requirements of the trash/utility/recycle area, and recommending that City Council approve with conditions the proposed subdivision and condominiumization to construct a mixed-use building consisting of one (I) free-market residential unit and 3,827 square feet of net leasable commercial space located on the property at 508 E. Cooper Ave, Portions of Lots L, M, N, Block 95, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO; and, WHEREAS, on June 25th, 2007 the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. 28, Series 2007, on First Reading by a four to zero (4-0) vote, approving with conditions the Subdivision and Condominiumization of508 E. Cooper Avenue, Portions of Lots L, M, N, Block 95, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on October 9th, 2007, continued from August 13,2007, August 27, 2007, and September 10, 2007, the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. 28, Series 2007, by a _ to _ L---.J vote, approving with conditions the Subdivision and Condominiumization of 508 E. Cooper Avenue, Portions of Lots L, M, N, Block 95, 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 508 E. Cooper Ave Subdivision G:\city\Jessica\Cases\Cooper Street Pier\Council\CooperStPier _Ordinance I 0.9.07 .doc Page I of8 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 proposed subdivision meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the proposed subdivision, 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 for the property at 508 E. Cooper Ave, Portions of Lots L, M, N, Block 95, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO to construct a mixed-use building consisting of one (I) free-market residential unit, and 3,827 square feet of commercial space. The use mix and dimensional requirements shall comply with the CC zone district, as described in the staff memorandum and included in the chart below. Specific square footage requirements may be amended provided compliance with the below stated . requirements of the underlying CC zone district is maintained. Minimum Lot Size Minimum Lot Width Minimum Front Yard Setback Minimum Side Yard Setback Minimum Rear Yard Setback Maximum Height Pedestrian Amenit S ace A . ~ -~"lf "slI1Xev - eqJllrements 2,842 sq. ft. 37 Feet o Feet o Feet o Feet; P&Z granted Special Review to vary the trash/utility/recycle area dimensions to an alley frontage of nine and a half (9.5) linear feet with a ten (10) foot vertical clearance, and seventeen and a half (17.5) feet in de tho Building: 34 Feet along Cooper Ave 44 Feet for top floor (setback greater than or equal to fifteen (15) feet from property line) Cash-in-Lieu fee of $50 per square foot (284.2 s.f.) = $14,210 for this lot No requirement No requirement No requirement No requirement No requirement except trash/utility service area shall be required abutting an alley, pursuant to Section 26.575.060 42 feet for all areas of the property, and 46 feet for areas setback 15 or more feet from lot lines adjoining a Street right-of-way. Pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Pedestrian Ameni 508 E. Cooper Ave Subdivision G:\city\Jessica\Cases\Cooper Street Pier\Council\CooperStPier _Ordinance I 0.9.07 .doc Page 2 of 8 Commercial: 1.5:1 up to 2:1 (with affordable housing increase) Lodging, Arts, Cultural and Civic, Public, Recreational, Academic uses: 3:1 Affordable Housing: No limitation Free-Market: I: I 2,000 sq. ft. Note: The 2,000 sq. ft. maximum permitted was established by Ordinance 12, Series 2006. This application was submitted prior to the passage of Ordinance 12 and is, therefore, not subject to the 2,000 sq. ft. maximum. Cumulative 4,263 sq. ft. or 1.5: I Maximum: 7,105 sq. ft. or 2.5:1 Cumulative Maximum: 3:1 N/A N/A Maximum Residential Unit Size (sq. ft.) 2,842 sq. ft. or I: I Free-Market Unit: 2,008 sq. ft. Section 2: Plat and Ae: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 this 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 issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Section 3: Buildine: Permit Application The Applicant may not submit a Building Permit Application until the requirements in Land Use Code Section 26.304.075, Building Permit, are fulfilled. The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy ofthe final Ordinance, P&Z Resolution, and HPC Resolution. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. 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 508 E. Cooper Ave Subdivision G:\city\Jessica\Cases\Cooper Street Pier\Council\CooperStPier _Ordinance I 0.9.07 .doc Page 3 of 8 throughout construction. Staging areas will be identified in the plan, and shall indicate that the alley shall not be closed during construction. e. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall meet adopted building code requirements. f. An approved Landscape Plan, as applicable. Section 4: Dimensional Requirements The building as presented in the plans contained within the application dated September 2006, complies with the existing dimensional requirements of the Commercial Core (CC) zone district. Compliance with these requirements will be verified by the City of Aspen Zoning Officer at the time of building permit submittal. Section 5: Trash/Utilitv Service Area The trash containers shall be wildlife proof and meet the Certificate of Appropriateness regulations pertaining to size and security. The trash/utility area shall have an alley frontage of nine and a half (9.5) linear feet with a ten (10) foot vertical clearance, and seventeen and a half (17.5) feet in depth, as identified in the plans approved through Special Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission on May 1,2007. 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, or any other permit to be issues for the property, including but not limited to a demolition permit, the applicant shall provide plans that meet the approval of the City Engineer. Such improvements shall be made prior to a Certificate of Occupancy on any of the units within the development. Section 7: Affordable Housin!!: The affordable housing mitigation requirement shall be satisfied with a payment of cash-in- lieu for 12.6 square feet of affordable housing at the Category 4 level. The cash-in-lieu shall be paid at the time of building permit and shall be earmarked for APCHA's use to "buy down" existing deed-restricted units or proposed deed-restricted units to lower categories. Section 8: Off Street Parkin!!: The Applicant shall provide two (2) off street parking spaces on the adjacent property to the east to be used as parking for 508 East Cooper. Section 9: Water Department Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Each of the units within the building shall have individual water meters. Section 10: Sanitation District Requirements a. Service is contingent upon compliance with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's (ACSD) rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the 508 E. Cooper Ave Subdivision G:\city\Jessica\Cases\Cooper Street Pier\Council\CooperStPier _Ordinance I 0.9.07 .doc Page 4 of 8 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. b. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. c. Oil and Grease interceptors (NOT traps) are required for all food processing establishments; 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 iffood 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. The glycol heating and snow melt system (if any) must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. Any glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. 1. Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above AS CD main sewer lines. J. Applicant's civil engineer will be required to submit existing and proposed flow calculations. Section 11: 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 12: 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 tree protection zones. b. Prior to issuance of any demolition or building permits, any and all tree removal will be approved by the Parks Department. Mitigation for removals shall be satisfied through planting of street trees adjacent to the site or through payment of cash in lieu. c. Root trenching will be required around all potentially affected trees with excavation next to and/or under the drip line. This can be accomplished by a contracted 508 E. Cooper Ave Subdivision G:\city\Jessica\Cases\Cooper Street Pier\Council\CooperStPier _Ordinance I 0.9.07.doc Page 5 of8 professional tree service company or trained member of the contractor's team. This is specific to the trees located on adjacent properties. d. The Applicant is required to make improvements to the City ROW through the installation of a new Cooper A venue street tree, evenly spaced between the two existing trees located in front of the neighboring properties. Planting in the Public Right-Of-Way (ROW) will be subject to Landscaping in the ROW requirements. Plans for the tree planting should be completed and conceptually approved prior to building permit submittal. I. If the sidewalk is kept in tact and does not require replacement then the applicant will have to work with the Parks Department to saw cut a new tree well. 2. If the sidewalk is replaced in any manner the applicant will be required to install a structural tree trench within the tree planting zone. Trench materials, size and location will require approval of the Parks Department. The Applicant is required to install new irrigation to the new tree planting and if possible to the two existing trees depending on the extent of any new tree trench. Section 13: Park Development Impact Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fee, the Applicant shall pay a park development impact fee prior to building permit issuance. The fee shall be calculated according to the fee schedule in Land Use Code Section 26.610.030, Fee Schedule, in place at the time of building permit Section 14: Pedestrian Amenity Cash-in-Lieu Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.030, Pedestrian Amenity, the Applicant shall pay a cash-in-lieu fee for pedestrian amenity in the amount equal to ten percent of the lot area prior to building permit issuance. The fee is assessed based on the following calculation: Lot area = 2,842 square feet I 0% of Lot Area = 284.2 square feet Pavrnent = $50 x 284.2 square feet Pedestrian Amenity Cash-in-Lieu = $14,210.00 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. Sectionl6: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or 508 E. Cooper Ave Subdivision G:\city\Jessica\Cases\Cooper Street Pier\Council\CooperStPier _Ordinance I 0.9.07.doc Page 6 of 8 documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 17: This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 18: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this 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. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council ofthe City of Aspen on the 25 day of June, 2007. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of _, 2007. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: John P. Worcester, City Attorney G:\city\Jessica\Cases\Cooper Street Pier\Council\CooperStPier _ Ordinance9.1 0.07 .doc 508 E. Cooper Ave Subdivision G:\city\Jessica\Cases\Cooper Street Pier\Council\CooperStPier _Ordinance I 0.9.07.doc Page 70f8 50S E. Cooper Ave Subdivision G:\city\Jessica\Cases\Cooper Street Pier\Council\CooperStPier _Ordinance 1 0.9.07 .doc PageSofS Exhibit A, Subdivision Review Criteria 508 E. Cooper Ave. Redevelopment 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! The project contains new development within the Urban Growth Boundary which is a goal of the managing growth section of the AACP. Additionally, this development does not require growth Management Allotments, complying with the 2% desired annual growth in the managing growth section of the AACP. The project promotes the AACP's goals with regards 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 redevelopment generates an affordable housing requirement of less than one unit. The Housing Board has approved the payment of cash-in-lieu for this requirement, which will be used by the Housing Office to provide and/or buy-down Affordable Housing, meeting the goals in the Affordable Housing section ofthe AACP. The project is consistent with the Parks and Open Space section of the AACP as it will include improvements along sidewalks on East Cooper and will pay a Park Development Impact Fee. The development also meets the AACP with regard to design quality as the architectural design enhances the existing character of the area through its consistency with the Commercial Design Review standards as reviewed by the HPC. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. Staff Findinf! Staff believes that the proposed mixed-use building is consistent with the land uses in the immediate vicinity. Indeed, the proposed use mix is fully consistent with the existing uses on the property. Further, the HPC has reviewed the Application for consistency with the neighborhood characteristics in the Commercial Core. The design has received conceptual approval from the HPC, and will go to HPC to receive final approval. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Page 1014 Exhibit A, Subdivision Review Criteria 508 E. Cooper Ave. Redevelopment c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Staff Findini! The surrounding properties are close to fully developed. Additionally, the development meets all the requirements of the CC zone district, and park development, school land, and other impact fees will be paid to mitigate for any other impacts from the development. Therefore, Staff does not believe that the proposal will adversely affect the future development of the surrounding properties. Staff finds this criterion to be met. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. Staff Findini! The proposed development is in compliance with the CC zone district requirements and meets all other land use regulations. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Suitability of land for subdivision. a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. Staff Findini! 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. 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 Findini! Staff finds that the property is suitable for subdivision. Staff finds that there will be no duplication of public facilities as the property to be subdivided is already served by adequate public facilities. The Applicant has stated the cost of any necessary utility extensions or upgrades will be borne by the Applicant. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Page 2 of 4 Exhibit A, Subdivision Review Criteria 508 E. Cooper Ave. Redevelopment 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 Staff Findinf! The Applicant is providing a cash-in-lieu payment for the required affordable housing mitigation, as the requirement generated by the new building is a fraction of a unit (12.6 square feet of housing). The Applicant is also paying the required cash-in-lieu fee for the Multi-Family Replacement Program, again because a fraction of a unit is required. The Replacement Housing requirement is not a GMQS or mitigation requirement. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. Staff Findinf! 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) Page 3 of 4 Exhibit A, Subdivision Review Criteria 508 E. Cooper Ave. Redevelopment Staff Findinll The development does not require Growth Management Allotments for the free-market unit or for the commercial area. The free-market unit generates an Affordable Housing mitigation requirement of only 12.6 square feet of housing. As stated in part D above, the proposed development generates a fraction of a unit as GMQS mitigation. The Applicant has stated, and the Housing Board has recommended, that the mitigation be provided via a cash-in-lieu payment. The Housing Replacement requirements is not a GMQS or mitigation requirement. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Page 4 of4 Exhibit B 508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review ASPEN mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 19. 2006 508 E. COOPER AVE. - CONCEPTUAL, COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND DEMOLITION - PUBLIC HEARING Mitch Haas, planning consultant representing the owner. Bill Poss, architectural firm representing the owner. Amy disclosed that a few years ago her husband was the project manager for the applicant's home and that relationship has ended and her family has no financial involvement with this project and she has been advised by the attorney's office that this is not a conflict of interest. Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I Chris Bendon, Community Development Director informed the HPC and the public that the hearing has an architectural focus to it, and whether or not the aluminum window system and corrugated metal of the building is in fact historic and whether or not the revisions to the fa~ade are appropriate given the architecture of the downtown district. This hearing is not about the use of the building that is determined by the owner. HPC cannot force any owner to maintain a particular business. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney relayed that the procedure is very formal and is used at all hearings. Basically it begins with the applicant submitting an affidavit of notice of public hearing. This means that people within 300 feet of the project have been notified and that it has been published in the paper. That gives the board jurisdiction to proceed. Next, a staff presentation is done following by the applicant presentation. Then the commissioners have an opportunity to ask questions of the applicant At this point they do not comment as to whether they like the applicant or not. Then the public hearing is open. Public comments in general help the project and they help the applicant understand how everyone feels about the project. The board reviews every project based on review criteria and that is what they base their decisions on. After the public comments the commissioners can then comment on the project. The applicant can then respond and give a summation. Then you go to the motion and vote. Amy relayed that the subject property is in the Commercial Core Historic District. The site has always been viewed as a non-contributing building to the district and it is not land marked designated or was it ever considered. 4 Exhibit B 508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review ASPEN mSTORlC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 19. 2006 The applicant proposed to demolish the existing floor structure and fa9ade of the building but to retain existing masonry walls that are on the east, west and rear portions of the building. They will reconstruct the project with mixed use, residential and commercial space and a unit on top of the building. They are asking for conceptual approval and also commercial design standard reviews and demolition review. Staff recommends continuation to restudy designs that do not comply with the design guidelines. The photographs reveal that at some point the entire brick fa9ade was demolished. The store front windows continued to exist into the 1950's and later that was destroyed. In the 1970's the metal "Cooper Street Pier Fa9ade was constructed. What was demolished at one point was a bay that contained a staircase to the upper floor. What we have on the west is an interior wall not an exterior wall. The staircase came up .the side of the building. There is little 19th Century fabric left on the building. The important part was the fa9ade and that is gone. Staff finds that there is no architectural reason to find that this building should be considered historic or that we should be concerned with the demolition. A number of the aspects of the development are not into compliance and staff recommends continuation for the following reasons. The proposal includes recessing most of the ground floor level five to seven feet. The guidelines indicate that store fronts should meet the street and have windows right up against the sidewalk. There is a pattern in town where you had a grand first floor level which the applicant is providing with a 14 foot plate height but the older buildings had smaller additional floors of consistent height and here the second floor is around a ten foot plate height and a third floor that leaps to 14 feet and we find that is not in compliance with the guidelines. Another point is that there should be a strong cornice line and the proposal does not represent that. The cornice in the packet actually is pulled back from the second floor. There is also a deck that is cut into the cornice which projects over the street which would require an encroachment license that takes away from the a strong cornice line. Amy pointed out that the board and staff greatlywe1comes new designs to the community, this is an historic district and that design needs to be strongly informed by the context. Commercial design review needs to be dealt with. Staff finds conflict with 3, one of which deals with requiring that store fronts at the ground level be right up at the sidewalk. Another requirement is an airlock which is not 5 Exhibit B 508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 19. 2006 being provided and also a trash and delivery area. This project does not have very direct access to the alley. Mitch said after reading through the memo they agreed with most of the points brought up. Our intent is to explain some of our rationale for the type of design that was taken. Bill said conceptual is to look at the design and get comments from the board. We feel the approach goes along with what the public wants. We have attempted to save all of the historic properties and elements that are in the building now. The interior wall and the eastern exterior or party wall are being exposed. We are going to expose the peach blow sandstone in the lower level. This building was the impetus for a view plane that still exists today and a protection of a view plane. It is called the East Cooper Ave. view plane. It initiates from about six feet inside the building. The existing indoor/outdoor dining area is the start of the view plane and we intend to keep that area. The design of the building can be done to give certain attributes to the design to encourage dining for particular spaces. There are not a lot of outdoor dining areas designated in the buildings that we have for downtown. Using that as a start of our design it allowed us to expose the interior walls and set it back and guide a potential tenant to use that as exterior dining. Bill said when they take the paint off and restore the walls they need to make sure they have the proper water proofing etc. In trying to preserve the front dining that is why we are setting back the glass. The elements are to preserve the historic walls, keep the brick and in order to get more vertical height to the building we would take the railing and create that as a cornice. We are using the one wall as a key feature inside as we enter the different levels. We are also lowering the level of the basement to make that more conducive of a restaurant space. The footprint of the bldg. is 2,642 and in that we have to have two stairs and an elevator for handicapped access. The owner oftms building owns 7 spaces along the back alley and they are proposing to take I or Yz spaces to meet our utility and trash area. Mitch said at P&Z in the growth management review there will be a special review to alter the trash utility service area requirements, basically turning it sideways along the alley. 6 Exhibit B 508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 19. 2006 Alison asked about the lower level which indicates a door opening into the parking next door. Bill said the owners also own two parking spaces in the lower level of the garage and they will go with pent house. Derek asked ifthere was any rationale why 6 feet was chosen as opposed to coming out further etc. What is the rationalization for the second level parapet? Bill said they wanted to go with what was existing and go vertical to use up the height. Mitch said none of the guidelines indicate that the trash area has to be on your property it just says it has to abut an alley. Derek asked if the City has looked at what may be development down the way and how the recycle ordinance and trash will be affected. Bill said trash companies have given different containers to sort and recycle and have trash. Chris Bendon said the trash section was amended a year ago and Environmental Health was very much involved. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Georgeann Waggaman applauded Amy on her critique and Bill Pass for trying to keep a restaurant on the first floor. The proportions on the first and second floor are OK. The railing into a cornice is a good idea. Georgeann recommended a kick plate. The upper floor has become the tail that wags the dog. HPC needs to look at these seriously because they are an impact to our community. Bill Sterling asked Amy what the percentages were for commercial and residential with reference to the new ordinance that council just past. Mitch pointed out that this application was in place before the ordinance was adopted and they do not have those figures. David Hoefer pointed out that applicants only have to abide by ordinances that were in effect that the time the application was made. Chris said top floor is 27 hundred square foot and the new ordinance says 2,000 but they are not subject to that because the application was submitted several months ago. 7 Exhibit B 508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 19. 2006 Bill Sterling said the ordinance says no more that 50% residential. The residential is the economic engine that has been unsettling for people downtown. Georgeann said visually the building is too tall. Ann Wycopp said even though the buildings are not on the register they add personality and flavor to our town. We are all concerned that this town is going to look like Vail. We do not understand why our town is moving in the direction it is so quickly. David McClure, two year resident. He is new to the process and wants to get involved. It is surprising that the proposal doesn't come in any Closer to the guidelines. The chair closed the public hearing. Derek addressed to the general audience and said this group in this room is not so different. We are all on the same boat. Some of the phone calls made were out of panic or plain ignorance. A lot of what came up was that HPC members don't care about Aspen. Derek said he doesn't want to see Aspen destroyed. We do have the idea of what preservation is. Preservation is keeping something alive in the course of changing times. If we can find a medium and balance and getting to a place where all sides are represented and we are conscientiously looking at what this means to the bigger picture of preservation which is the vibrancies and vitality of Aspen. What people feel is that we are loosing a special place of what Aspen is. We are working within a set of parameters and we will be conscientious in our decision making. Derek feels the massing and scale is close but he also understands the concerns of the third and fourth level. Regarding of where the facade of the wall has to sit at street level he is open to the idea of pushing the space back. The material palate is appropriate. Jason said the HPC is a voluntary board and we are here because we care about Aspen. We are here to protect our buildings. This building is not historic but it is historic in our hearts. Jason thanked the public for being part of the process. We are dealing with the new view of Aspen vs. the old view of Aspen. Aspen is a marketable place and this is an opportunity for 8 Exhibit B 508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review ASPEN mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 19. 2006 people to invest here. Maintaining the visual impact from the street is important. The existing entrance could be the airlock and raising the cornice will solve staffs problems and concerns. Regarding the location of the glass far;ade, guideline 13.19 talks about repeating patterns along the block. With the building there is a recessed entryway. Possibly the front should be recessed instead of at the street frontage. There is a need to create for the public what Cooper Street pier looked like. The solid brick second stol)' is true to what the secondary stol)' looked like. Alison said we sit on this board because we do love Aspen and take a lot of time and thought with each project. Why things have changed fast is partly due to property values, they have sky rocketed. Also codes within the town change. Keeping the waIls is wonderful and we are fortunate to have an architect who thinks about that. The changes in the second stOI)' and the lower cornice being the railing are appropriate. Alison said she likes the idea of the store front moving to the left and there should be an air-lock. The suggestion that a kick plate be added also enhances the project. Regarding the third stOI)', it should be kept in line and the upper cornice should be smaller. Jeffrey said he has similar concerns as staff. Relating to Chapter # 13 Jeffrey likes the concept of having a recessed seating area that is enclosed but he is still feeling that there is a strong representation to make that far;ade be at the original property line that was historic. The recessed entryway is recommended. The historic elements of the second course and the store front on the first stOI)' are vel)' close to what the guideline intents are. The third and fourth floor needs additional study. Possibly the two stOI)' far;ade should be reconstructed as Amy mentioned. The concern is the height of the cornice and how it relates to the other context around it. Modifications to the third story would help the relationship to the pedestrian and the street and the scale of Aspen. Jeffrey said it is commendable that anyone should sit through a meeting in excess of 2 hours to voice their opinion. The height requirement has been met. Perhaps a study of a few corner relationships will help the overall mass and scale of the structure. Bill said the kick plate is vel)' important and will be added. They will work on the upper floor and take down the height. The idea was 14 feet on the first floor, lOon the second, third and fourth. The national guidelines ask that we not replicate Victorians. The mason historic buildings have stayed and the wooden ones got torn down. 9 Exhibit B 508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review ASPEN mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 19. 2006 MOTION: Derek moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development for 508 Cooper Ave. until June 14'h; second by Alison. Motion carried 4-0. Roll call vote: Jason, yes; Derek, yes; Alison, yes; Jeffrey, yes. 430 W. MAIN - WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Alison. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. 10 Exhibit B 508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 14. 2006 UTE CITY BAR AND GRILL trY Cavaleri requested to take out temporarily and salvage one column d the 0 bottom panels, kick plate of the store front in order to get dirt t of the but . ng. It appears that the column has already been moved ceo Alison asked w long it would take. Jerry said four wee mechanized equi Jeffrey said you are dea' with an historical of the commercial core. It s ms very evas' . It is also in the middle and he cannot support it. Derek said anything we c Jason said he wou allow it to be opened up but it the original st t be restored back to Jerry s' he can agree with Jason's recommendation. e board decided to do a site visit. 508 E. COOPER AVE. - CONCEPTUAL - COMMERCIAL DEASIGN REVIEW AND DEMOLITION - PUBLIC HEARING Bill Poss and associates. Amy relayed that the applicant has made a number of changes. They raised the cornice to emphasize two stories. They brought down the height of the third floor component of the residential building. Staff feels there needs to be discussion about the ground floor storefront. Pushing the display windows back is not meeting the guidelines and maybe it is not the best long term solution. There is very little area in there to put tables in. If the intent is to do a restaurant then there should be operable windows. Staff is also concerned about the void that is created by having a long hallway which goes down the side of the building to access a basement space. We also brought up that the staircase column is very solid so we might want to discuss the materials. Amy also said the memo discusses the residential unit on the top. '- . Unfortunately for the applicant they are the first project coming in proposing 6 ___ ~~~__. I Exhibit B 508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review ASPEN mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 14. 2006 a fourth story. Our guidelines envision a 3 story building. I am not entirely sure how the board treats a building at this height. Possibly we acknowledge the building at least as being three stories with a minimal residential space on top. The stepping back is not necessarily consistent with the downtown and that area needs discussed. Staff reconunends continuation. Mitch Haas, planner Mike Hall, project architect Andy Wisnosky, director of design Bill said the main issues are the store front with the potential kick plate and whether the store front is forward or back. Raising the parapet which would reduce the impact of the residential unit on top. We looked at Amy's idea of having a three-story but looked at the history and all of the buildings at that era were set up with store fronts of varying height and parapets of varying heights. The initial intent was to preserve what is historical here and accentuate it. We tried to keep visibility to both historic walls. That is one of the reasons we were stepping the front back to expose the walls. We also stepped it back due to the political pressure of having the indoor/outdoor look. We can bring the store front forward if that is what we want to do for historic preservation. We can still have the indoor/outdoor look with opening windows. We are only 30 feet wide so we stacked the stairs. The cornice line was added and the residential unit is very subdued. Andy said there was concern about the fourth floor and how it impacted the character of the street. The fourth floor is set back twice as far as is required. We are only required to be 15 feet back and we are 30 feet back. The design is a modern insertion between the historic walls. Bill said Amy has proposed a rain screen so that we can see through it but keep the rain out of the stair corridor. We proposed that the entrance appeared in the older era style and open but we can restudy it. Bill pointed out that the building no longer exists but the stair remained. Clarifications: '"". 7 ~ _.. - .~. .._ __ -1- Exhibit B 508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 14. 2006 Jason asked why the staircase isn't entered from the street. Bill said instead of having two stairs, one going down and one going up we are stacking them. One goes up to the second level and we also didn't want to loose floor area. We are trying to have two exits and not have a third stair. We are using the stair to embrace the historic wall. Andy said coming from the side is a better solution when it snows etc. Alison asked about moving the store front forward. Andy said he elected to pull it back to provide for openness and make the wall more significant. Alison pointed out that the building to the east is four stories. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. Sarah pointed out that our massing doesn't really deal with four stories. The massing and context of the building has been dealt with very well. Her concern is the street elevation. Historically, if the store front came to the front of the street it would conform to our guidelines. The dialogue with the brick walls is interesting but historically all you really saw were the ends. "." Exposing it is interesting but we need to look again where the positions of the windows area. Where the third and fourth story steps back is very interesting. Alison also agreed that the third and fourth story is in better scale with the rest of the street. The 3D model is great. It helps you perceive how the building looks from the street. She is tom on the store fronts. There is mixed history for the past 30 years where buildings are stepped back. But to go with the guidelines, moving it forward and having windows that open the way that they do at Ute City Bank would give you more rentable square feet and maybe useful all year. The entire project is an improvement. Derek said massing and scale work with our guidelines. This is an empathetic solution to what is going on with its surroundings. One area of concern from a functionality point is the use of the outdoor space and how that works with a side access door. Jason said the massing changes are a great improvement. With regards to the Cooper Street Pier what made it work was the sliding panel door because it is such a narrow space. We talked about moving the panels to the street 8 Exhibit B 508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review ASPEN mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 14. 2006 fa~ade at the last meeting. For me it is a bigger issue with the new wall scheme and why can't it be seem from the inside and reconfigured. Jeffrey said we struggle with the property line at street level. Exposing the party walls is a nice gesture but we would prefer to keep it as much as we can as a public amenity. He can understand how you engage into the public/private space. The improvement of the cornice lines with their horizontality is helpful. The rain screen might cause too much attention to the historic walls. The reduction in height is in conformance with our guidelines. Mitch said we tried to pay homage to the evolution of the building with the two side walls from the original building. The front is paying homage to what has been there the last 30 years. Sarah said this building has always been a solid building so why are we eroding it with a store front step back. It is very clear that the buildings were at street level. Even the ones across the street have the historic pattern. Bill said we were working with a political out cry and we do not know what is going to be in that space and we can restudy the storefront and if it is the consensus of our guidelines to keep that straight we will. MOTION: Derek move to approve Resolution #15 for 508 E. Cooper with the condition that the fenestration of the fa<;ade element of the first level be restudied; second by Jeffrey. Derek pointed out whether you access from the front or side the mass and scale remain the same. Jason said he doesn't want it set in stone that the louver will be closed off and the hallway left open. The doors could also change. Amy clarified that the motion includes - major development, conceptual, commercial design review and demolition. Derek said the motion also includes the access of the stair. They are all interconnected. Jason said we talked about movable panels which change the scope of the design and there is the question of the difference in theory of entering where 9 Exhibit B 508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 14. 2006 the louvers are and having the whole fa~ade go through a corridor. Jason ',- . said he would rather have the two issues figured out before we approve demolition. Roll call vote: Jason, no; Derek, yes; Alison, yes; Sarah, no; Jeffrey, no. Motion dies 3-2. MOTION: Derek moved to continue 508 E. Cooper, conceptual and public hearing until July 12, 2006; second by Jason. Roll call vote: Jason, yes; Derek, yes; Alison, yes; Sarah, yes; Jeffrey, yes. Motion carried. 5-0. FOX CROSSING PARK - MINOR DEVELOPMENT, CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING stated that the revised plans are much simpler and the trail has bee away from the historic building. They only thing brought up' the plant rials. There is a very limited plant palate, some lilac b es that are native t the period and staff feels we should stick to what as existing. Possibly lowe edges should be used instead of deciduous ees. Stan Clausen & asso . tes. Stan said the new desi as incorporated the bio- tention storage which is a very successful solution storm water ement on the site. We worked with the same type of ant palate i 'tially that was approved by City Council. There is a clear view to e hi ric resources. There is a considerable amount of grade differe e. An ornamental seed mix will be used and two locations for signa at th try to the public areas of the park. We request that a monit be assigne to work with us on the signage. We also incorporated hac s benches and w ld like HPC's guidance on the design. With respec 0 guideline 1.13 ifthe ard feels the row of Aspen trees is too m we can make substitutions. Brain Flynn, P s Dept. said the park now has a very acti and passive use to it. The c erry and maple trees proposed add color to the sc Chai erson Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were p ic comments. The public hearing portion of the meeting was close 10 , Exhibil C 508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 12. 2006 said he would like to see ifthere is a way to have the historic bui! s incorpora .th the other structures. Derek said his concern is . ing the location 0 the master plan. museum and what is MOTION: Derek moved t ntinue Willoughby 'Lift 1 Park/Skier Chalet Steakhouse ic hearing until August 9, 2006; s d by Jason. Roll call v . ason, yes; Derek, yes; Alison, yes; Sarah, yes; e Mo' carried 5-0. S08 E. COOPER - CONCEPTUAL - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND DEMOLITION - PUBLIC HEARING Bill Poss and Associates Mitch Haas - Planning consultant Bill relayed that at the last meeting direction was to restudy the store front and the entrance to the upper levels of the building. The plan has a recessed entry in the center of the store front with a kick plate and glass store front underneath. We have enclosed and made a private resjdential entry on the side. Sara said basically the applicant addressed all the comments and staff recommends approval. The store front was brought forward. Bill said it is a great building and the store front actually adds to the design. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Derek thanked the applicant for all the effort they put into the process and the project is fantastic and the applicant was very responsive to our concerns. Jason and Sarah agreed that the project meets the guidelines. Alison said the store front matches exactly what the guidelines say. 10 L Exhibit C 508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review ASPEN mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 12. 2006 Jeffrey relayed that Chapter 13 and 14 have been adhered to. The modifications have helped its mass and scale. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution #17 for 508 E. Cooper Ave. as presented tonight, second by Derek. Roll call vote: Jason, yes; Derek, yes; Alison, yes; Sarah, yes; Jeffrey, yes. Motion carried 5-0. 398 E. nOPKINS CONCEPTUAL DEMOLITION PEDESTKlAN Al\fENTY SPACE AND VIEW PLANE REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING xhibit I - Genre building - fire wall. Amy plained that staff feels there has been a lot of progress on the roject. At the la hearing there were a few things asked to be restudied: educe plate heigh and pulling in the width of the upper floor to min' . ze the intrusion of tli Hotel Jerome view plane. Restudy breakin e building into two 30 foot odules. Allow enough space between e new construction and th enre building for maintenance to ensure that the historic siding would n t have to be removed. The plicant has clearly done a few of these thing reduced the plate hei s and they have also created the shadow line that as requested. S is still concerned that a couple things are not resolved. 0 additio breathing room has been given to the Genre building and architec rally' is not appropriate to butt up against that building. Genre is an his 'c landmark and this building is not. Staff also feels that the side walls e t been resolved. They have been pulled in on the lower but not th II dept of the building. The Planning Office feels strongly that the . ew plane is i rtant and HPC should take that concept of negligible i pact very seriously. Charles Cunniffe, arc Itect stated that HPC verbalize at if we reduce the plate height by a f, t then the view plane would be a no 'ssue at the last meeting. We h e cut off some square feet and cut down t late heights to accomplish t t. We are now down to a 3.3 in the view plane. e view plane is a Iding view plane. Charles pointed out that when the ttages on Main S eet come before HPC they will want to add two stories. second issue is the breaking up the front fa~ade and we have ccomplished that. 11 .1. Exhibit C 508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review 11111111111111111111111I11 ~;~~~~;! ~1181 JANICE K vas CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY co R 16.00 0 0.00 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), DEMOLITION AND COMMERICAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 508 EAST COOPER STREET, A PORTION OF LOTS L M, AND N, BLOCK 95, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO. RESOLUTION NO. 17, SERIES OF 2006 PARCEL In: 2737-182-24-007. WHEREAS, the applicant, Joshua Saslove, represented by Poss Architecture + Planning and Haas Land Planning, has requested Major Development (Conceptual), Demolition, and Commercial Design Review for the property located at 508 E. Hopkins Avenue, a portion of Lots L, M and N, Block 95, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.4l5.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, in order to authorize a demolition, according to Section 26.415.080, Demolition of designated historic properties, it must be demonstrated that the application meets anyone of the following criteria: a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structuraJly sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen, or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and Additionallv. for approval to demolish. all of the followinl!: criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located, and '--1 Exhibit C 508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision ReView 111111I1111111111111111111111111 ~~;~~~:! ~I:I JANICE K 1/05 CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 16.00 D 8.00 8. b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area; and WHEREAS, for approval of Commercial Design Review, HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.412 of the Municipal Code, that the project conforms with the following criteria: 1. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial Design Standards or any deviation from the Standards provides a more-appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justifY a deviation from the Standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested Design Elements, is not required but may be used to justifY a deviation from the Standards. 2. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial Design Standards, to the greatest extent practical. Amendments to the fayade of the building may be required to comply with this section. 3. For properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures or located within a Historic District, the proposed development has received Conceptual Development Plan approval from the Historic Preservation Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.415. This criterion shall not apply if the development activity does not require review by the Historic Preservation Commission; and WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report dated July 12,2006, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines have been met, and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on July 12,2006, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application by a vote of5to O. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby recommends approval for Major Development (Conceptual), Demolition, and Commercial Design Review for the property located at 508 East Cooper Street, a portion of Lots L, M & N, Block 95, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, as proposed with the following conditions; 1. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (I) year of the date of approval ofa Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole Exhibit C 508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 12th day of July 2006. Approv Form: Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ~- ~e-L"'" .~ Kathy St ckland, Chief Deputy Clerk 11".I.,I'l'~t ~~~:;:t:,,,. Exhibit 0 508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! Minutes - March 20. 2007 ied there was a staircase from the east side of the structure; there was very r natura . ht; it was one large room with a couple of secondary walls. asked if the 0,000.00 was based on a category 3; she asked wher e number came from. Coo ndon responded that in the housing guide' there were housing square footage uirements for mitigating co cial space. Hall said there was a provision in the c for the buyout of it in a single family home. MOTION: Dylan Johns moved to app/: Resolution #007-07 for a Substantial Amendment to Growth Manageme approva 111 West Hyman Avenue with a modification to Section 2 str' . g the requirement 0 ditional mitigation fee based upon the 195 s efeet difference. Steve Skadron onded. Roll call: Guthrie, yes; Ers er, no; Skadron, yes; Johns, yes; Kruger, y 4-1. TINUED PUBLIC HEARING (3/8/7): COOPER STREET PIER REDEVELOPMENT Ruth Kruger opened the continued public hearing on Cooper Street Pier Redevelopment. Jessica Garrow stated the applicant was Joshua Saslove represented by Mitch Haas and Poss Architecture. Garrow noted P&Z was charged with Growth Management for new commercial space in a Mixed Use building; Growth management for free market units in a Mixed Use building; Growth Management Review for affordable housing and Special Review to vary the trash, utility and recycle area. P&Z will make a recommendation to City Council on Subdivision. Garrow said the applicant will also go through multi-family replacement with an administrative review. The property was located in the commercial core, a historic district, and was reviewed by HPC for conceptual design review and commercial design standards. The lot was 2,842 square feet and currently houses a Mixed Use building including I free market unit and 4,373 square feet of net leaseable area. The redevelopment proposal was for a mixed use building with 3,827 square feet of net leaseable area and I free market residential unit at 2,008 square feet; the application was submitted prior to Ordinance 12-06 so it does not have to abide by the 2,000 square foot limit on multi-family units in the Commercial Core Zone District. The height ofthe building was proposed at 34 feet along Cooper Avenue and 44 feet at the top floor; the total FAR was 2.5 to I with commercial FAR of 1.5 to 1 and free-market at I to I. Garrow said the existing building generates 15.05 FTEs and the proposed redevelopment will generate 13.13 FTEs resulting in a reduction in the FTEs generated by the development therefore there was no affordable housing mitigation 8 Exhibit D 508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Meetin!!: Minutes - March 20. 2007 required and staff finds the redevelopment meets the criteria for commercial space in a mixed use building. Garrow said there was Growth Management for a free market unit in a mixed use building. The existing development includes a single one-bedroom free market unit in a mixed use building at 1,966 square feet of net livable space; the proposal includes a single free market unit with 2,008 square feet of net livable. The redevelopment generates a total of 42 square feet of net livable space and the mitigation requirements in the growth management review require the applicant to mitigate 30% of the new square footage provided; that requirement would be 12.6 square feet. The applicant proposed and the Housing Board recommended that this requirement be satisfied with a cash-in-lieu payment, which is just under $4,000.00 and will go into housing fund to buy down other units. Garrow said the next Growth Management review was for affordable housing, which was satisfied with a cash-in-lieu payment and stafffelt this met the review criteria. Garrow said there was a Special Review to vary the trash, utility and recycling area; due to site specific constraints the applicant requested special review to vary the dimensions of this area. The code required a trash/utility/recycle area that measures 15 feet in width (along the alley), 10 foot in depth and 10 foot clearance; this lot has only 2.34 linear feet in the alley. The applicant acquired an adjacent parking space so the total alley frontage was 9.5 feet for the trash/utility/recycle area; the depth was 17.5 feet; the total of the trash/utility/recycle area 166.25 square feet, which exceeded the required. Staff recommended approval. Garrow said that Subdivision met all of the criteria and the site was appropriate for development and the proposal was consistent with the character of the area and uses in the area and met the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan. The proposal placed new development inside the urban growth boundary, promotes transportation goals by providing development in close proximity to transit routes and does not require Growth Management Allotments. Garrow said the Multi-family replacement was an administrative review; the applicant will pay almost $311,000.00 allocated to the housing fund; the total the applicant will pay is $314,975.43. Staff recommends approval of the project. Mitch Haas, planner for the applicant, stated the existing property was quite small and constrained at 2800 + square feet with a flagpole shape extending to the alley. Haas said the basement was a restaurant and the ground floor was the Cooper Street Pier with a mezzanine level and above that was a residential rental unit that 9 Exhibit D 508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review Aspen PIannin2 & Zonin2 Commission Meetin2 Minutes - March 20. 2007 has been there for some time. Haas said the proposal was essentially a clean redevelopment and the property has been through HPC even though the property was not designated historic but just within the Commercial Core. Haas said that they did engage in a historic preservation effort that was not required. The proposal was a basement level and 1 sl level of commercial use with an open area that would look down to the 1 st floor and the east side was circulation and common areas (stairways). There was a reduction in the net leasable commercial square footage so there were no affordable housing or parking mitigation requirements; the existing property has no parking whatsoever. Haas said in the basement level there would be a passage through the basement easterly wall to the parking garage next door to be able to use 2 parking spaces. They have acquired one of the parking spaces in the back to use as a trash service area but could not meet the 15 foot requirement for the alley frontage; the requirement for trash service/utility area was 15 feet by 10 feet or 150 square feet; they are providing 166 square feet. Haas said that they were providing 2 parking spaces next door. Haas noted the total mitigation for affordable housing was 12.6 square feet of affordable housing so they were providing cash-in-lieu. The multi-family replacement requirement was an administrative review. Haas stated that the city designated a view plane from this property and the city requested street trees planted right in front of the view plane.' Andy Wisnoski, architect, stated that this was a constrained challenging site being land locked on both sides; the building fronts one direction. The vertical circulation plan was new to this proposal with two means of egress from the building with an elevator in the center. Wisnoski provided the history of the building beginning when it was originally built in the late l800s and the building burnt down or collapsed from decay during the 1 940s; he provided photos and somewhere in the 1960s it was brought to the way the building sits today. Wisnoski said that the two brick walls were all that was left of the original building, which maintains an important piece of the history of this particular building. Wisnoski explained the architecture and showed what the code allows in height for this building; the proposed building fits into the neighboring building heights along the street. Wisnoski said there was a penthouse on the top floor. LJ Erspamer asked about the tree placement. Jessica Garrow responded that Parks requested street trees added in specific locations. Garrow said the placement of the tree does not hinder the view plane and will not have a negative impact on that view plane; it was not a land use but a landscaping feature. 10 Exhibit D 508 E, Cooper Ave, Subdivision Review Aspen Plan nine & Zonine Commission Meetine Minutes - March 20. 2007 Steve Skadron said that he found himself conflicted by the HPC conceptual approval and requested clarification on the HPC Resolution Criteria A that said the structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel. Skadron felt that the pedestrian amenity space contributed to the parcel and brought vitality to area. Garrow said that the HPC went through a number of iterations at conceptual; the design added operable windows along the street frontage and could potentially be a restaurant again. Haas said there were 3 HPC hearings; the first form was similar to the existing space but HPC did not approve that iteration. Wisnoski said the current thinking within the commercial guidelines was that in this zone district the building should front the street; the only setback was for the door very similar to the original building. Jason Lasser explained historic building form. Ruth Kruger inquired about the view plane designated for that amenity space. Haas said that he did not want to belabor the street tree. Garrow noted that P&Z could recommend the street tree be removed. Skadron asked if condominiumization was to solely demark ownership. Garrow replied that there would be different ownership within the building. LJ Erspamer asked if the space was vented for a restaurant. Wisnoski replied at the time it was not but it can be. David Guthrie asked the highest point of the building and the buildings next to it. Ruth Kruger asked why it was an administrative review for the multi-family replacement. Jessica Garrow replied that was the way it was written in the code. Kruger asked for the how and why that happened for the next meeting. Kruger said that she hated to see the commercial space get so small. Haas said the basement had commercial space and it was mitigated as net leaseable. Kruger asked if the parking was purchased in the building next door. Andy Hecht replied that there were parking spaces in the back of the building next door that were purchased and 2 spaces in the basement. Kruger asked what the construction management plan for this constrained site was. Haas responded that very detailed construction management plans would be required before a building permit would be issued. Public Comments: 1. Toni Kronberg, public, said that the attractiveness of this spot was all of the sunshine and did not want to see this go to a referendum. Kronberg said that restaurants were an amenity and the trees were an impediment to the shopping experience. Kronberg applauded the first design but not the current. II Exhibil 0 508 E. Cooper Ave, Subdivision Review Aspen PIanninl!: & Zoninl! Commission Meetinl!: Minutes - March 20. 2007 Garrow commented that she would like to add that there were 7 parking spaces provided by the redevelopment. Skadron complimented the applicant on the aesthetic improvement of this building and attempting to capture the structural components. Skadron said that he could not support this because he did not feel that it met the fundamental goals set forth in the Aspen Area Community Plan specifically it fails in creating social interaction, it fails in promoting lifestyle diversity and it fails in encouraging a diverse retail environment and makes it more restrictive. Skadron said that it does not meet criteria A for Subdivision or for the growth management for free-market residential units. Guthrie mentioned the store fronts in other western historic towns with big street windows had restaurants. Guthrie said the walls were the best part of that building. Guthrie said that was a terrible place for another tree and suggested putting another tree somewhere else. Erspamer said the project that he liked has the front setback. Wisnoski said the windows would open. Kruger said that she had a problem because the view plane was created for a pedestrian amenity and she could not see having the view plane without the pedestrian amenity. Garrow clarified the view plane by saying that they originate at one point and fan out and up in elevation; the view plane does not originate on the Cooper Street property but at a point on the right-of-way; same with the Courthouse, Wheeler and Jerome. Garrow stated the view plane starts off of the Cooper Street property and goes up. . Motion: Steve Skadron moved to continue the hearing on Cooper Street to May ]"; seconded by David Guthrie. All infavor, APPROVED. Adjourned at 7:05 pm. \')ad:u~~ ('Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk v 12 Exhibit 0 508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Mav 01. 2007 Ruth opened the regular Planning & Zoning meeting at 4:40 pm in the Sister Cities Meeting Room. Commissioners Brian Speck, LJ Erspamer, Steve Skadron and Ruth Kruger were present. John Rowland, David Guthrie and Dylan Johns were excused. Staff in attendance: Joyce Allgaier, Jessica Garrow, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Ruth Kruger inquired about the website not being updated; tonight's meeting was not even posted. Kruger also stated that it would be good if the City Council Grassroots telecast could be viewed online and that the Grassroots phone number was incorrect; she commented that Snowmass had a playback option. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (03/20/07): COOPER STREET PIER REDEVELOPMENT - 508 EAST COOPER Ruth Kruger opened the continued public hearing for Cooper Street Pier redevelopment: subdivision, special review, multi-family replacement and growth management review. Jessica Garrow provided a brief overview being that Planning & Zoning was charged with 3 Growth Management Reviews: one for new commercial in a mixed use building; one for free-market units in a mixed use building and one for affordable housing. There was a Special Review to vary the trash, utility and recycle area and recommend to Council the Subdivision request. Garrow said the property was located in the Commercial Core, which is a historic district; the design of the building was not under the purview of Planning & Zoning but rather the Historic Preservation Commission. Garrow said the lot was 2,842 square feet with a mixed use building and the proposal was to replace this with another mixed use building, which would include one free-market residential unit. This application was submitted prior to Ordinance 12 so it therefore did not have to abide by the 2,000 square foot limit on multifamily units; the free-market unit was only 8 square feet above the 2,000 square foot limit. Staff recommended approval and the proposal met every code requirement. Garrow said that the owner of this property has entered into an agreement with the adjacent property owner to use some of the alley spaces to increase the size of the trash, utility and recycle area and the redevelopment would have 2 parking spaces. 2 Exhibit 0 508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Mav 01. 2007 Garrow said the Parks Department requested a tree be placed in front of the store windows and P&Z requested the tree not be placed in the view plane; the reference for this tree will be removed from the resolution. Section 12 of the resolution was specifically for existing street trees or trees on adjacent properties that may be impacted by the construction on this site. Garrow said in Section 1 there was a typo, which should be 37 feet instead of 100 feet. The multifamily replacement was included to the code during the infill amendment and this was included as an administrative review. In the future this will be a planning & zoning review. Steve Skadron asked if there were any significant changes to this project. Garrow responded the only changes were the elimination of the street tree and addition of parking. Mitch Haas said there were no issues with the staff recommendations and want to work towards solutions for issues. Haas noted the constrained site was boxed in on three sides and the requests for special review were out of necessity. Haas said the HPC approval does not allow the building street front to be moved back. Haas said the free-market unit went up by about 40 square feet. The affordable housing mitigation was 12.6 square feet of mitigation, which it seemed only logical to propose cash-in-lieu given the site constraints. Andrew Hecht said that ifthe recessed front was important from the original plan then Council could tell HPC to amend their decision. LJ Erspamer said that Andrew brought up a good point and they were all concerned about that store front and it was the process. Ruth Kruger said it was a shame when the HPC and P&Z have differences. Kruger said that she liked the project but would continue to be mystified at how there can be a view plane from a private property, which was a code matter. MOTION: Brian Speck moved to approve Resolution #6, series 2007, approving with conditions, the three (3) Growth Management Reviews and Special Review under the purview of the Planning Commission and recommending City Council approve with conditions the subdivision of 508 East Cooper with the amendments of Section 1 the minimum lot width was 37 feet, Section 12 providing clarifying language of the street trees and Section 5 the approval date of May 1. Seconded by UErspamer. Roll call: Skadron, no; Speck, yes; Erspamer, yes; Kruger, yes. APPROVED 3-1. 3 Exhibit D 508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Mav 01. 2007 Discussion of vote: Skadron said that there was merit to this project; the free- market unit could have gone bigger and appreciates that it was not; the preservation of the historic internal element was commendable; improving the overall aesthetic of the building will go along way for the community. Skadron said the reasons that he voted no were stated in the minutes of March 20th. The minutes would be approved at the next meeting. ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 4 Exhibit E, P&Z Resolution 508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review RESOLUTION NO.6 (SERIES OF 2007) RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS THREE GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEWS, SPECIAL REVIEW, AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS SUBDIVISION AND COMDOMINIUMIZA TION FOR 508 E. COOPER AVENUE, LOTS L, M, N, BLOCK 95, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, CO, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL NO. 2737-182-24-007 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Joshua Saslove, represented by Haas Land Planning, LLC, requesting approval of three (3) Growth Management Reviews, Subdivision Review, and Special Review to construct a mixed-use building consisting of 4,263 square feet of commercial space, and one free-market residential unit; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant received Commercial Design Review Approval from the Historic Preservation Commission on July 12,2006; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned CC (Commercial Core); and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval with conditions, of the proposed subdivision and associated land use requests; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on March 6, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the public hearing to April 3, 2007; and WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on March 8, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commission made a motion to reconsider the continuance date, and WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on March 8, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commission continued the public hearing to March 20, 2007; and WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on March 20, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commission continued the public hearing to May I, 2007; and WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on May 1, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No.006, Series of 2007, by a three to one (3-1) vote, approving three Growth Management Reviews for the development of a mixed-use building that includes commercial space, and free market housing, Special Review, and recommending that City Council approve with conditions the proposed subdivision and condominiumization to construct a mixed-use building consisting of one (I) free-market residential unit and 4,263 square feet of commercial space located on the property at 508 E. Cooper Ave, Lots L, M, N, Block 95, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission fmds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the Page 1 of 6 Exhibit E, P&Z Resolution 508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves with conditions a Growth Management Review for the development of a mixed-use building; a Growth Management Review for the development of free-market housing; a Growth Management Review for the development of affordable housing; and, Special Review to vary the dimensional requirements for the utility/trash/recycling area, all in order to construct a mixed-use building consisting of one (I) free-market residential unit and 4,263 square feet of commercial space located on the property at 508 E. Cooper Ave, Lots L, M, N, Block 95, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO. The use mix and dimensional requirements shall comply with the CC zone district, as described in the staff memorandum and included in the chart below. Specific square footage requirements may be amended provided compliance with the CC zone district is maintained. Minimum Lot Size Minimum Lot Width Minimum Lot ArealDwellin Minimum Front Yard Setback Minimum Side Yard Setback Minimum Rear Yard Setback 2,842 sq. ft. No requirement 37 Feet No requirement N/A No requirement o Feet No requirement o Feet No requirement o Feet No requirement except trash/utility service area shall be required abutting an alley, pursuant to Section 26.575.060 42 feet for all areas of the property. 46 feet for areas setback 15 or more feet from lot lines adjoining a Street right-of-way. Minimum Distance between Building: 34 Feet along Cooper Ave 44 Feet for top floor (setback from ro erty line) N/A No requirement Maximum Height Page 2 of 6 Exhibit E, P&Z Resolution 508 E. Coo er Ave. Subdivision Review Buildings on Lot Pedestrian Amenit S Cash-in-Lieu fee of $50 per 1000 s uare feet = $14,21 Ofor this lot Pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Pedestrian Amenity 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 Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that City Council grant subdivision approval and that, should City Council grant subdivision approval, 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. If Subdivision approval is granted by City Council, the final Condominium Plat may be approved and signed by the Community Development Director upon substantial completion of construction. Section 3: Buildinl!: Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final Ordinance, P&Z Resolution, and HPC Resolution. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. 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 spoils 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. Staging areas will be identified in the plan, and shall indicate that the alley shall not be closed during construction. e.. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall meet adopted building code requirements. f. An approved Landscape Plan. Section 4: Dimensional Requirements The building as presented in the plans contained within the application dated September 2006, complies with the dimensional requirements of the Commercial Core (CC) zone district. Compliance with these requirements will be verified by the City of Aspen Zoning Officer at the time of building permit submittal. Section 5: Trash/Utilitv Service Area The trash containers shall be wildlife proof and meet the Certificate of Appropriateness regulations pertaining to size and security. Page 3 of 6 Exhibit E. P&Z Resolution 508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review The trash/utility area shall have an alley frontage of nine and a half (9.5) linear feet with a ten (10) foot vertical clearance, and seventeen and a half (17.5) feet in depth, as identified in the plans approved through Special Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission on May 1, 2007. Section 6: Sidewalks. Curb. and Gutter The sidewalks shall be upgraded to meet the City Engineer's standards and ADA requirements and prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall provide plans that meet the approval of the City Engineer. Such improvements shall be made prior to a Certificate of Occupancy on any of the units within the development. Section 7: Affordable Housin!!: The affordable housing mitigation requirement shall be satisfied with a payment of cash-in- lieu for 12.6 square feet of affordable housing at the Category 4 level. The cash-in-lieu shall be paid at the time of building permit and shall be earmarked for APCHA's use to "buy down" existing deed-restricted units or proposed deed-restricted units to lower categories. Section 8: Off Street Parkin!!: The Applicant shall provide two (2) off street parking spaces on the adjacent property to the east to be used as parking for 50S East Cooper. 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 S (Water conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Each of the units within the building shall have individual water meters. Section 10: Sanitation District Requirements 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. b. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. c. Oil and Grease interceptors (NOT traps) are required for all food processing establishments; 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 Page 4 of6 Exhibit E. P&Z Resolution 508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review 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. The glycol heating and snow melt system (if any) must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. Any glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. t. 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 11: 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 12: Landscapinl!: The following conditions shall apply to any affected street trees or trees located on adjacent property affected by construction. 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 tree protection zones. b. Prior to issuance of any demolition or building permits, tree removal will be approved by the Parks Department. Mitigation for removals shall be satisfied through planting of street trees adjacent to the site or through payment of cash in lieu. 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. Section 13: Park Development Impact Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fee, the Applicant shall pay a park development impact fee prior to building permit issuance. The fee shall be calculated according to the fee schedule in Land Use Code Section 26.610.030, Fee Schedule, in place at the time of building permit. Section 14: Pedestrian Amenity Cash-in-Lieu Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.030, Pedestrian Amenity, the Applicant shall pay a cash-in-lieu fee for pedestrian amenity in the amount equal to ten percent of the lot area prior to building permit issuance. The fee is assessed based on the following calculation: Lot area = 2,842 square feet 10% of Lot Area = 284.2 square feet Page 5 of 6 Exhibit E, P&Z Resolution 508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review Payment = $50 x 284.2 square feet Pedestrian Amenity Cash-in-Lieu = $14,210.00 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. Sectionl6: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 17: This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 18: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 1st day of May, 2007. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Ruth Kruger, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk G:\cityVessica\Cases\Cooper Street Pier\P&Z\Staff PZ Reso5.1.07.doc Page 6 of 6 Exhibit F, DRC and Housing Comments 508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review MEMORANDUM To: Development Review Committee From: Alex Evonitz, Com. Dev. Engineer Date: December 13, 2006 Re: 508 Cooper Street, Cooper Street Pier Redevelopment The Development Review Committee (DRC) has been asked to review the proposed Cooper Street Pier redevelopment at the December 13, 2006 meeting. The DRC has compiled the following comments: Attendees; Jessica Garrow, City Planner; Aaron Reed, Engineering; Phil Overeynder, Public Works; Todd Grange, City Zoning; Denis Murray, City Building; Ed VanWalraven, AFPD; Stephen Ellsperman, Public Works; Trish Aragon, Engineering; Adam Trzcinski, Engineering; Chris Forman, City Parks; Brian Flynn, City Parks; Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning Building Department - Denis Murray; . Efficient Commercial Building requirements effective at the time will be enforced at the time of building permit. If they are in place, the Applicant will need to meet these standards. . Cannot have an opening on a property line. The basement level as designed does not meet building codes. . Not certain the exit from the first floor to the alley meets requirements regarding required protection. Please confirm conformance with requirements prior to building permit. . A Construction Management Plan meeting the requirements of the City will be required at pre-submittal. Fire Protection District - Ed VanWalraven; . Sprinklers for life safety are required. . The line will need to be sized large enough so fire pumps are not required. . Please confirm the location of the dumpster from the building. There could be problems with it's location - could mitigate with sprinklers in a covered trash/utility/recycle area . Alarm systems need to be included in the project. Engineering Department - Tricia Aragon, Adam Trzcinski; . A Comprehensive CMP is required. Coordinate cranes, etc. . Will need to address the Cooper Avenue sidewalk usage in the high season. . Will need to examine how Storm Water is conveyed, and work with the Engineering Department accordingly to determine what will be required. . Dry Wells may not be the appropriate solution on this site. Please work with the Engineering Department on a proposal. . The curb should remain in it's existing condition. There is a 2% slope from the building to the sidewalk that should be retained Page 1 of 9 Exhibit F, DRC and Housing Comments 508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review Construction Management - Aaron Reed; . A very specific CMP is required for this project. Creative staging will be necessary. Staging is not permitted in the alley. A copy of the CMP requirements is available in the City Com. Dev. office . There are standards regarding time periods construction may occur. Please reference Title 21 of the Municipal Code. Parks - Brian Flynn; . Applicant is required to make improvements to the City ROW through the installation of a new street tree, evenly spaced between the two existing trees located in front of the neighboring properties. o If the sidewalk is kept in tact and does not require replacement then the applicant will have to work with the Parks Department to saw cut a new tree well. o If the sidewalk is replaced in any manner the applicant will be required to install a structural tree trench within the tree planting zone. Trench materials, size and location will require approval of the Parks Department. . Applicant is required to install new irrigation to the new tree planting and if possible to the two existing trees depending on the extent of any new tree trench. Community Development Engineer - No Attendance; Aspen Consolidated Waste District - Tom Bracewell; . Oil and Grease interceptors are required for all new and remodeled food processing establishments. Retrofitting will not be permitted. . Will need a good storm water management plan that details where the trench drain will go and all details associated with its placement. Retrofits to existing site will be required in order to meet all current standards. . Separate drains are required. . The current surface drain is a problem. Please examine and make into a pump system on both sides of the alley. . Provide all detailed utility plans to the department. . Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office at time of construction. . Applicant's engineer will be required to give the district an estimate of anticipated daily average and peak flows from the project. . A wastewater study flow will be required for this project to be funded by the applicant. . All clear water connections are prohibited (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains), including entranced to underground parking garages. . Oil and Sand separators are required for public vehicle parking garaged and vehicle maintenance facilities. The elevator drains must also be plumbed to the O/S interceptor. . On-site drainage and landscaping plans require approval by the district, must accommodate ACSD service requirements and comply with rules, regulations and specifications. . On-site sanitary sewer utility plans require approval by ACSD. Page 2 of 9 Exhibit F, DRC and Housing Comments 508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review o Plumbing plans for the pool and spa areas require approval of the drain size by the district. o Glycol snowmelt and heating systems must have containment provisions and must preclude discharge to the public sanitary sewer system. o Plans for interceptors, separators and containment facilities require submittal by the applicant prior to building permit. o When new service lines are required for existing development, the old service lines (5) must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. o Below grade development may require installation of an ejector pumping system. o Generally one tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. o Permanent improvements are prohibited in areas covered by sewer easements or right of ways to the lot line of each development. o All ACSD total connection fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. o Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. o 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. o 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). The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and requirements once detailed building and utility plans are available. Housing Office - No Attendance (Separate Recommendation provided) Parking - No Attendance Asset Management - No Attendance Zoning - Todd Grange; o External lighting will need to be addressed o Provide a detailed explanation of the fees required and paid, as well as cash-in- lieu payments, at the time of building permit Environmental Health - Jannette Murison; 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. Page 3 of 9 Exhibit F, DRC and Housing Comments 508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review AIR QUALITY: "It is the purpose of [the air quality section of the Municipal Code 13.08] to achieve the maximum practical deQree of air puritv possible bv reQuirina the use of all available practical methods and techniques to control. prevent and reduce air pollution throuQhout the citV..."The Land Use Regulations (Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code) seek to "lessen conQestion" and "avoid transportation demands that cannot be met" as well as to "provide clean air bv protectinQ the natural air sheds and reducina pollutants". Using standard Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Rates. this development will result in a net decrease in traffic then the current use of two restaurants and one residential unit. Thus the size of this development will NOT have a pernicious (negative) effect on the air quality. REMINDERS FOR OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CONCERNS: 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: TRASH STORAGE AREA: The applicant should make sure that the trash storage area has adequate wildlife protection. We recommend recvclinQ containers be present wherever trash compactors or dumpsters are located due to the City of Aspen's new Waste Reduction Ordinance. Chapter 12.06. The applicant has not provided adequate space for utility/trashlrecycling services. Given the Environmental Health Department's experience with businesses in the commercial core, a dumpster for cardboard will be need. For the type of uses proposed for this building, a total of at least 20-27* square feet of the utility/trash service area is recommended for recycling facilities. This may require the use of two parking spaces, such that the containers can be easily accessed by both the users and the trash and recycling haulers. * 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'). The applicant is also 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. " 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. Page 4 of 9 Exhibit F. DRC and Housing Comments 508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review It is definite that noise generated during the demolition and construction phase of this project will have some negative impact on the neighborhood. A construction noise suppression plan must be submitted at time of first building plans and/or demolition plans submittal. 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. ENGINE IDLING: The applicant is reminded for the construction phase of the project that per municipal code section 13.08.110 it is unlawful for any person to idle or permit the idling of the motor of any stationary motor vehicle for a prolonged or unreasonable period of time determined herein to be five (5) minutes or more within anyone (1) hour period of time. FIREPLACEIWOODSTOVE 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 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. 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 and 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. Page 5 of 9 Exhibit F, DRC and Housing Comments 508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review POOLS AND SPAS All design, installation and maintenance must comply with :Swimming Pool and Mineral Bath Regulations, Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division, adopted August 15, 1993." A copy can be obtained from our office. Public Works I Water I Electric - Steve Hunter; . No Comments made Page 6 019 Exhibit F, DRC and Housing Comments 508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review MEMORANDUM TO: Jessica Garrow, Community Development FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing DATE: January 4, 2007 RE: 508 EAST COOPER A VENUE REDEVELOPMENT (aka COOPER ST. PIER) Parcel ID No. 2737-182-24-007 ISSUE: The applicant is requesting approval for the redevelopment of the property located at 508 East Cooper Avenue. BACKGROUND: The property is located in the Commercial Core (CC) zone district. The redevelopment is to include a mix of commercial and residential uses. The existing structure, the Cooper Street Pier, has been approved by the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee to be demolished. The redeveloped building is to include the following: . Basement Level: 1,405 square feet of net leasable area (NLA), storage space, a bathroom, an elevator, and circulation corridors and stairs. . Ground Floor: 1,328 square feet ofNLA with storefront windows, storage space, a bathroom, an elevator, and circulation corridors and stairs. . Second Floor: 1,094 square feet of NLA, storage space, a bathroom, an elevator, and circulation corridors and stairs. An area along the west wall will remain open to the level below. . Third and Fourth Levels: One free-market residence with 2,008 square feet of net livable area split between two levels - level three to contain 1,147 square feet and the top level to include 861 net livable square feet. In total, the project is to include three levels of commercial space and residential space. The two-bedroom unit replaces an existing one-bedroom residence. AFFORDABLE HOUSING & MITIGATION REOUIREMENTS: Free-Market Residential Mitigation Requirement: 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 existing structure contains 1,966 square feet of above-grade net livable free-market residential space. The proposed redevelopment is to include 2,008 square feet of above-grade net livable free-market residential space. The total additional free-market residential net livable space is 42 square feet. Therefore, 12.6 square feet of above-grade net livable employee housing is required (42 X 30% = 12.6). Section 8 of the Guidelines states that 400 square feet of employee housing is Page 7 of 9 Exhibit F, DRC and Housing Comments 508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review equivalent to housing for one FTE. The end requirement attributable to the free-market component would be 12.6 + 400 = .0315. The applicant is requesting to pay the cash-in- lieu fee of$3,915.67 (Category 4 $124,037 X 0.0315 = $3,915.67). Commercial Space Mitigation 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 CC Zone District generates 4.1 FTE's per 1,000 square feet of net leasable floor area (NLA) on the first level and 3.075 FTE's per 1,000 square feet of NLA on the upper floor. The existing development contains 1,558 square feet on the first floor and 2,815 square feet on the basement and upper floor. Therefore, the existing first floor NLA generates 6.39 FTE's ([1,558 s.f. + 1,000] x 4.1), and the existing upper floor and basement generates 8.66 FTE's ([2,815 s.f. + 1,000] x 3.075). In total, the existing structure generates 15.05 FTE's. The redevelopment includes 1,328 square feet of commercial space on the first floor generating 5.45 FTE ([1,328 s.f. + 1,000] x 4.1) and 7.68 FTE on the basement and upper floor ([2,499 s.f. + 1,000] x 3.075). Therefore, the total redevelopment generates a total of 13.13 FTE's (5.45 + 7.68). The existing structure generates 15.05 FTE's and the redevelopment generates 13.13; therefore, since there is a reduction, there is no housing mitigation requirement attributable to the commercial component. Multi-Familv Housing Replacement Program Requirement: The existing residential unit is within a mixed-use building; therefore the Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program section comes into play. This section states that "the owner shall be required to construct replacement housing consisting of no less than 50% of the number of units, 50% of the number of bedrooms, and 50% of the square footage of net residential area demolished." The existing residential area to be demolished is a one one-bedroom unit of 1 ,966 net livable square feet. The MFHRP would require one-half of a unit, one-half of a bedroom and 983 square feet of replacement housing. The Code allows for a fractional requirement to be satisfied through cash-in-lieu. This calculates to be $305,795.22 ((983 + 400 sq. ft. per FTE = 2.46; 2.46 X $124,307 [Category 4 requirement]) = $305,795.22). Total HousingfMitigation Required: The Free-Market Residential component requires a payment of$3,915.67 and the MFRP component requires a cash payment of $305,795.22; therefore, total cash-in-lieu payment required is $309,710.89. However, under the MFRP, a 950 square foot Category 4 unit could be constructed on site that would fully satisfy the mitigation and housing replacement requirements. Although the Code provides an applicant with the right to satisfy fractional housing replacement requirements via cash-in-lieu, the Housing Guidelines prefer on-site housing. A 983 square foot Category 4 unit could be constructed on site that would satisfy the mitigation requirement under the Multi-Family Replacement Program. Staff met with the Mitch Haas, the applicant's Planner. The lot size is 2,842 square feet and is a very Page 8 of 9 Exhibit F, ORC and Housing Comments 508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review constrained lot with buildings abutting on three sides. Part ofthe structure also has historic value and will remain. The potential for a unit would be on the second level and contain no windows. Under the Multi-Family Replacement program, the housing required is for half of a unit, half of a bedroom and 983 square feet. RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Board reviewed the approval at their Regular Meeting held January 3, 2007 and due to the fractionality of the housing requirement, the applicant is not required to provide an employee-housing unit. The Board recommends approval of the project with the mitigation being satisfied via the cash-in-lieu payment of $309,710.89 with the following condition: the cash-in-lieu fee shall be earmarked to "buy down" existing deed-restricted units or proposed deed-restricted units to lower categories. Page 9 of 9 Exhibit G, 508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Land Use Code Section 26.435.050, Mountain View Plane Review C. Mountain view plane review standards. No development shall be permitted within a mountain view lane unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. No mountain view plane is infringed upon, except as provided below. When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable building height otherwise provided for in this title, development shall proceed according to the provisions of Chapter 26.445 as a planned unit development, so as to provide for maximum flexibility in building design with special consideration to bulk and height, open space and pedestrian space, and similarly to permit variations in lot area, lot width, yard and building height requirements, view plane height limitations. The Planning and Zoning Commission, after considering a recommendation from the Community Development Department, may exempt a development from being processed as a planned unit development when the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the proposed development has a minimal effect on the view plane. When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located in front of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will further infringe upon the view plane, and the likelihood that redevelopment of the adjacent structure will occur to re-open the view plane. In the event the proposed development does not further infringe upon the view plane, and re-redevelopment to reopen the view plane cannot be anticipated, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall exempt the development from the requirements of this section. Exhibit H, 508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Land Use Code Section 26.104.100, Definitions Subdivision. The process, act, or result of dividing land into two or more lots, parcels, or other units of land or separate legal interests, for the purpose of transfer of ownership, leasehold interest, building, or development, or for the creation or alteration of streets or right-of-ways. Subdivision shall also include the realignment, alteration or elimination of any lot line or property boundary established by and/or reflected on a plat or deed recorded in the office of the Clerk and County Recorder for Pitkin County, and land to be used for condominiums, apartments. or anv other multiple dwellin~ units, or for time sharing dwelling units. Unless the division of land as specified below is undertaken for the purpose of evading this Title, "subdivision" does not apply to any division of land: (a) Which is created by judicial proceeding or order of a court of competent jurisdiction in this state, or by operation of law, provided that the city is given notice of and an opportunity to participate in the judicial proceeding prior to the entry of any such court order; (b) Which is reflected or created by a lien, mortgage, deed of trust or any other security instrument; (c) Which is created or reflected in a security or unit of interest in any investment trust regulated under the laws of Colorado, or any other interest in an investment entity; (d) Which creates cemetery lots; (e) Which creates an interest in oil, gas, minerals or water which is severed from the surface ownership or real property; or (f) Which is created by the acquisition of an interest in land by reason of marriage or blood relationship, joint-tenancy, or tenants-in-common. Any such interest is for the purposes of this Title a single interest. Since 1975 AVON OFFICE 0070 Benchmark Road Post Office Box 5450 Avon, Colorado 81620 Telephone (970) 949-0707 Facsimile (970) 949-1810 BASALT OFFICE River View Plaza 100 Elk Run Drive, Suite 220 Basalt, Colorado 81621 Telephone (970) 927-1936 Facsimile (970) 927.1939 ASPEN OFFICE 60 I East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone (970) 925-1936 Facsimile (970) 925-3008 GLENWOOD SPRINGS OFFICE The Denver Centre 420 Seventh Street, Suite 100 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Telephone (970) 947-1936 Facsimile (970) 947-1937 GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW www.garfieldhecht.com David L. Lenyo Aspen Office e-mail: chagen@garfieldhecht.com October 1, 2007 James R. True, Esquire 215 South Monarch Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 508 East Cooper Avenue; Redevelopment Dear Jim: As you know, we represent the Cooper Street Cotenants (the "Applicant") in connection with its application seeking approval for the redevelopment ofthe property located at 508 East Cooper Avenue. Enclosed please find a Memorandum of Law that addresses certain legal issues raised by some of the Commissioners' comments at the September 10, 2007, public hearing. The Applicant requests that staff include the Memorandum of Law in the materials provided to the Council prior to the continued October 9 hearing. The Applicant also requests that the Memorandum of Law be included as part of the official record in this matter. Your anticipated cooperation is greatly appreciated. If you would like to discuss the Memorandum or Law or any of the issues raised in it prior to the meeting, please feel free to contact me. DLL cah Enclosure Sincerely yours, ~~~ David L. Lenyo e1( 202729 c:nv Anv.v..:t'SOFFICE OCT 0 1 2001, * Printed on recycled paper MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN RE: MATTER OF APPLICATION DATED SEPTEMBER 24, 2006, REGARDING 508 EAST COOPER AVENUE REDEVELOPMENT OWNERS: COOPER STREET COTENANTS1 REPRESENTATIVE: MITCH HAAS, HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC; POSS ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING APPLICANT'S ATIORNEYS: GARFIELD & HECHT, P.e. DATE: SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 Procedural History A. Prior Approvals In its Land Use Application filed on September 24, 2006 (the "Cooper Street Redevelopment Application"), the Applicant requested the following land-use approvals-growth-management review, special review, commercial design review, historic preservation (HPC) review and subdivision review to redevelop the building located at 508 East Cooper Avenue in the Commercial Core eCC") Zone District. I The Cooper Street Cotenants are a group of owners owning the Cooper Street building pursuant to a Cotenancy Agreement. The Applicant has already received all necessary approvals from the HPC and the Planning & Zoning Commission for the following land- use requests that are the subject of the 508 East Cooper Redevelopment Application. 1. Conceptual HPC review approval for development within the CC zone district pursuant to ~ 26.415.030.B.3 of the Aspen Land Use Code. 2. Commercial design review approval from the HPC for development of a building with a commercial component pursuant to ~ 26.412.050 ofthe Aspen Land Use Code. 3. Demolition approval from the HPC for the demolition of a structure within a historic district pursuant to ~ 26.415.080 of the Aspen Land Use Code. 4. Growth management review approval from the Planning & Zoning Commission for expansion/new commercial lodge or mixed-use development for the development of a mixed-use building pursuant to ~ 26.470.040C.2 of the Aspen Land Use Code. 5. Growth management review approval from the Planning & Zoning Commission for a free-market residential unit within a mixed- use project pursuant to ~ 26.470.040C.6 ofthe Aspen Land Use Code. 6. Growth management review approval from the Planning & Zoning Commission for affordable housing for a cash-in-lieu payment for 12.6 square feet of livable space pursuant to Land Use Code ~ 26.470.04C7. 202731JDOC 2 7. Special review approval from the Planning & Zoning Commission to allow a change in the trash/utility/recycle dimensional area pursuant to Chapter 26.430 ofthe Land Use Code. The proposed redevelopment will decrease the amount of developed space and does not increase the number of employees generated by the existing building as calculated under the Aspen Land Use Code. The only final review before City Council at the public hearing on October 9, 2007, is the Applicant's request for subdivision approval so that legal interests can be separated within the mixed-use building. Existing buildings within the CC Zone District routinely receive subdivision approval administratively by simply filing a subdivision plat. B. The September 10, 2007, Public Hearing At the September 10, 2007, public hearing, staff confirmed the recommendation contained in its pre~hearing memorandum that the Application be approved because the Applicant met all of the subdivision review standards under ~ 26.480.050 of the Aspen Land Use Code, including the payment to the City of a $309,710.89 affordable- 20273JJDOC 3 housing payment and the required school lands dedication fee under Chapter 26.630 ofthe Aspen Land Use Code. At the September 10, 2007, public hearing, Council member DeVilbiss moved to pass the proposed ordinance approving the redevelopment project with certain minor amendments agreeable to the Applicant. Council member Romero seconded the motion. The Mayor then opened the floor to public and Commissioners' comments. Council member Romero correctly noted that the purpose of the public hearing was a limited review by City Council of the Applicant's request for the subdivision of the building into separate legal interests under the review standards contained in ~ 26.48.050. Citing (a) the recommendations and approvals by HPC and the Planning & Zoning Commission, (b) the reduction in growth, (c) the preservation of historic features of the building, and (d) the willingness of the Applicant to pay a much larger cash-in-lieu payment to address affordable-housing needs of the City, Council member Romero found that the Application satisfied and met all the subdivision review standards under ~ 26.480.050. 20273JJDOC 4 Mayor Ireland did not commit to voting for or against the proposed redevelopment at the September 10, 2007, hearing. He did cite concerns previously raised by the sole dissenting vote of the Planning & Zoning Commission which approved the redevelopment by a four-to-one vote. Former Planning & Zoning member Skadron2 was the only member of the Planning & Zoning Commission who voted against the proposed redevelopment because he did not feel that it met the fundamental goals set forth in the Aspen Area Community Plan; specifically it fails in creating social interaction, it fails in promoting lifestyle diversity and it fails in encouraging a diverse retail environment and makes it more restrictive. Mayor Ireland, however, noted that Skadron's concerns apply to all current development in Aspen and that the burden raised by such concerns should not fall on this particular application. Such concerns, according to Mayor Ireland, exposed weaknesses of the Land Use Code, not the Cooper Street Redevelopment Application. Mayor Ireland stated that the Land Use Code permits the Cooper Street 2 Council member Skadron recused himself from the subdivision vote because of his participation in the Plarming & Zoning vote approving the Cooper Street Redevelopment. 20273lJDOC 5 redevelopment and that the Land Use Code does not protect against the loss of existing businesses like the Cooper Street Pier bar and restaurant. Council member DeVilbiss also did not commit to voting for or against the proposed development. Only Council member Johnson stated his intention to vote to deny the Cooper Street Redevelopment Application. In support of his position, he stated that the "proposal does not meet the City's needs." Council member Johnson also asserted that the Applicant "gave absolutely nothing back" to the City as required under a "public- private" partnership between the developer and the City. In particular, he objected that the proposed redevelopment enjoyed the benefits of the land use regulations which allow construction of a higher building but complained that the proposed redevelopment threatened existing uses, which he described as a "dive bar," an arcade and an inexpensive restaurant.3 Council member Johnson raised the question whether the mountain view plane 3 Council member Johnson conceded that the commission recommending the current infill regulations could not find any legislative history explaining the specific reasons for the adoption of mountain view-plane protections under ~~ 26.435.010, 050 of the Aspen Land Use Code. 202731J,DOC 6 ordinance was intended to protect the "public benefit" to patrons dining at the private Cooper Street Pier bar and restaurant. Based on these comments, Council member Johnson asserted that the redeveloped building would be inconsistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan, the infill land-use regulations, and a public-private partnership between the developer and the City. He also asserted that the redeveloped building would be inconsistent with vitality and a diverse retail environment as described in the Aspen Area Community Plan and that approval of the building would negatively affect future redevelopment in the neighborhood by encouraging other developers to build higher buildings. Finally, he asserted that the building would burden existing infrastructure because the Applicant will not be constructing deed-restricted affordable housing on site for existing or future employees of the building. Prior to final vote, a motion to continue the public hearing was granted to allow Council more time to consider the Application in light of the fact that the September 10, 2007, public hearing went well past the regularly scheduled time period. 202731JDOC 7 C. Legal Argument 1. Applicable Zoning Standards. a. Permitted Uses. The Cooper Street building is located in the CC Zone District created by ~ 26.710.140. The purpose of the CC Zone District is to allow the use of land for retail, service, commercial, recreation and institutional purposes within mixed-use buildings in the historic central business core of the City. The district permits a mix of retail, office, lodging, affordable housing and free-market housing uses. Both retail and restaurant uses are expressly recognized as appropriate uses of the ground floors of buildings within the CC Zone District. Therefore, under ~ 26.404.010 of the Aspen Land Use Code, both retail and restaurant uses are uses permitted as of right. As a result, the historic development within the CC Zone District includes an eclectic mix of retail, office, lodging, affordable housing, free-market uses and service industries. There is nothing in the Land Use Code prohibiting a change from an existing use to another type of permitted use. b. Height Restrictions. The CC Zone District also has objective, measurable height standards. The maximum height for 202731JDOC 8 buildings in the CC Zone District is 42 feet for all areas of the property and 46 feet for areas set back 15 or more feet from lot lines adjoining a street right of way. See ~ 26.710.140. It is undisputed that the redeveloped Cooper Street building complies with the applicable height restrictions. c. Subdivision Standards and Criteria. In order to satisfy the standards and criteria for subdivision approval under ~ 26.480.050, the Applicant must demonstrate only that the proposed subdivision of the redeveloped building into separate legal interests (1) is consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, (2) is consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area, (3) shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas and (4) shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of the Aspen Land Use Code. As recognized by the staff, the separation of the redeveloped building into separate legal interests is not inconsistent with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan or surrounding uses. In addition, the Applicant must demonstrate that the building is physically suitable for subdivision, the improvements 202731JDOC 9 required under Chapter 26.580 shall be provided, the subdivision complies with affordable-housing requirements, and the subdivision complies with the school lands dedication standards and growth- management requirements. There are no physical impediments to the requested subdivision, and it is undisputed that the Applicant has committed to paying all exactions to the City required by the Land Use Code and has received all growth management approvals from the Planning & Zoning Commission. 2. HPC Has Alreadv Granted Final Approval of the Proposed Height and Design of the Building. Citv Council Has No Jurisdiction to Denv the Request for Subdivision Approval Based on the Proposed Height of the Building or Other Design Issues. As demonstrated by the record, Council member Johnson's objection is based largely on the proposed height of the building. The proposed height of the building, however, complies with the height restrictions for the CC Zone District. The HPC has already granted final approval for the design of the building, including its height. Any appeal of those final decisions was required to be filed within 14 days under ~ 26.316 of the Aspen Land 202731JDOC 10 Use Code. No timely appeal was ever filed. Therefore, City Council has no jurisdiction or discretion to deny the request by the Applicant for subdivision approval based on the height of the Cooper Street building or other design issues. 3. The City Has No Authoritv to Restrict the Applicant From Allowing Uses Permitted as of Right in the Cooper Street Building. Council member Johnson also stated that he intends to vote against the redevelopment project because existing uses (i.e., a "dive bar" and an affordable restaurant) are threatened. The City Council, however, has no jurisdiction or discretion to prohibit uses expressly permitted in the CC Zone District. The City does not have authority to deny a land-use application that complies with all objective land-use regulations. Council comments recognized that the proposed Cooper Street Redevelopment is permitted under the Land Use Code. Council comments recognized that the proposed Cooper Street Redevelopment is permitted under the Land Use Code. See Western Paving Construction Company v. Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County, 181 202731 JDOC 11 Colo. 77, 506 P.2d 1230 (Colo. 1973). When construing the meaning of a statute, a reviewing court should first consider statutory language and give the word to their plain and ordinary meaning. Town of Telluride v. Lot 34 Venture LLC, 3 P.3d (Colo. 2000). Sections 26.710.140 and 26.404.010 clearly and unambiguously provide that other uses are permitted as a matter of right in the CC Zone District. These permitted uses include retail stores and different types of bars and restaurants. In the absence of a statute or ordinance granting it authority to do so, a municipality may not impose conditions upon the approval of a development plan that complies with the zoning regulation of the local government. Beaver Meadows v. Board of County Commissioners of Larimer County, State of Colorado, 709 P.2d 928 (Colo. 1985). There is no provision of the Aspen Land Use Code that grants City Council the authority to prohibit permitted uses as a condition to subdivision approval. 4. Citv Council Has No Jurisdiction or Discretion to Impose Zoning Restrictions on the Cooper Street Building That Are Different From the Zoning Regulations Applving to All Other Buildings in the 202731JDOC 12 CC Zone District. Colorado law has recognized that a local government cannot treat one parcel differently than that of similarly situated land in the same zoning district by allowing uses not normally allowed in a particular zone district. Clark v. City of Boulder, 362 P.2d 160 (Colo. 1961). While most of the Colorado appellate cases overturning "spot- zoning" dealt with zoning decisions whereby a parcel was given more favorable treatment compared to surrounding properties in the same zoning district by the allowance of a different use for the parcel; other jurisdictions have recognized "reverse spot zoning" where the courts held that it is also unlawful to treat one parcel differently than surrounding properties by imposing unreasonable or arbitrary restrictions on the use of such parcel that do not apply to the surrounding properties. See, e.g., Vernon Park Rlty v. City of Mount Vernon, 121 N.E. 2d 517 (N.Y. 1954); City Commission v. Woodlawn Park Cemetery Co., 553 So.2d 1227 (Fla. App. 3d Dist. 1989). A denial of the requested subdivision in the instant case because of a perceived threat to existing uses would constitute a de facto imposition of a use restriction on the Cooper Street building not applicable to surrounding 202731JDOC 13 properties in the CC Zone District. Such action would be even more egregious than the cases cited above, in which the property at issue was subject to different zoning. Here, the applicable zoning regulations specifically allow the requested uses, and any attempt to disallow those uses of the property through the requested subdivision application would not only be akin to "reverse spot zoning," but would also be invalid. 5. The Aspen Area Community Plan Cannot be the Basis for Denial of the Requested Subdivision Approval. Questions have been raised whether the proposed redevelopment complies with certain subjective, aspirational goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan. As a threshold matter, the Cooper Street Redevelopment fully complies with the Aspen Area Community Development Plan. There is nothing in the Aspen Area Community Plan which regulates proposed subdivisions in the City of Aspen. Moreover, there is nothing in the record to suggest that the requested division of the Cooper Street building into separate legal properties is inconsistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan or the character of the surrounding neighborhoods. In fact, many 202731JDOC 14 mixed-use buildings in the CC Zone District have been subdivided into separate legal interests. Moreover, subdivision approval is routinely given to existing mixed-use buildings once an applicant simply submits a subdivision plat. Finally, because the Aspen Area Community Plan is advisory only, it cannot be the basis for denying any application otherwise meeting the criteria required for subdivision approval. Under Colorado statute, a municipal master plan IS an "advisorv document." C.RS. ~ 31-23-206(1) (2007) (emphasis added). Pursuant to recent amendments to that statute made by House Bill 07- 1246 (effective on August 3, 2007), a master plan "may be made binding" by inclusion in a municipality's subdivision, zoning, or other land use regulations, "after satisfying notice, due process, and hearing requirements for legislative or quasi-judicial processes as appropriate." Id. However, prIOr to the adoption of HB 07-1246, Colorado statute held unconditionally that "[t]he master plan of a municipality is advisory only." See Section 31-23-206(3), C.RS., 1997 (deleted by amendment effective August 3, 2007). Subsection (3) of C.RS. ~ 31-23- 2027311DOC 15 206 was added by the State Legislature in 1997 in response to the Colorado Supreme Court's decision in Board of County Commissioners of Larimer County v. Condor (927 P.2d 1339 (Colo. 1996)),4 "thus clarifying the intent that master plans in effect at the time the Cooper Street Application was filed cannot be used as a basis for development I" approva . Greg Clifton, Growth Management: Recent Developments in Municipal Annexation and Master Plans, 31 Colo. Lawyer 61 (Mar. 2002). Under such reasoning, it also cannot be the basis for the denial of a land-use application. The Aspen Area Community Plan was adopted by Pitkin County and the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commissions on January 25, 2000. Thereafter, the City of Aspen included a general requirement in its subdivision regulations that a development application for subdivision review "shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan." Municipal Code ~ 26.480.050(A)(1). At the time the City included that review criterion in its subdivision 4 In Condor, the Court held that while county master plans are "generally only advisory documents, a county has the authority to require master plan compliance when a county includes a master plan compliance provision in its legislatively adopted subdivision regulations." 927 P.2d 1339, 1350-51. 202731_2.DOC 16 regulations, Colorado statute mandated that municipal master plans were "advisory only." Section 31-23-206(3), C.R.S., 1997. Therefore, the Plan was advisory only at the time the Cooper Street Redevelopment Application was filed and cannot form the basis for denying the pending subdivision application.5 Only after (1) the State Legislature authorized the inclusion of master plans in municipal subdivision regulations in August, 2007, and (2) City Council adopts the master plan pursuant to notice and public hearing can the Aspen Area Community Plan be binding as land- use regulations on an applicant's request for subdivision approva1.6 To find otherwise would make House Bill 07-1246 retroactive m its application, and nothing in HB 07-1246 indicates a legislative intent that the law should be applied retroactively. ("[C]lear legislative intent" for a law to apply retroactively is required to overcome the 5 The City bas already recognized in a letter to the Applicant that laws in effect at the time of the filing of the Application, rather than laws enacted subsequent to the filing, apply to the Cooper Street Redevelopment Application. 6 The City of Aspen must first legislatively adopt the provisions of the Aspen Area Community Plan into its subdivision regulations (satisfying the requirements of notice and due process) after August 3, 2007, before the Community Plan becomes binding land-use regulations. The Master Plan must also be sufficiently definite in order to be enforceable as land-use regulations. Until such action occurs. it remains advisory only and cannot form the basis for denying a subdivision application. 202731 JDOC 17 "presumption of prospectivity." City of Golden v. Parker, 138 P.3d 285, 290 (Colo. 2006).) Therefore, City Council has no jurisdiction to deny the Application based on any assertion that the Application does not meet the aspirational goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan. 6. The Cooper Street Redevelopment Application Is Not Subiect to the Heightened Review Standards for Development m Environmentallv Sensitive Areas ("ESA") Under Chapter 26.435 of the Aspen Land Use Code. Based on Council comments, it appears that some Council members may be considering the enactment of ~ 26.350.50.3 of the Aspen Land Use Code as a basis for restricting the height or permitted uses for the Cooper Street Building. Section 26.350.50.3 established protected mountain view planes at different areas throughout the public streets of Aspen, including the protected public area originating on the north side of Cooper Avenue. Without citing any supporting legislative history, Council member Johnson questioned whether the purpose of restricting heights on buildings across the street was to protect the "public benefit" of eating and drinking in a purely private restaurant. Therefore, he raised the 202731JDOC 18 question whether City Council is somehow obligated to protect the "public benefit" of eating at the Cooper Street Pier by denying redevelopment of the Cooper Street building. There is no legal or factual basis suggesting that the City has the obligation (or authority) to impose height or use restrictions on the Cooper Street Building based on the ESA mountain view protections applying throughout Aspen to public areas. It is undisputed that the Cooper Street building does not lie within the protected Cooper Avenue view plane area subject to heightened ESA review. City staff has never asserted otherwise. Because the Cooper Street building is not within the protected Cooper Avenue mountain view ESA, the establishment of the protected view plane area provides no authority for the City Council to impose a condition requiring continued restaurant use for the first floor. It also cannot be the basis for imposing a height restriction on the Cooper Street building. The obvious purpose of the establishment of the protected mountain view planes throughout Aspen public areas, including the Cooper Street origination point beginning on a public 202731JDOC 19 sidewalk, was to benefit the public at large by protecting enjoyment of mountain views from public locations. 7. The Applicant Has Complied With All Mfordable-Housing Requirements. It has been suggested that the subdivision request should be denied because the Applicant will not construct affordable housing for employees on site. As a result, the question has been raised whether the lack of on-site affordable housing will burden existing City infrastructure. As demonstrated by the Applicant's willingness to pay a housing-mitigation fee greatly exceeding that required by the Aspen Land Use Code, the Applicant does not disagree with Council's overriding goal to build more affordable housing within Aspen. A denial of the Application on this basis, however, ignores that (1) no affordable housing currently exists at the building, and (2) the proposed reduction in size of the building through redevelopment does not increase the number of employees associated with the building as calculated under the Aspen Land Use Code.7 Therefore, the redevelopment will have absolutely no effect on existing utilities or 7 See Section 7. a. and b. below. 202731JDOC 20 other City infrastructure. Any such argument also ignores that the Cooper Street Application has complied with (and, in fact, greatly exceeds) all affordable-housing requirements for the proposed redevelopment which generates no new employees as calculated under the Aspen Land Use Code. City Council has no reason (or authority) to impose affordable-housing requirements beyond those provided for in the Code. a. Mitigation Requirements for Redevelopment. The staff memorandum correctly summanzes the employee-housing requirements for the Cooper Street redevelopment under Section 26.4 70.040.7. City Council does not have jurisdiction to reverse the final approval by the Planning & Zoning Commission of the $3,915.67 cash-in-lieu payment for employee-housing mitigation under Section 26.470.040.7 recommended by the Housing Authority and approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission in Resolution 6 (Series 2007). P&Z Resolution 6 (Series 2007) was approved on May 1, 2007. Therefore, under Section 26.316.030 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, any appeal of the P&Z final decision was due within 14 days, or by May 15, 202731JDOC 21 2007. No appeal was filed. Therefore, the P&Z decision is final and not reversible. As a result, the Applicant has complied as a matter of law with the affordable-housing mitigation requirements of Section 26.470.040.7. Any purported denial by the City Council of the subdivision request due to an alleged failure to comply with the mitigation requirements of Section 26.470.040.7 would be an abuse of discretion and in excess ofthe City Council's jurisdiction. b. Housing Replacement Requirements. Prior to applying for a building permit, the Applicant will also comply with the administrative requirements of the Multi-Family Replacement Program contained in Section 26.530.040. The Applicant has the option of doing anyone of three alternatives to meet the requirements of the Multi- Family Replacement Program. Mter consulting with staff and the Housing Authority, the Applicant agreed in good faith to choose the option which provided the most benefit to the City's housing needs. The City has no authority to require more housing exactions as a condition to approval. 202731JDOC 22 Alternative No. 1. The Applicant could comply with Section 26.53040A by reducing the size of the proposed replacement unit by 42 square feet so that the size of the replacement unit is equal to 100% of the existing unit. The purpose of the Multi-Family Replacement Program is to ensure that current resident-housing opportunities do not decrease due to the demolition of existing residential multi-family housing units. See Section 26.530.010. This alternative would result in the replacement of 100% of the single-unit apartment currently existing at the Cooper Street building. Alternative No. 1 would not require the Applicant to deed restrict the replacement unit as affordable housing and also would not require any cash-in-lieu payment by the Applicant. The Applicant believes that alternative one is less favorable to the City's affordable housing goals compared to the proposed $305,000.00 cash-in-lieu payment recommended by the staff and the Housing Authority in that it does not provide for the construction of a deed-restricted unit or a cash-in-lieu payment available to build affordable housing elsewhere in the City. 202731JDOC 23 Alternative No.2. Without the reduction by 42 square feet, the Applicant would fall within the second paragraph of 26.530.40A, which applies to a proposed replacement of an existing unit with a like unit with an increase in the net livable space. Under this alternative, the Applicant would also not be required to deed restrict a new single- family residence as an affordable-housing unit. Under the second paragraph of 26.53.040A, the replacement requirement must be commensurate with the total percent increase in livable space. The maximum payment under any circumstances is based on one- half of the square footage of the existing unit. Subsection 26.530.010B specifically provides that fractional replacement housing program requirements mav be satisfied by a cash-in-lieu payment. Here, the 42- foot increase in net livable space is diminimus (five to ten percent) and would be only a fraction of the existing unit. The Applicant would be required to pay a cash-in-lieu payment of only $13,244.108 to be commensurate with the five-percent increase in net livable space. 8 I FTE equates to 400sf of housing; 42sf, therefore, represents 10.5% of an FTE; the CURRENT Housing Guidelines put the Category 4 cash-in-lieu fee at $126,420.00 per FTE; thus, the required payment will be $126,420.00 x 10.55 = $13,274.10. 202731_2.DOC 24 The Staff and Housing Authoritv Recommended Alternative. The proposed cash payment in lieu of $305,795.22 recommended by the Staff and the Housing Authority greatly exceeds the commensurate expansion of net living space. Although the proposed $305,795.22 cash- in-lieu payment proposed greatly exceeds a payment that would be commensurate with the actual increase in living space (five percent), the Applicant is nevertheless willing to make the $305,000.00 payment in order to contribute to the City's affordable-housing stock. Section 26.530.40B does not apply because the proposed demolition will not result in the replacement of less than 100% of the existing unit. Instead, the Applicant proposes to replace 100% of the existing unit. The City has no authority to require the construction of an affordable-housing unit on site because the Applicant is replacing 100% of the existing housing unit and has offered to pay the maximum cash-in-lieu payment in connection with any fractional requirement. 8. The Proposed Subdivision Into Separate Legal Interests is Consistent With Surrounding Properties. One of the limited questions before City Council is whether the proposed subdivision of the Cooper 202731JDOC 25 Street Pier building into separate legal interests is consistent with surrounding properties. A large number of existing buildings in the CC Zone District has already been subdivided into separate legal interests. Subdivision approvals for existing buildings are routinely granted administratively in the CC Zone District. Therefore, there is no evidence demonstrating that the proposed subdivision of the Cooper Street building would be inconsistent with character of surrounding properties. Instead, the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that the proposed subdivision is consistent with surrounding properties. 9. There is No Evidence that the Proposed Subdivision Will Negativelv Affect Future Development. There is no evidence supporting any notion that the subdivision of the Cooper Street building will somehow negatively affect development m the neighborhood. To the contrary, the level of proposed development in the City of Aspen continues to be high-both before and after submission of the Cooper Street Redevelopment Application. In the past few years, numerous development applications have been submitted and/or approved for development in the City of Aspen. 202731JDOC 26 There is no evidence suggesting that the proposed subdivision of the Cooper Street building into separate legal interests will somehow negatively affect continued development or redevelopment in the City of Aspen. In fact, City Council has recently passed development moratoriums restricting development because the level of development and redevelopment was perceived to be too high. City Council should not assert that the subdivision of the Cooper Street Building will somehow negatively affect development after passing moratoriums completely stopping certain types of development in Aspen. 10. The Applicant Has Agreed to Pav All Exaction Fees Required bv the Aspen Land Use Code. It is undisputed that the Applicant has agreed to pay all exaction fees required under the Aspen Land Use Code, including the affordable-housing fees and the required school lands dedication fees. As opposed to suggestions to the contrary, the City of Aspen and the Applicant have never entered into a public/private partnership for the development of affordable housing. In the past, the City of Aspen has entered into legal partnerships with 202731JDOC 27 developers to develop affordable housing. It is undisputed that no such partnership exists in connection with this Application. Therefore, there is no legal basis for the City to attempt to exact more affordable- housing requirements beyond that required under the Land Use Code based on the suggestion that a "public-private" partnership exists. Conclusion The Cooper Street Redevelopment Application meets or exceeds all the criteria for subdivision approval under the Aspen Land Use Code. Height restrictions, use restrictions, affordable-housing requirements beyond those required by the Aspen Land Use Code, or other reasons beyond the requirements for subdivision approval cannot be a legal basis for denying the Applicant's request for subdivision 202731JDOC 28 approval. Therefore, the Applicant requests that City Council approve its request. Date: October 1, 2007. Respectfully submitted, ~~ David L. Lenyo, A.R. #1417 Garfield & Hecht, P.C. 601 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-1936 202731JDOC 29 MEMORANDUM v"'.f. TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tim Ware, Director of Parking THRU: Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager DATE OF MEMO: August 23, 2007 MEETING DATE: October 9, 2007 RE: Parking Fee Ordinance Amendments REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The Transportation and Parking Department is requesting amendments to the Aspen Municipal Code section 2.12.060 Parking Fees. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: At the July 10, 2007 City Council work session, staff was instructed to expand the paid parking program into the residential zones surrounding the commercial core area. This action also includes a code amendment limiting the amount of time to park in the remaining spaces in the residential zones and fee adjustments to the entire on-street parking and parking garage management program. Council approved the first reading at their September 10, 2007 meeting. Following first reading, council members have had questions regarding the timing and technology options for the expansion of paid parking. In order to allow staff and council time to research and further discuss timing and technology options, staff is recommending that only the current on-street and parking garage fee adjustments occur at this time. Staff will return at a future work session with more information and to request direction about any expansion of the paid parking program. BACKGROUND: In 1995, the City of Aspen implemented the parking management program in the commercial core and the Residential Permit Parking areas. This program included several payment and permit options to address the diverse needs of many different types of customers. The Transportation and Parking Department has reviewed the program over the last two years and has identified some options to improve the parking program that Council may wish to direct staff to explore and implement. In our review, staffs primary focus was on implementing programs that would help reduce levels of traffic and improve pedestrian friendliness in town during the peak seasons. A number of parking program modifications have been offered for consideration as potential measures for reducing parking occupancy, encouraging transit ridership and increasing revenue generation for Page 1 of3 TDM programs. These include changes to residential parking, service vehicle parking and seasonal fee variations in the commercial core. The purpose of the current residential parking permit program was to prevent spillover parking from the commercial core into residential areas once the paid parking component was put into place. The program allows for up to two hours of parking without a permit Monday through Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm. Residents are issued permits that exempt their vehicles and their guest's vehicle from the weekday time restrictions. DISCUSSION: Parking staff requested Council to consider modifications to the residential parking program and the current paid parking fees. At the July 10, 2007 work session council was presented the paid parking expansion, residential time restriction adjustment and a 30% fee increase. The fee increase outlined below would be the second fee increase in the twelve years since the introduction of the parking management program. Rio Grande Parking Garage Hourly Parking Rates Maximum Daily Fee Validation Stickers Unlimited Monthly Pass Lost Ticket Fee Special Event Pass Access Replacement Card On-Street Parking Fees Multi-Space Meters Single-Space Meters Residential Day Pass Residential Space Rental Business Vehicle Permit Lodge Guest Permit Construction Vehicle Permit Residential Commercial Core Current $1.25/hr $12.50/day $4.00 per visit $150.00/month $12.50 $4.00/day $10.00 Proposed $1.50/hr $15.00/day $5.00 per visit $200.00/month $15.00 $5.00/day $20.00 Current 1st hr $1.00 2nd hr $2.00 3'd hr $2.00 4th hr 3.00 $.25/per 15 minutes $5.00/day $5.00/day $300.00/6 month period $1.50/week Proposed 15t hr $2.00 2nd hr $2.00 3'd hr $3.00 4th hr $4.00 $.50/per 15 minutes $7.00/day $ 1O.00/day $500.00/6 month period $2.00/week $20.00/month $20.00/day $40.00/month $25.00/day Page2of3 Residential Permit Parking Areas: Staff is no longer requesting an amendment to section 24.16.180 of the Aspen Municipal Code regarding timed parking restrictions in the residential zones at this time. However, the department is requesting two additional FTE's to increase enforcement to the residential areas as well as areas outside the residential zones as part of the 2008 proposed budget. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The operational costs associated with this ordinance and the expectation of increased enforcement of the existing regulations in residential zones include the need for two full-time enforcement officers at $45,000 annually per officer. The fee increase will result in approximately $454,598.00 of new revenue for the on-street parking programs and $81,390.00 for the Rio Grande Parking Garage. The Long Range Plans for both the Transportation Fund and the Parking Improvement (Garage) Fund indicate that the proposed approximately 30% in on-street and parking garage fees will allow both funds to be self-sustaining over the next five years. Additional fee increases are anticipated to be needed about every five years in order to keep up with inflation and to help keep the funds in a self- supporting financial condition. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The Environmental Health Department would like to see an even stricter approach in some areas, especially conversion of monthly passes to daily fee passes. (With monthly passes, since you have already paid for them, they encourage rather than discourage driving.) But we understand that Transportation and Parking staff seek to achieve a balance between meeting council's environmental sustainabiJity goals, and avoiding significant disruption, so are recommending a more moderate approach. RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Transportation and Parking Department recommends that the City Council approve the Rio Grande and On-Street proposed parking fee increase, deleting reference to implementation of an hourly fee in residential zones and reference to "up to 2 hours free per 24 hour period" outside of the Residential Paid Parking Zone. AL TERNA TIVES: Council could opt to amend the ordinance or delay implementation. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance #39 on second reading as amended to delete "Residential Paid Parking Fees $1.00/hour $7.00/day max" and "Outside of Residential Paid Parking Zone Up to 2 hours free per 24 hour period" at the October 9, 2007 City Council meeting." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Page3 of 3 ORDINANCE NO. Series of 2007 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING SECTION 2.12.060 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN TO AMEND FEES RELATING TO PARKING. WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a policy of requiring consumers and users of the miscellaneous City of Aspen programs and services to pay fees that fairly approximate the costs of providing such programs and services; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that certain fees currently in effect for parking on City streets need to be revised as part of the City's overall Transportation Demand Management Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section I That Section 2.12.060 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets the applicable fees for paid parking, is hereby amended to 2.12.060 Parking fees. The Transportation and Parking Department shall charge the following fees for parking: 1. Rio Grande Parking Plaza Fee Options. A. Hourly parking rates Maximum daily fee Validation stickers Unlimited use montWy passes Lost Ticket Fee Special Events Pass Access Replacement Card B. C. D. F. G. $1.50/hour $ 15.00/day $ 5.00 per visit $200.00/month $15.00 $5.00/day $20.00 II. Commercial Core Pay Parking Fees. Between the hours of7 a.m. and 6 p.m. First hour $2.00 Second hour $2.00 Third hour $3.00 Fourth hour $4.00 Single Space Meter fees $.50 per 15 minutes Between the hours of 6 p.m. and 3 a.m. Free Residential Permit Parking Program Fees. Residential Day Pass Fee Residential Paid Parking Fees Space Rental Fee Per Day Outside of Residential Paid Parking Zone period. Resident Permits: III. $7.00 $1.00/hour $7.00/day max. $10.00 per day Up to 2 hours free per 24 hour First 2 permits for residence and guest is free. Third permit: $25.00 Fourth permit: 50.00 Fifth permit: 100.00 (No more than five permits shall be issued per residence) Resident Guest Permit free Lodge Guest Permit $2.00/permit High Occupancy Vehicle Permit Free Business Vehicle Permit $500.00/6 month period Host Guest Permit Fee $25.00/replacement The Residential Permit Parking Program restrictions shall be in effect from 8 a.m. until 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, (official holidays excepted), unless otherwise specified. Two 6-month periods are established for the Business Vehicle Permit: Winter Season, November 1 through April 30, and Summer Season, May 1 through October 31. IV. Miscellaneous Parking Fees. Delivery Vehicle Permit Service Vehicle Meter Fees $ 100.00/yr. $50.00 deposit/meter $25.00 adrnin fee/meter $1. 00 first hour $.50 each additional hour ($4.50 daily maximum) Construction Vehicle Permit In Residential Permit Parking Commercial Core Handicapped Parking Permit Replacement Fee $40.00/month $25.00/day Free $25.00 Tow Truck Cancel Fee Boot Fee In-car meter fee Ticket Late Fee Towing Fee (including processing) Towing Fee (to impound) $25.00 $35.00 $75.00 $10.00/each $120.00 $150.00 Section 2 The effective date of this ordinance shall be December 1, 2007. Section 3 This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof. A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 24th day of September 2007, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 10th day of September 2007. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this 24th day of September 2007. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk JPW -I O/3/2007-G:\john\word\ords\fees03 .doc v",. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor & City Council FROM Paul Menter, Finance Director Don Pergande, Budget Manager October 1st, 2007 DATE: RE: SECOND READING: Adoption of Budget Supplemental- Ordinance No.41 (Series 2007) This item will be discussed on October 9th, 2007. SUMMARY: Staff is requesting an amendment to the City's 2007 budget that increases total appropriation from $128.6 million to $136.9 million, (See Attachment A). Net of inter-fund transfers, this request increases budget authority from $103.2 million to $110.6 million. Interfund transfers are required reallocations of City resources between funds. Interfund transfers are not expenditures, and should therefore not be included in an analysis of the true cost of City operations. Transfers do, however, require appropriation authority from Council. Attachment D provides a detailed listing of budgeted 2007 inter-fund transfers. The exhibit below outlines the supplemental request's impact on the City's overall appropriation authority. The referenced attachments provide itemized listings of requested supplemental budget authority. CITY OF ASPEN - 2007 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET Description Amount Reference 2007 Adopted budget: $128,563,320 See Attachment A Total New Requests: $11,837,230 See Attachment B & C Technical Adjustments: ($3,458,820) See Attachment D Total Supplemental !t8378410 Requests: TOTAL ORDINANCE: $136,941,730 See Attachment A Less Interfund Transfers: $26,345,410 See Attachment E NET APPROPRIATIONS: $110,596,320 See Attachment A Different categories of requests include: · Attachment 8 and C: "New Requests" of $11,837,230 include requests for formal appropriation of funding issues previously reviewed by Council during this fiscal year, and new requests. Narrative justification of each new request is provided as part of this memorandum below. . Attachment D: This attachment details all of the requested technical adjustments, ($3,458,820) in total. A Technical Adjustment is a change in budget authority to reflect increases or decreases resulting from redistribution of projects and timing of expenditures, interfund transfers required to fund new requests, and carry forward appropriations. · Attachment E: This attachment details all budgeted interfund transfers of the City for 2007 of $26,345,410, in total. New Requests: In the General Fund, new requests to be reviewed by City Council, total $526,800. These requests are made up of the following: City Manager, $36,680: Two supplemental requests provide for the council approved purchase of the keypad voting system and onsite training for use of technology ($25,710) and the refunding of Entrance to Aspen expenditures originally paid out of City Manager's budget ($10,970), to be reimbursed by the EOTC. 80th of these one-time appropriation requests will be funded from General Fund cash reserves. Community Development, $348,500: $90,000 for contractual services associated with historic preservation, Ordinance #30 approved by council on August 30th. $40,000 is requested for HP Video and Consultant, funds approved by Council on July 2nd, $36,500 for a grant match for the preservation of the Aspen Grove cemetery, also approved as a one time request by Council on March 26th $16,000 is requested as a one time request for 3D modeling and software approved by Council on April 16th, and an additional $6,500 for labor cost for continued work on model (this is a new one-time request). Other one time requests include, $14,000 for additional printing costs of Land Use Code and information due to moratorium, revenues will be received to offset costs, $85,000 for AACP update of community data to use in the rewrite of Aspen Area Community Plan, $25,000 for building permit review consultant, and $25,500 for a full time position for zoning and planning support, funding covers the remainder of the year. On going requests include, and $10,000 for code books and items for resale. Costs of one-time appropriation requests, not offset by revenue, will be funded from General Fund cash reserves. Engineering Department: $97,420: Two supplemental requests seek additional appropriations for the Council approved Construction Mitigation Officers, $77,420 (see attached memo), and $20,000 to cover engineering's portion of the 517 E. Hopkins rent for the remainder of 2007. Both of these one-time appropriation requests will be funded from General Fund cash reserves. Building Department: $41,200: One time request of $41 ,200 for fire department inspections of sprinklers, this inspection fee is offset by the revenue collected from the annual fire sprinkler fee, at 100% of direct costs. Environmental Health, $3,000: One time request for an appropriation for the purchase of an air flow meter for the City's PM1 0 air monitor. The meter is required under a change in the Air Quality Statute, 40CFR58. This request will be funded from the General Fund cash reserves. Housing Development Fund: $9,588,880: The Housing Development Fund requires formal appropriation of $9,588,880 in total for the property acquisition of: 488 Castle Creek $5,398,880; 802 W. Main $3,690,000; and the down payment on 517 Park Circle $500,000. The Finance Department has determined that the Housing Development Fund has sufficient cash balances to support this request. Parks Capital Fund, $165,640: Requests provide for formal approval of funding authority for the Council approved proposed park enhancement and historic restoration plan of Pioneer Park, $10,000, $146,140 for Council approved addition of a picnic pavilion at the Aspen Recreation Center, portion funded by the Aspen Rotary Club, and $9,500 for the reimbursement of a snowmobile purchased in January 2007, will be reimbursed 100% by Pitkin County Open Space and Trail Board. The Finance Department has determined that the Parks and Open Space Fund has sufficient cash balances to support this request. Water Utility, $150,000: Appropriation requests for $150,000 for replacement of portion of Red Mountain Waterline, approved by Council May 30'h. The Finance Department has determined that the Water Fund has sufficient cash balances to support this request. Hydroelectric Fund, $201,030: Appropriation requests provide funding for the capital purchase of the turbine runner per replacement contract with GE Energy. Total cost of turbine is $356,030; remaining $155,000 will be funded by existing 2007 budget authority. The Finance Department has determined that the Hydroelectric Fund has sufficient cash balances to support this request. Transportation Fund: $226,500: Appropriation request provide for a formal appropriation of the Council approved TOM measures $226,500. TOM measures will be funded from General Fund cash reserves in the form of an interfund transfer. If the current proposed ballot measure is successful; the Transportation Fund will reimburse the General Fund. Truscott Housing Fund, $35,000: This request totals $35,000 for maintenance wages and supplies due to higher than budgeted personnel costs as a result of overtime wages from snow removal and emergency calls. Higher than anticipated apartment turnover, also resulted in extra work and facility improvements. The Finance Department has determined that the Truscott Housing Fund has sufficient cash balances to support this request. Asset Management Fund, $187,000: $162,000 is requested for implementing a mechanical systems retro- fit for energy savings at the ARC, approved by Council in April 2007 (see memo for details). The increase in project costs was authorized in Council work sessions in April. Engineering is requesting $25,000 for an additional vehicle for new construction mitigation officers, positions were approved by Council and require additional site visits. Technical Adiustment! Interfund Transfers: Asset Management Funds- Asset Management is requesting a one time reduction of ($1 ,622,830) to the 2007 budgeted appropriation, due to a change in capital project and priorities. (See attached memo for details) General Fund- General Fund is requesting $226,500 in total. $226,500 is a transfer to fund the TOM measures in the Transportation Fund, approved by council in May, 2007. This request will be funded from General fund cash reserves. Parks Operational Fund - Parks fund is requesting $789,360 in total. $789,360 is a transfer to the Parks Capital Fund to fully fund approved capital projects and Open Space acquisitions. Wheeler Fund- This adjustment re-appropriates approved 2006 budget authority in 2007 fiscal year. This is a Wheeler carry forward project funding for the City AABC housing project for remaining 2006 balance of $323,490. This was an oversight in the first supplemental in 2007. Housing Development Fund- The Housing Development Fund is shifting $3.5 million of budget appropriations from 2007 to 2008. This will match budget authority and expenditures for retainage and close out costs of this project. Debt SelVice Fund: The debt service fund administers the payment of the COPS for the purchase of the ISIS building. The City of Aspen receives lease payments in the Debt Service Fund that 100% offset the debt service payments. This is the formal appropriation of the budget authority, $324,660, for the 2007 debt service payment. Second Reading New Reauests: In the General Fund, second reading new requests to be reviewed by City Council, total $20,000. These requests are made up of the following: City Attorney, $10,000: One time request for an appropriation for the services of special council during the absence of both City attorneys. This request will be funded from the General Fund cash reserves. Community Development, $10,000: Request for formal approval of funding for continued work on the Renewable Energy Mitigation Program. This request is 100% offset by the Harvard University Ash Institute Grant awarded to the City of Aspen. Parks Operational Fund, $39,910: Parks fund is requesting $39,910 in total. Request for the budget authority to cash out two employees remaining wages and accrued benefits, which is mandated by the City of Aspen policy. The Finance Department has determined that the Parks has sufficient cash balances to support this req uest. Parks Capital Fund, $640,070: Requests provide for formal approval of funding authority for the acquisition of Last chance Mining Claim, $275,140, Wilkinson Estate, 250,000, and the acquisition of the Result and Della S Mining Claims, $114,930, previously approved by council on March 13th, 2006. (See memos for details). The Finance Department has determined that the Parks and Open Space Fund has sufficient cash balances to support this request. Truscott Housing Fund, $56,400: This request $56,400 in additional funding for the renovation of the laundry facility in the 100 building. Originally this project was budgeted over a two year period; however, with concerns with rising costs, Truscott is requesting to complete the project all in 2007. The Finance Department has determined that the Truscott Housing Fund has sufficient cash balances to support this request. Please feel free to contact either Don Pergande or Paul Menter with questions regarding any of the appropriation requests included in this ordinance. ORDINANCE N0.41 (Series of 2007) AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING A DECREASE IN THE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN FUND EXPENDITURES OF -$1,435,830, AN INCREASE IN THE GENERAL FUND OF $773,300, AN INCREASE IN THE PARKS FUND OF $829,270, AN INCREASE IN THE WHEELER FUND OF $323,490, AN INCREASE IN THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND OF $6,088,880, AN INCREASE IN THE DEBT SERVICE FUND OF $324,660,AN INCREASE IN THE PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND OF $805,710, AN INCREASE IN THE WATER FUND OF $150,000, AN INCREASE IN THE RUEDI HYDROELECTRIC FUND OF $201,030, AN INCREASE IN THE TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING FUND OF $226,500, AND AN INCREASE IN THE TRUSCOTT FUND OF $91,400. WHEREAS, by virtue of Section 9.12 of the Home Rule Charter, the City Council may make supplemental appropriations; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has certified that the City has unappropriated current year revenues and/or unappropriated prior year fund balance available for appropriations in the following funds: ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN FUND, GENERAL FUND, PARKS FUND, WHEELER FUND, HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND, DEBT SERVICE FUND, PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND, WATER FUND, RUEDI HYDROELECTRIC FUND, TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING FUND, AND THE TRUSCOTT FUND. WHEREAS, the City Council is advised that certain expenditures, revenue and transfers must be approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 Upon the City Manager's certification that there are current year revenues and/or prior year fund balances available for appropriation in the: ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN FUND, GENERAL FUND, PARKS FUND, WHEELER FUND, HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND, DEBT SERVICE FUND, PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND, WATER FUND, RUEDI HYDROELECTRIC FUND, TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING FUND, AND THE TRUSCOTT FUND: the City Council hereby makes supplemental appropriations as itemized in the Attachment A. Section 2 If any section, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason invalid or unconstitutional by any court or competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion thereof. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED AND/OR POSTED ON FIRST READING on the 10th day of September, 2007. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Mick Ireland, Mayor FINALLY ADOPTED AFTER PUBLIC HEARING on the 9th day of Octoher, 2007. ATTEST: Mick Ireland, Mayor Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to Form: John Worcestor, City Attorney Attachment A Total City of Aspen 2007 Appropriations by Fund Total 2007 Amended Expenditures & 2007 Expenditure Fund Name Transfers Out SUDplemental #2 Budget General Government Funds cAsset Management Plan $12,017,100 .$1,435,830 $10,581,270 General Fund $29.966 010 $773 300 $30.739310 _Subtotal General Gov't Funds: $41,983,110 -$662,530 $41,320,580 Soecial Revenue Funds Par~s and Open Space $9,972,890 $829,270 $10,802,160 ~heeler Opera House $4,650,590 $323,490 $4,974,080 ~ging Tax Fund $1,151,260 $0 $1,151,260 Par~i~g Improvement Fund $2,111,060 $0 $2,111,060 . Hou~lf1g Development $29,203,090 $6,088,880 $35,291,970 Early Childhood Educ. Initiative. AVCF $517,320 $0 $517,320 Kids First I Yellow Brick $1 .769.240 $0 $1 .769240 Subtotal, Special Rev. Funds: $49,375,450 $7,241,640 $56,617 ,090 Debt Service Funds Debt Service Fund $3.758.360 $324 660 $4083.020 Subtotal, Debt Service Funds: $3,758,360 $324,660 $4,083,020 Parks Capital Improvement Fund $3,894,610 $805,710 $4,700,320 Enterprise Funds ~t~r Utility $9,801,550 $150,000 $9,951,550 Electric Utility $6,936,040 $0 $6,936,040 Stormwater Fund $12,910 $0 $12,910 ~ediJ:lydroelectric Facility $447,310 $201,030 $648,340 Transportation Fund $3,715,180 $226,500 $3,941,680 Municipal Golf Course $1,182,690 $0 $1,182,690 J:r~cott Housin,g $2,025,680 $91,400 $2,117,080 Marolt Housing $1171.950 iQ $1171.950 Subtotal, Enterprise Funds: $25,293,310 $668,930 $25,962,240 Health Ins. Internal Service Fund $3,162,500 $0 $3,162,500 Trust & Agency Funds Housing Authority $1,022,200 -- $0 $1,022,200 ~m~_gglerMountain Fund $73.780 iQ $73.780 Subtotal, Trust & Agency Funds: $1,095,980 $0 $1,095,980 -- ALL FUNDS: $128,563,320 $8,378,410 $136,941,730 Less Intenund Transfers $25,329,550 $1,015,860 $26,345,410 EQUALS NET ALL FUNDS APPROPRIA nONS: $103,233,770 $7,362,550 $110,596,320 <;!!y of Aspen ~07 ;!~J)plemental Budget =4 I AlIachment B .. .'--- .., --~ .,~.'.' =....-:-:'=-.J===.,. ~ne_~ime request~,_ unles~otherwi:~__n~~~~~==t~:~~~~_~_~.~:'~~O_! __~_~___~: _ ___= _N~'!Y ~~~l!:s:_ Des~~:ti_~~ -- _==~_ ;1' Amouny Subtotal bvo-e~t ~~~_ N1~~ag~-t . - ---------- ! Requesting refu-ndotEntrance to As.pen -expenditures originally paid fro-mUthe - i j ----- - - -- 'I City Manager's budget be retumed. Expenditures were sent to Pitkin County to' be refunded from EOTC monies. 5-15-07 = $4,334.82 and 7/31/07 == I o.()1,o.5o.5o.078299~183999__._ ~6.632.76 fo, a lotal of$1o.,96 I $1o.~970 _ -1~ounCil approvedthe purchase ofa wire-less-keypad voting system,The I I ----- - - 001.0~.9~QOO_.~~999 ___ _i~y~tem i~J~!,709_~_~~i!~traJ~_i~g is_appro~~~tEl~_~~~:~,2 ~~sManaQer- ??5,710 ! $36,680 CO~~_!J_n_ity D~-v.e~~p-~-j-HP-\lideo & Co-nsulti"nt-=-Ba'ckftn'--OniIVoiCouncil appro-ved funds to mo-ve- i- - ---- i forward on producing a video to ~(jucate the public on post war architecttJre. 001. 1:3.. ~}490:~?90q ____I (~~~_~~~he~ ~_E!mo for 9~~a~_____...___ D_l!Da~_~~_':It 1st ~eadlng New Requests - Updated Ell!i_!d_i':1_9 _I~sp~dion I Sketch Up ! 3D Modeling - On 4/16/07 Council approved funds for work on the I sketch-up modeiing In a work session. (See attached Memo for details) ~16,OOO --T---' ..... .. ---...---..-.----..---.- - "'-- '-1"'-' n -------- iAspen Grove Cemetery - On 3/26f07 Council approved funds for a grant matchl 'for preservation of the Aspen Grove Cemelery. (See attached Memo for detalis); _ __ _~~f?,_5_00 : Sketch-Up i 3-D--Modeling '~"La-bor=Lat;o;' tOr our intern to contin~e "";ork-on the--'- -- --- !3D model foradditionai massing and etc. I _ _~~,~_9_____ ______. -Iprinting of-LU" COde-s. -Inio - Due-tothe'MoratOrioo;we n-ee-ci-to -plJblis-h-copies 'I I I of the land use code and etc_ lor resale. Revenues will be received from the : 001.13.13400.82999 I sales. $14,000! -----"---. - - i Prior to-i;'iiTati~ -the rewrlteof-lhe-Aspe-n Area Community pian an-d-the--- .. ------ j ---- i associated public process, up-tcrdate community data is needed. Staff is : drafting an rip for an Existir.g Conditions Report and a Buiid-Out Study to be i ()O~,1~.1:J4o.o..82999 ,aooompli,hedw;lhphma,"yco.. . . .. I ___ $85~:o.o _--.- ___ -- --litem's 'For Resale - joint Costs -We have-had to -inc;:ease our inventc-ry- ofcod0 I : books due to an increase in sales. The cost is split with County in the IGA and I 991: ~~:1_3QO_0~?9q?___--i?0~~~~ *i~~t~~~a~~~:~:'n(i~;;~;~a~~ti~:s;fanning-support.-- -- i ____ __ ~1g,000 ~_ I Permanent full time position. Cost requested represents funding for remainder I i W',,"_-'''___ ";00' "-~,.".,.",,.,,"c=__ _ _ _ 'm,~ ComDev's englneenng review of bUilding permits IS running about 3-4 months I 'behind scheduie The backlog IS due to the volume of permits and the number I I of on-Site englneenng Inspection requests Staff would like 10 engage I 001 13 1340082900 consultant servrces on a tempo $25,000 ~---- CounCJ appro;ed Aug 27th - OrdInance 30 Support - Economic Analysls.----~-- - --- I Context Paper, P"Operty Analysis ($22,500 was approved 0.". 7/2/07b. YC. 0..". ncil, .J' Ifor a consultant to reviSit the historic preservation ordinance.) (See attached I OOL:!.~_J_~400.82999 ,Memo for a~tails) $90,000 ____ - - ---.------ --.==------:--=-=--:-.::==-===:-.:: '=--=~ ,--;----- 1--- Subtotal, Community Develooment: i $348,500 I ConstrUction MiUgaticln-Officer- Two new-=h-;;.e"appm~ed byCouncil (See ~ ~attached Memo for details) - --;77,420 -~--- ! Rent of 517 E. Hopkins Ave- Engineering is responsibie'for one qua-ri:er of renti.--n-- - - ---- - p01:~5.1~QOO.""~___.___ :,~o.!f~~~~c~J~!:~_~achet!~~.~_~fordeta~sL ___ _____ ____.. ' _ $20,OQQj $97420 Subtotal, Enaineerina: I ,--------L____ , I I $41,20.0. I o.o.','3....:-c82999 o.o.U3c'32o.o..829o.8 0.0.1.13.1320.0..80.0.12 ~'-'9!!!~~!:i-"!9 Department 99J.j~:.1ti90g.:_~0. ; 2006 Fire Sprinkler Fees - We have an existing agreement with the fire distr'd i 10 provide inspections on fire sprinkler permits for a fee of 60% of the annual _QQJ~2L21 000:8290..9___! ~.re _~p_r:i..n.!'.!.~r p~~~!~~:..tSee_<!.~_c~~~_rn~mo for de~~~~) ____ .____ ----_._---~._-_-----.!.- --. --------.-.----.-- ~nyirp!1_mental Health I -~- -Subtota~BuildinQ Inspec-tionS:--' $41,200 ---_..J ~ Environmental Health is asking for a one-time supplemental to purchase ::I." air i iflow meter for the City of Aspen's PM10 air monitor (TEaM samoler) for S3000. I ; This flow meter is required under a change in the Air Quality statute, 40CFR58 001.25.25500.83999 ; Appendix A. (See attached memo for details) __ $3,OQO - - - --. - ------- ----;------.--. . - - -- ----... .,,---- ----. Subtotal, Environmental Healih-~ SUBTOTAL, GENERAL FUND $3 000 $526 800 ~ity of As~en . . _~ AlIachment B ~~07 ~upp~men~J_F':I-dget. 1==_ _=--= -- _~ _ -~_______ _ ____0_ ~"_R~.'!~N.wR.q""ts.up"", J---' One time requests, unless otherwise noted..._ ~",...o~, -- .----- O-eDartrri;nt--------- --____ - NewReauestDescriotion -----=-_~--=- - -- - Amow1t - SubtDt,!~bvDeDt 7~;~~~~;;~~~~entF~~488ca:I~-cre~kPropertyACq-U'S,uon --- - ~- - $S,39~,~80 --- ~~~;t~a~-~~~~~ - ~~:a~~I~~~!p~~~~:~~~o~-DOWnpayment -~=~ -~~:~~~:~tl-==--- ~=- Subtotal, Housirln"DeveloDment Fund. 1 $9588880 !=larks c;apital Fund ---- 'on June6,2006, citY-.Council app"roved a proposed park enhancement and -- - --- I - . historic restoration plan for Pioneer Parle Most of the work was completed by a private donor. The Parks Department is requesting $10,000 in supplemental 34_Q.:9_4:J!3D~?~99 __ ~~dingfore~l?~sesincu~~ ____~_____ __.. _ ..____~ ___$10.,0.90____.________ On April 19, 2007, City Council approved the addition of a picnic pavilion at the i Aspen Recreation Center on Rotary Field in partnership with the Aspen Rotary Club in honor of the club's centennial year. This shelter will provide a venue, ____ with_~~a_th~H Prl?__ ______ __ __ _ _ _______ _ _______ The Nordic Program had to purchase a new snowmobile on an emergency ! basis in January 2007 to replace a machine that had broken down and was : irreparable. The Pitkin County Open Space and Trail Board approved this purchase and_~m r~~~~.~~e the Ci~O.Q!~. sllbtotaT,-pa-rkSC3oiiai-FLmd;-- -~~~9-0-1 .-------s165.640 :~1-ay_-30Ih,-2007--Council approve<(supp-Iementaiof 150,000-fO~-replacement of~'--'--------'-' "'--1'-'- -- - --.- ,- j portions of Red Mountain Waterline coinciding with Pitkin County's I .! re.con.structiO.".. 0.'..'. ame road. Total cost to City for our port.ion of this Projec~" .' I _ 'S314,716. (See attached Memo for Details) . ...... . _. $1?9..!000 I __ _______._ ----- ------ -- -..--------.----- --- S-ubtotal,WaterFund ----. --,- , 340.94TBD,86000 34Q,9!8.'020.86000 !\'.ilterf1:Jfl~____ 421.94.44601.86000 -----.---- ------ t1y.!!~l?~le~ic Fun_~___ 444.94.43504.86000 Transportation Fu.!!d 450.32.32100.8.... Truscott ----- --. ----.---..-.------ $146,140 $150,000 June 11.2007 Council-approved supplementai of $201 ,030 for the purchase of tne turbine runner per replacement contract with GE Energy. Total rurbine cost ~ is $356.030. Remaining $155,000 of this replacement will be funded by ~~i.~~g_2007 _~u~get authority. $201,030 '-SUbtota[ Hv-droelectric Fund, I SOP:,~~~"tal bO:9~~~~~~,t foe fu:~:Ot:-,~~~~:e::~o::' dlceoted ~- : i measures for the summer of 2007. This request includes funding for tw:DM I I : temporary parking enforcemen. t officers. new. RFT A. bus service. from the Brushl : C~~p~.rking lot. traffic control (Se.~ atta!:.hed .r:':lemo for deta~I~) . $226,500 I Subtotal, Transnortation Fund. '--, $201 030 $226,500 IOngolng request to increase Maintenance wages and suoplies- Maintenance staff costs are higher than budgeted due 10 overtime wages from snow removal ,and emergency calls as well as under-budgeted insurance items Also due to 491.01.45005.83~~.L-_ 'hi!;jher than usual apartment turn over. _____.__ __ _____. 491.01.45005.8001?_____.lSee ab~,,:e ~){p~~~tion~ -------=--=--~___ ___ - --SUbtotal, Truscott Fund , I I $10.000 I $25,00J)1____:-:-___ $35,000 ~~~~~an~g,~me.nJ_g~.Pl~L __J __.______ - ___.. n____nn___ The ARC is implementing a mechanical systems retro-fit for energy savings. A ! contract was approved by City Council in April of 07 authorizing the ,implementation of this project along with an increase to the project amount by 990. 72.82Q6.?_~~_~gQL____ .__ ~1_?3}~~_~j~~~~9~ed Memo f?r detail~_ _ __ ______ _ Additional vehicle for Engineering Department- construction mitigation officers- Formal appropriations of 2 approved positions by city council requiring QQ9~l:~~05.860~_._ __ ___!'Clnsporta.!!.~f.9!~it~ visits. (See attache_~_Me~?_ !~~_details) _______ "1--- $162,000 ---1------------- , $25.000 I ....--- -1 .------ - --- --------- - SUbtot'ciCAs-s-ei Mana~emen-t-CapitalFundT- ----.- - c- Total New Reque~--- .. --.---- ----- ----. All FunastS1,,080,850+ .-- $187,000 $11,080,850 c:;i)'of ~I"'n.___._, ~!>_~?_~~ppl~~~!,_~_1 Bud~ ~~~ond Re!l~illg N~,,!_Reque~~ -------===-....~===_~~-~~-+_=~n ... AlI:Chment c One time req_ue~ts~!:I~less E~~e~i_se: noted _ ~ "'_U~~~~~ n..rnt $10, _ .----(- ------ -~- qeD..rtmen~ NewR~(]~es~ D~scriDti~n ~~ti~norney- 001,09.09000.80012 I For services of James R. _I details) __ ~==::~I ..-- True, Special Council (See attached memo for _C::Qm_m~n!ty De~~!op~~-.L_ in Subiotal, Communii- 6evel"c;' ment- ! Grant from HarVafd .U-niverS-iiY-Ash - (nstltu-te ~ funds wijl be 1000/-;;- offselt:-by g;a-rit,!- as~~_g_~_~igeta~!hority. (See attac~ed memo f()_r~e~i!s)______ j 001.13.T80, --- 'Subtotal, Communi Develo merit! SUBTOTAL, GENERAL FUND Parks a,!l_~:'-9pe.n Sp_,!~_e__ 100.55.55000.800' Park Oepart~~~0ploy_~~~_sn_ ~u~{S~~ _attal?h~.d_ m~~o fo~~_~~!I~L____ Subtotal, Parks and 0 en S ace Fund: Parks Capital 346:94:TB086o.o.o. 340,9icTBO.86o.o.O 34o..94.TBO.86o.OO ______ __n , : Last Chance Mining Claim A~q.~isition (See- atl-a~hed memo for details.)------ ~vJ~kin~on Est;"teAcq-UiSition (See-~ttached~mem~fo-r_d~tailS)- ---_ - ,.',;;auisltion -of the Resuj(ancf E)elia- s. Mining-Ciair.1s, -pre~iously-appmved-;n _n, March 13th, 2006 (See attached memo for details) -- __on -------.------------- -Subtotal,ParksCa italFund: Truscott 491.94,TBQ860()~ I 'Truscott is requesting additional funding f:)r the renov3tion of the laundry facility : in the 100 Building. $35.000 is curr81tly 3Ppropriated in the AMP plan. The original pian was to break the project ove. a 'wo year time oeriod. Due 10 concerns with rising costs T:uscott is requesting to compiere the project all in 2007. An additional $56,400 is req:..;ire.:_j for the completion of the project, bringing the lotallo $91,480. (See attached memo for details) ------ _n___ --------- - -Subtotai~-TruscottFund All Funds: Total New Requests ~ Subtotal bv Deot I ... ..... 1--."'-- $10.,0.0.0 i '" I A_mount j .$10.,000.] - I $:l9,g'-Q': 5275,140. ,$250.,006 ' $114,930 : -I _ __$56,~QO.i , $756,380. I $10000 ---$10 000 $20 000 $39,910 $640,070 $56,400 $756,380. City Of Aspen I AlIachment D 2007 Technical Adjustments I rounded to nearest $10 DeoartmenUFund Technical Ad'ustment Descrintion Amount Subtotal bv Deot General Fund , , Reduction to 2007 approprtated asset management TBD. Reconciliation from AMP capital plan (see attached memo for details) ($1,622,830) , Subtotal, General Fund 1$1,622,830 General Fund Transportation TDM measures transfer funded from i the General Fund. If ballot measure Is successful i 001.95.32100,95450 Transportation Fund will reimburse the General Fund I $226,500 , I Subtotal, General Fund $226,500 Parks Fund # 100 This is a transfer from the Parks Operational Cash I , reserve to fuily fund all 2007 Capitai Project and Open i 100,95.00000.95340 Space acquisitions. $789,360 Subtotal, Parks Fund $789,360 Wheeler Fund #120 I Wheeler carry forward funding for the City MBC housing project for remaining 2006 balance of $323,490. This was an oversight in the first 120.94,82054.86000 suppiemental in 2007. $323,490 Subtotal, Wheeler Fund' $323,490 Housing Development Fund Burlingame Phase I . shifting $3.5 million of budget appropriations from 2007 to 2008 to accurately match budget authority approprtation and the timing of the expenditures for retainage and close out costs of this 150,23.23121 proiect. ($3,500;000) Subtotal, Wheeler Fundi ($3,500,000 Debt Service Fund Payment of the Certificates of Participation for the purchase of the ISIS building, 2007. The City of Aspen receives lease payments and then administers the payment of the debt service. This Debt service payment is structured to be 100% offset by the lease I 250.98.31068.8- pavments received, $324,660 I Subtotal, Wheeler Fund I $324,660 Total Technical Adjustment I All Funds: ! ($3,458,820) ($3,458,820) Attachment E I I , 1-c::ITY OF ASPEN I 2007 Interfund Transfer - Updated with Changes for 2nd Supplemental I i Transfer From Fund Transfer To Fund Amount of Transfer Purnose of Interfund Transfer 000 - Asset Management Wheeler Opera House $186,470i 1998 Street Improvements 10 Yr IF Loan !Wheeler Opera House $65,OOOIRed Brick West End Project 10 yr IF Loan Kids First Fund $181.690' 1998 Street Improvements 10 Yr IF Loan i Debt Service Fund , $40~.11'J Transfer to De_bt Service Fund Subtotal, T~an5fers From Asset I ! Manaaemer.t Fund: $839,270' 001 - General Fund 1 AMP Fund , $5, 180,a?_~;...Fund New and Carry Forward Capital Projects ---LWater Utility Fund $99,350! 113 Global Warming-EH and CWF Projects I Parks and Ocen Space Fund: 581,960 "\I!nual Partial Su~sidy of Food Tax Refund I HousingnOev-elopmer.t Fur19 $1 ,126 ,??~O-I ,ansfer - ZupancIs Property Re-purchase Tr~nse.1?i!~t~<?n Fund : $226,500: TOM Measures I Transporta::on Fund , $156. OGO i Operations Subsidy iSubtot"al. Trar.sfers from Ger.eraJ Fund: ' $6,871,530 ' 100 - Parks and Open Space Fund , I iTransfer to fund budgeted 340 Capital improvement , ; Parks and qpen Space Capital Fund $3,582,290 projects, ,Debt Serv:ce Fund I $850,900. Parks 20.95 Open Space Bonds ~ebt Service Fund ---" , $860,690 'Parks Portion, 2001 Sales Tax Revenue Bands I 2005 Parks and Open Space Revenue Bonds. IDebt Service Fund I $951,160; refunding 1999 bonds I iTransfer to fund budgeted 340 Capital improvement 'Parks and Open Space Capital Fund I S789,360,projects- Second Supplemental , I Overhead Payment ~ General Government Support 0 General Fund $671 ~_?9. Fund Operations I Subtotal, Transfers from Parks and I I ,Open Space F=und: $7,706,380' 120. Wheeler Opera House Fund I I : Overhead Fayment - General Government Support 0 iGeneral Fund $239720' Fund Operations Subtotal. Wheeler Opera House: , $239,720 . 140 - Parking Garage Fund 2004 Certificate of Participation (Refunded, Originally : issued in 1989 to construct Rio Grande Parking I Debt Service Fund , $689,500'Garage ITr~ortation Fund $183,870 Overhead, Adn~in, and Dial a Ride I - : Overheaa- Payment - General Government Suoport 0 General Fund , 5154960 Fund Operations , Subtotal. Parkina Garace Fund: $1,028,330 . 150 - Housing Development Fund I , 1450 Trarsportation Fund ! $750,000IBurlingame mitigation f450 Transportation Fund , $15,00~1. Burlingame car share vehicle ,Truscott I Rental Housing Fund i $1,341, 190 Truscott I, 2001 Housing Bonds Subsidy , , I This is the second year of a three years transfe:- for : Truscott LandscapinQ.. 340 funds $50,000' landscaping at T~scott ___ I ; Marolt Ranch Seasonal Housing, Subsidy for I Marolt Ranch Seasonal Housing Fund ; $35,000' B_udgeted Capital improvements , I APCHA Housing Office, Operations Subsidy {50% of 'Housing Office Operations Fund $177,070'total Subsidy, split with Pitkin County , I ~ Overhead Payment - General Government Suoport 0 ! General Fund i $497,360 Fund Operations 'Subtotal. Housina Develoome:"1t Fund: $2,865,620 151 . Early Childhood Fund , : Kids First Fund " m__.. , $10,000 Payment to Kids First for Admin. Services 'Kids First Fund 1 $3,650'Payment to Kids First for Admin" Services ! Kids First Fund , I $12 840ipayment to Kids First for Admin. Services I Subtotal, Earlv Childhood Fund: 1 $26,4901 -- 152 - Day Care (Kids First /Yellow Brick) Fund i 1 i General Fund I $31,8001 Transfer -. New Propertv Manaaer Position Attachment E CITY OF ASPEN I 2007 Interfund Transfer. Updated with Changes for 2nd Supplemental , 1 Transfer From Fund Transfer To Fund Amount of Transfer i PurDose of Interfund Transfer , I Overhead Payment - General Government Support 0 IGeneral Fund $63.440: Fund Operations . Subtotal, Kids First Fund: I $95,2401 340 - Parks and Open Space Capital Fund , I General Fund Overhead Payment - General Government Support 0 $31,130 Fund Operations 421 - Water Utii'itVFundi I , I Return on Investment Payment, General Fund Sale 'General Fund , $1,000.000 of Land to Water Utility for Operations Facilities ! Parks and Onen Snace Fund $150.000 Water usage Conservation Programs I General Fund , Overhead Payment - General Government Support 0 ~618_ O~Q' Fund Operations iSubtotal, Water Utilitv Fund:: $1,768.040 431 - Electric Utility Fund General Fund $385~840 Franchise Fee Transfer to General Fund Overhead Payment - General Government Support 0 General Fund 5314.330 Fund Operations ! Reudi Hvdroelectric Fund , ; Purchase of Hydroelectric power from City-owned S-4:~O.OOO Generating Facility ,General Fund , S~4,350 1/3 Global Warming.EH and CWF projects !Water Utilitv Fund ~_~?}.:?10- Electric Utility portion of Utility Billing Services 'Subtotal, Electric Utilitv Fund: . $1,351,730 444 - Reudi Hydroelectric Fund I Overhead Payment - General Government Support 0 i General Fund $11,410 Fund Ooerations 450 - Transportation Fund 1 I I Overhead Payment - General Government Support 0 General Fund 5402,440 Fund Operations Parks and Onen Snace Fund ! $337,140,Contribution for Mall Rubey Park Mall Maintenance !Subtotal, TransDortation Fund $739,580 471 - Golf Course Fund 1 Overhead Payment ~ General Government Support 0 I General Fund S115.720'Fund Operations : Subtotal, Golf Course Fund: $115,720 491 - Truscott Rental Housing Fund , i Overhead Payment ~ General Government Support 0 I General Fund i $22,400 Fund Operations , , : Overhead Payment - Housing Operations Support of I Housino Operations Fund , $51 J80 i Fund Operations I Subtotal, Truscott Housina Fund: $74,180 492 - Marolt Ranch Seasonal Housing Fund I , ; Overhead Payment - General Government Support 0 I General Fund i $17.720: Fund Operations I i Overhead Payment - Housing Operations Support of i Housina Operations Fund 526 130 I Fund Operations I Subtotal, Marolt Ranch Fund: $43.850 620 . Housing Office Operations Fund . . I : Overhead Payment - General Government Support 0 iGeneral Fund: $74,870 Fund Operations Smuggler Housing Fund I : Overhead Payment - General Government Support 0 General Fund , $5,670' Fund Operations ! Housina Ocerations Fund $3510 Housing Overhead ISubtotal, Smuooler Fund I $9,1801 1 1 1 501 - Health Care Fund I I Health Care Internal Service Budaet $2,453,1401 , 1 2007 TOTAL INTERFUND TRANSFERS I $26,345,4101 THE CITY OF ASPEN Back Up Documentation For: Attachment F Memos & Detail Descriptions for Requests MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klanderud and City Council FROM: Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Planner THROUGH: Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager RE: Purchase of keypad technology DATE: October 30, 2006 SUMMARY: After a successful pilot effort in July with the "Core Beliefs" community sessions, staff supports the purchase of a 300-unit instant voting system from Audience Response Solutions. On July 19,2006, a total of approximately 450 people attended two instant voting sessions at the Jerome Hotel, representing a significant portion of the year-round community. The feedback from these sessions was helpful to staff and elected/appointed officials as the City pursues changes to the Land Use Code as part ofthe current moratorium. Because this was the first time the City used instant voting technology, the City leased a 300-unit system for approximately $5,500, and paid the airfare and lodging for one of the firm's partners to operate the system. The keypad sessions appeared to be very popular as the following results illustrate: 65.) Regarding this technology and this type of meetina Responses I can't wait to do this again ,start on transportation as soon as possible! I prefer the tried.and.true method of public hearings in the Council chambers We need other input methods but this wasn't it (percent) (count) 87.94% 277 1.90% 6 10.16% 32 Staff had intended to use the keypad technology as part of the public process regarding the Entrance to Aspen, but the moratorium presented an opportunity to test the system. Although land use and development are highly controversial issues, it appears this public process approach was welcomed by the community, and staff learned a great deal about how to prepare for instant voting sessions. In addition to using the keypad system as part of the Entrance to Aspen public process, instant voting can be used as part of the process for generating future community plans. Staff is confident that if the keypad system is used in a thoughtful manner and under appropriate conditions, it can be a very effective tool for productive public process, and would be well worth the financial investment. At $20,950, buying this keypad system would be the equivalent of leasing it three times. Included in the price is a software package that will enable City employees to operate the system, along with a two-year warranty for hardware. There is also the opportunity for the City to rent the system to other governments, non-profits and the private sector in an effort to recoup the purchase cost. This price includes the software, wireless interface units, 300 keypad units, a two-year hardware warranty and one year of software updates. Staff is not recommending a second year of software updates ($2,959), as the price appears high for what typically amount to non-essential modifications to software programming. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Tara L. O'BradOVi~ Stephen H. Barwick ~4Ih' FROM: DATE OF MEMO: September 19, 2007 MEETING DATE: October 9,2007 RE: Supplemental Request REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The purpose of this memorandum is to request additional funding for the City Attorney payroll services, more specifically for the services of James R. True, Special Counsel. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council previously approved funding for the services of James R. True at the beginning of 2007. This request seeks to preserve and continue the services of Mr. True as Special Counsel. DISCUSSION: The initial request funded James R. True, as Special Counsel while Assistant City Attorney David Hoefer was receiving medical treatment. Staff discussed the scope of work with James R. True, and staff is content with his performance. Assistant City Attorney David Hoefer is still under medical treatment. City Attorney John Worcester has recently been under medical treatment for three weeks and the scope of work for Mr. True has significantly increased. With the absence of both staff attorneys, staff has been utilizing James R. True for all city legal matters and anticipates utilizing his services for the remainder of the year. Additional fundijlg is required to preserve the current services of Mr. True. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMP ACTS: At the time of the initial request, staff anticipated and requested $33,000.00 for the services of Mr. True, which Council approved. Expenditures to date are $21,351.01. With the absence of both staff attorneys, Mr. True's services are imperative and staff anticipates further utilization of Mr. True's services for an unknown length of time. Staff is requesting an additional $10,000.00 to compensate Mr. True for the remainder of the year. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: N/A G: Itara IBUDGETIsuoo2007 .doc Page 1 of2 . RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of additional funding in the amount of $10,000 for the services of James R. True, Special Counsel. ALTERNATIVES: If Council chooses not to approve staff's request or recommendation, Council could approve a different denomination. If Council chooses not to allocate any further compensation for the services of Mr. True, any amount exceeding the original approved $33,000 would inevitably come out of central savings. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Ordinance # . . . CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: G: Itara\BUDGETIsuo02007 .doc Page 2 of2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Chris Bendon,Community Development Director Johannah Richards, Executive Assistant COPY: Paul Menter, Finance Director RE: Community Development: 2007 2nd Supplemental Budget Requests. DATE: August 24, 2007 Community Development is requesting the following items in the 2007 Fall Supplemental Budget. We are happy to explain any of these in greater detail as needed. New Requests - Planning Technician - $25,500. The demands on the Planning division have exceeded the Department's current capacity. The Department is understaffed for the current level of zoning permit review and current planning caseload. A Planning Tech position could handle the majority of day-to-day public requests for information, administer zoning reviews for simple projects, and assist with zoning enforcement. The efficiency of existing caseload planners would be improved with these tasks being handled by a Planner Tech. This would be a new position. Continued Sketch-Up Modeling - $6,500. In 2007, the City Council approved funding for the purchase of the Sketch-Up computer program and for wireframes of all buildings within the City. The Community Development Department hired a summer intern, Drew Alexander, to help create a 3-D Sketch mode with the wireframe data. The Department is requesting $6,500 to continue Drew's employment through the end ofthe year. Drew will continue to work on the model presented to City Council on August 6, 2007. The Community Development Department has requested funds in the 2008 Budget to continue the Sketch-Up Modeling work. Part of this request would fund a part-time temporary position for Drew to continue working on the model in 2008. This $6,500 Supplemental request ensures the model will continue to progress in 2007, and be of use in 2007 Public Hearings. Historic Preservation Support (Ordinance 30) - $187,000. See separate memo. Items for Resale -Joint - $10,000. The Building Department is increasing sales of IRC and mc code books and study guides. Additional funds are requested to keep an inventory of books to meet the sales demand. 50% of the costs incurred are split with Pitkin County AACP Existing Conditions Report - $50,000. Prior to initiating the rewrite ofthe Aspen Area Community Plan and the associate public process, up-to-date community data is needed. The last AACP update started with this basic reconnaissance. Staff is drafting an rfp for this work to be accomplished with primarily consultant service. There is a potential to split some of this cost with Pitkin County and this will be discussed further at the September 4th joint meeting. 2006 Fire Sprinkler Fees - $41,202. We have an existing agreement with the fire district to provide inspections on fire sprinkler permits for a fee of 60% of the annual fire sprinkler permit fees. In the past the funds have been paid directly out of the revenue account which does not follow TABOR regulations. For 2006 it will need to be expensed and for 2007 the funds will be put into a liability account. Printing of Land Use Code - $14,000. Due to the moratorium and newly adopted regulations, the Department needs to reprint the City's Land Use Code and Commercial Design Guidelines. Revenues will be received from sales of these items. Harvard Grant Match - $10,000. We have been awarded a match grant from Harvard for the Innovations in American Government Award. The funds are to be applied to the City's the Renewable Energy Mitigation Program (REMP). See attached letter. Previously Approved Requests - Sketch-Up Funding - $16,000. As part of the Spring 2007 Supplemental Budget the Community Development Department requested and gained approval for $16,000 to fund the Sketch-Up 3-D modeling (April 16, 2007, work session). The request was approved as part of the 1st supplemental of the year but not included in the budget. The money has been spent. Aspen Grove Cemetery - $36,500. On March 26,2007, City Council approved funding for the preservation of the Aspen Grove Cemetery. The request was approved as part of the I st supplemental of the year but not included in the budget. The City's funding is a 100% grant match. No money has been spent on this project. Historic Preservation Education DVD - $40,000. On July 2nd, City Council approved moving forward with producing a DVD on post-war architecture. Staff has prepared a request for proposals and is soliciting interest. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: Additional Information on Supplemental Budget Requests MEETING DATE: October 10, 2007 I) Sketch up models- why two requests this year, didn't you know you would need extra labor? Explain the $6,500. . Staff was not aware that additional money would need to be requested in the Fall Supplemental. The $16,000 request was onlv for the acquisition of data necessary to construct the City's 3-D model. The money requested did not include labor to construct the model or any other on-going needs. In early August, Jessica Garrow, Planner, and Drew Alexander, Planning Intern for the summer, presented the model to City Council. Staff is requesting $6,500 at this time for Drew Alexander to continue working on the model because he is able to continue working for the Department while he finishes his Degree. This was not known at the time of the Spring Supplemental request. 2) Land Use Code books- $14k and $IOk, explain the need for actual books and the fact that they are offset by revenue. . There are two line items in the supplemental request: $14,000.00 for printing with regard to changes to the land use code as a result of the moratorium and $10,000.00 for items for resale (building code books). With regard to the $14,000.00 request, staff has considered the online availability of planning documents. Many people do access these documents online; however, there is still a need to print land use codes as well as the recently adopted commercial design guidelines. Not everyone uses the internet and some people prefer to buy a hard copy. Additionally, copies are necessary for staff, council, boards, and commissions. We are required by State Statute to have code books available for purchase by contractors, etc. This is a joint expense with the county and a pass-through cost. 3) $85k for Aspen Area Community Plan- how was this handled in the past, explain request and past history. . For the 2000 AACP, the City paid 2/3rds ofthe cost and the COl}nty paid 1/3'd of the cost. The approximate cost incurred by the City was $225,000.00. This initial request is for developing baseline data (existing conditions report and a build-out study) as the background leducational portion ofthe update to the AACP. 4) $25k for building permit consultant- explain backlog and that after the permits are catch up the consultant is no longer on City books. We are not firing one of our own; rather a full time staff member should be hired by then. · The current request is to aid in the current review of permits with regard to engineering. The department's engineer resigned and the consultant is needed as a stop-gap measure until the position is filled. 5) $90k ordinance 30 - need updated figures and memos. · With changes to the scope as for ordinance no. 30 requested by council the request is now $90,000.00. Council wanted us to work off of existing research to develop a list of potential landmark properties, rather than to undertake an intensive new survey with outside consultants. We still need $90,000 of the original $206K that council approved. $25,000 of that is for consultant assistance with the hp economic task force and code writing, $55,000 of that is for consultant assistance with the policy task force, improvements to the scoring system, context papers, and code writing, $10,000 is to support the costs of a "public defender" who would be available to help property owners conduct research, etc. if they are faced with a designation that they have not consented to. The original memo taken to Council on Aug. 27th is attached. ASH INSTITUTE ~ FOR DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE AND INNOVATION HARVARD UNIVERSITY ,JOHN F. KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT August 24, 2007 Stephen Kanipe Chief Building Official Aspen Community Development 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RECE\VED AU\] 2 9 2001 CITY OF ASPEN CQMt.\UN\1'1 OEVEloPtAENT Dear Steve, I am pleased to inform you that as a Finalist for the Innovations in American Government A ward, the Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation (the Institute) at the John F. Kennedy School of Government will make a grant of $10,000 to the City of Aspen on behalf of the Renewable Energy Mitigation Program. These funds must be spent in accordance with the provisions ofthis leller. This grant is made only for the purposes stated in this leller. Any program funds not expended or committed for the purposes of replication and dissemination of your initiative, or within the program period, will be returned to the Ash Institute. Payment of grant funds will be issued via a check from Harvard University. Please complete the attached "Vendor Set-Up Form for Innovations in American Government Grant Recipients" in order to process your payment. These terms apply to the City of Aspen's use of program funds for the dissemination of the Renewable Energy Mitigation Program: Finalist programs of the Innovations in American Government Award should use funds to create and execute dissemination efforts that will give other government programs and other agencies the tools necessary to adapt the winning program to their own needs. In addition, fmalist programs may use funds to directly market their program to the public. Both of these objectives-encouraging the replication of outstanding programs and restoring public confidence-require effective communications strategies geared towards several audiences. One audience includes individuals who are already attentive to issues of government performance, such as journalists and policy experts. Another includes the broader public, whose distrust of government creates the difficult environment in which the public sector must operate today. A third is public officials and practitioners who might consider program replication. Through our awards, We ask our grantees to join us in communicating to these audiences some of the strengths of American government. This is our purpose in making available to you both the fmancial resources and our communications expertise. Your grant is subject to some limitations: . Grant funds may not be used to hire permanent staff or to pay for the normal operating expenses of the program. . Grant funds may not be used for new programs you would like to develop, or work that you need to perform for other projects. . Grant funds may not be used to fund agency overhead costs or to create permanent endowment funds. . The Ash Institute discourages the use of grant funds for equipment or facilities, unless necessary for the proposed communications, dissemination, or replication activities. All materials created under the grant agreement must include recognition of the Innovations in American Government A wards Program. The following text is recommended and should be placed on materials created under this agreement. "This (publication, website etc.) is made possible by a grant from the Innovations in American Government Award, a program of the Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University 79 John F. Kennedy Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 T 617.495.0557 F 617.496.4602 www.ashinstitute.harvard.edu Grant funds should be expended within one year from the date ofreceipt. At the end of the grant period, a brief report should be furnished to the Institute. The report, which should be signed by an appropriate officer of your organization and sent to the Ash Institute, should contain I) a narrative account of what was accomplished by the expenditure of funds, including a description of progress made toward achieving the goals of the grant; and 2) a financial accounting of these activities. The Institute will provide a template for this report. Throughout the grant period, the Institute shall be furnished with copies of any publication, audio or video program, film, or other media product produced by your organization under this grant for archival and/or research purposes. The Institute shall have the right to make additional copies of any grant product and to disseminate the information and materials through our networks and post the information on our website and portal. After the end of the grant period, the Institute may request brief, periodic reports from you or other program representatives. Representatives of the grant-receiving program shall respond to such requests throughout the life of the grant-winning program. Moreover, representatives of-the grant,receiving program shall inform the Institute of key personnel changes in order to ensure that program representatives can be contacted. The Institute may include information regarding your Innovations award-winning program in their publications, reports and newsletters. The Institute may also refer to the program in press releases. If this letter correctly sets forth your understanding of the terms of this grant, please indicate your organization's agreement to these terms by having the enclosed copy of this letter countersigned by an appropriate officer of your organization and returned to me at the Institute. On behalf of the Innovations in American Government A wards Program at the Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, best wishes for the success of your program. If you have any questions or require assistance in the administration of your program, do not hesitate to call me at (617) 4964491. Sincerely, (JJ1.-V,/:j,MGs.. 1?u. 0i:'~~ Christina Marchand Program Manager for Outreach and Evaluation ACCEPTED AND AGREED: Renewable Energy Mitigation Program By: (Printed Name) (Signature) Title: Date: , . MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Sara Adams, Preservation Planner Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director DATE OF MEMO: June 29, 2007 MEETING DATE: July 2, 2007 RE: Historic Preservation- Designation of Interiors and Designation of Post World War II era properties REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The previous City Council requested Staff to research and formulate criteria for the historic designation of publicly accessible interiors as part of the "Commercial Core Moratorium" that was adopted in December 2006, and recently extended for six more months. Staff would like to update the new Council on the historic interior issue, and also use this work session to provide a summary of Community Development's progress with the designation of eligible post-war era properties as Aspen Landmarks, which is an established goal in the AACP. Historic Interior Desienation PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: During an April 16, 2007 worksession, Council was supportive of historic interior designation, and directed Staff to look into the Historic Preservation chapter of the Land Use Code to possibly offer more benefits to historic properties to offset the impacts of this new area of regulation. BACKGROUND: An emergency moratorium was adopted by City Council in December of 2006 that, among other issues, addressed concern over the loss of historic interiors in Aspen. Since the inception of Aspen's Historic Preservation Program in 1972, the City has not required HPC review of alterations to the interior of designated buildings. Like many communities in the country, our efforts have focused on landmark exteriors and the public benefit of their preservation on streetscapes and neighborhoods. While the exterior of a building may be its most prominent visible aspect or its "public face," its interior can be even more important in conveying the building's history and development over time. Imagine the Wheeler Opera House with the theater moved to the basement level, rather than the dramatic climb to the third floor that has been the history of the building for almost 120 Pagelof4 . . years. Although the Wheeler contains many new materials on the interior due to fires, the overall sequence of spaces in this structure is important. Other buildings, such as the Pitkin County Courthouse, contain significant interior woodwork and trim that is original to the building. Currently we have nothing in place to prevent the removal of historic interior walls, trim, floors, decorative ceilings, staircases, built in cabinetry, fireplaces, and other special features can have a significant impact on the experience of being in a historic structure. These actions result in a certain loss of authenticity. DISCUSSION: Interior Designation At the direction of the previous City Council, Staff is researching interior designation ordinances from throughout the country to begin a dialogue about interior preservation in Aspen. Attached, as Exhibit A, are preliminary draft regulations. The criteria, benefits and review process mirror the processes in the Aspen Municipal Code for the exterior designation of historic buildings. In addition to amending the Historic Preservation Chapter of the Aspen Municipal Code, designating interiors necessitates an additional chapter in the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines to offer clear direction to the Historic Preservation Commission in both the preservation of elements and appropriate interior alterations. Funding is required to hire a consultant to survey and produce a list of significant interiors in Aspen. Staff requests direction from Council on the following items regarding historic interiors: 1. Recently, the City negotiated the preservation of specific historic elements of the Hotel Jerome and Red Onion interiors; however, there is no guaranteed protection of these elements for the future since neither interior is designated. Would Council prefer to see the designation of specific interiors happen concurrent with the adoption of an Ordinance authorizing the City of Aspen to designate interiors, or as a later discussion? 2. How much of the interior should the City and HPC have purview over- just the preservation of specific features, or purview over a larger section of the interior to ensure that new materials/ design in the space are "compatible" with the historic features? How do we make it clear to property owners what is regulated? Preservation of Post World War II Architecture PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: A great deal of effort was put into the creation of a new Historic Preservation Ordinance for Aspen, adopted by Council in March 2002. The ordinance aimed to improve the procedures by which we designate and regulate properties of historic significance for the benefit of the community. Staff, HPC and Council have met frequently since that time to discuss the ordinance as well as the City's efforts to seek designations for important postwar era properties through the use of incentives and owner consent. BACKGROUND: Aspen was one of the first communities in the state or the nation to adopt historic preservation regulations, which was done starting in 1972. We have received recognition for being on the "cutting edge" in terms of creating new ways of dealing with the Aspen's heavy development pressure and its impacts on our town's historic character. Page 2 of4 - DISCUSSION: For over 30 years the preservation of Mining Era buildings has been generally accepted as a necessity and a community benefit since preservation of the built environment provides a fundamental link to the past. An impressive total of 257 buildings from Aspen's first 13 years of history have been protected. This represents 92% of the landmarked inventory in town. The Aspen community continues to struggle with how best to practice historic preservation for the architectural forms that reflect the rest of Aspen's history. Only 22 buildings from Aspen's last 113 years of history are currently landmarked. These properties amount to 8% of the designations in Aspen. There is no reason to believe that only Aspen's Victorian residents produced places worth saving. Both the 19th Century Mining Era and Post World War II occurrences, such as the development of the skiing industry and the Aspen Idea, have had a profound influence on this community. In the early 1970s, when Aspen citizens initiated efforts to protect the Victorians, those buildings were approximately 80 years old. A child born at Aspen Valley Hospital today will graduate from high school 80 years after the end of World War II. Considering the overwhelming redevelopment pressure in Aspen, we won't have the opportunity to wait until that child graduates from high school to debate the significance of Post-War architecture before the best examples from this era are demolished. Staff fields questions on a daily basis that indicate threats to the continued existence of remaining buildings constructed during the early ski era. This week alone, three post-war era buildings with significance that should have been evaluated further, were demolished. In order to tell Aspen's unique Post-War story to both future Aspen residents and future visitors, we will need more than dusty books and photos - we will need the architectural forms and landmarks that reflect the identity of town. The groundwork for recognizing examples of Aspen's rich modem history has been laid for many years, at least as early as the designation of Lift I in 1974. Twenty years ago, the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Historic Preservation Element, called for the designation of post-Victorian era, significant modem buildings. This goal was repeated again in the 1993 AACP and the 2000 Update. Although the community and the City of Aspen have placed a value on Post-War buildings and have taken steps to preserve them, we continue to struggle with exactly what tools we should use and to what extent we will be insist on the same treatment that is given to Victorians. Only the property owner can currently file an application for historic designation, unless the resource is at least 40 years old, in which case, HPC, or City Council can initiate. The Historic Preservation Chapter of the Municipal Code encourages the identification and evaluation, and protection of properties that are in the public interest to protect, in advance of specific issues or conflicts. Per previous Council direction, staff has been focused for some time on proactively encouraging voluntary designations. In some recent instances this has worked, but in others, the current practices are resulting in an II th hour conflict over pending redevelopment applications requiring City approval, or outright losses of buildings. We seek Council approval to continue making progress on public education around this issue, as well as advancing our regulations and incentives. The development of a compelling and consistent "message" regarding the important achievements in historic preservation since 1972, and the value of historic preservation of post-war buildings is essential to accomplishing the goals of the Page3 of 4 . ~ 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan and fulfilling the purpose and intent of the Land Use Code [26.415.010]. During an April 16, 2007 worksession, Council members expressed support for an outreach effort that will educate the public about Aspen's unique architectural heritage. There are multiple avenues (brochures, documentary film, walking tours with audio, speakers) that staff can pursue regarding public education, all of which will need funding. The recent Entrance to Aspen documentary was able to address a controversial issue in a manner that was generally well-received. Staff believes a similar approach to the history of preservation in Aspen - up to and including current issues regarding Post War architecture - would be a strong educational tool that can help advance the community debate on this subject. The questions "How did we get here?" and "Where are we now?" would set the tone of the film, featuring a collage of interviews, narration, photographs, and tours of important buildings. Our main goal is to educate the local community about their architectural resources and promote Aspen's unique heritage. In addition to the Aspen community, the film could potentially be used to familiarize out of town architects and planners to the history and context of Aspen. This project will have an estimated cost of $40,000. Some months ago, the City solicited and received an estimate for re-visiting the historic preservation ordinance in order to overcome procedural issues that have continued to be raised during controversial designations, and to seek new ideas for incentives. The consultant who authored the existing regulations has estimated this work to cost approximately $22,500. Staff is seeking the new Council's support III pursuing this issue as described, including formalizing approval for budget expenditures. ATTACHMENTS: A: Interior Designation Criteria Page4of4 11\ y/ c=o--I ~co::r~I!.~ a. VI .... ro '.'1 -" .," . ,....,. .... 7'"'0 ,'> o ~ 0 ::r :,"t" -aro_ot'- .... 0- m""""'" o w OJ 0 s. VI ~ ~ a. ;:;" $ 0- ([) rD' OJ 0 n ::J -" < o (I) ::J ro ~ VI VI III ro ..;-"""::J X OJ ;:0 a. :-+ ~. ~ 0- Z O. I'D :J"," - o w ::r 0 8"::J ro :E '00.3 o VI C l.C ro ~ V\ .... ........ VI .-+ {J g- S. ~ ::r () l.O ro '<~3w V;" 0 0 3 Vl ::J a. llJ ::r......roVl o ::r - VI :E ij;' S' S' ::J 0'" Q. 1.O o 0" c 3 ::J n a. 0 g.?"~a. v;' )>"'C !E.. 3 :J ::r ~ o 0 ow...... ...... ro 0 ~ ~:::!. VI::r _~_ro . _.::r 0\ ~ 0> 0 ~o n c , , ro ::J ~ '0 ro 3 ~. ~ ro 0. s: 0> ~ ~ S' IC ::r V> 0> " < ro ro ~ o " :J ::r C 0-'0 ~@ 9;::J :J 0- <0 ro ~ S; c ro " 0. ~ ~ ':; 0 [D =: rt)'C :J :!l ro OJ ~ ~ "tro 0> -. ~. 3 0'0 ? 0> 0> " :J Vi c." 3 0 0> 0. ~ ro ~ 0> S' 3 <0 ro . :J 0. 3 ro :J ~ ~ ~ '0 o '0 o ~ ro 0. '0 ro 3 M' ~ ro 0. s: 0> ~ ~ S' <0 n o 3 3 c ~ -. .-+ '< o~ (I)' < (I) - o "'Or 3! (I) ~ .-+ Vl ;::; (I) .-+ n ::r C "'0 -0 ""'" o "'0 o V\ OJ ~. s- I vJ Attachment A MEMORANDUM TO: THRU: FROM: RE: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council Chris Bendon, Community Development Director Jessica Garrow, Planner $16,000 Supplemental Funding Request for building height information to use in the City's 3-D model DATE: April 16, 2007 The Community Development Department has requested a $16,000 to be included in the Spring Supplemental Budget. This memo serves to clarifY why this request is being made at this time. Unless Council feels differently, Staff will include this request in the Supplemental. Ben Gagnon will be available to answer any questions about this request at the April 16th City Council worksession. Back2round: The City Council approved funding in the 2007 budget for the purchase of the Sketch-Up computer program. The Comr~lUnity Development Department is working in the Sketch-Up program to model the City in 3-D. This model will be used in public hearings to illustrate how a specific proposal impacts and fits in with the surrounding areas. In order to have a usable model it is important that the information contained in it be accurate. One of the most important pieces of information that should be accurately depicted in the model is building height. An example of graphics that can be generated using the City 3-D model is attached as Exhibit A. Request Summary: In the memo included as part of the Supplemental Budget Request, a nwnber of options to get accurate height information for City Buildings are outlined. This memo is attached as Exhibit B. The Community Development Department has determined that the most efficient way to ensure buildings are accurately measured and included in the 3.D model is to contract with a private company to do the height measurements. By contracting this service out, Department Staff will not be over-extended, and the cost will be less than if a Staff member were responsible for measuring all the buildings in town. Further, the heights will be more accurate and time effective if a private company specializing in 3-D modeling does the work. If this request is granted, the model will be available for use in public hearing three or four months earlier than if Staff were responsible for the height measurements. Page I of 1 G:\city\J essica\SketchUp\4.16. 07CouncilF ollowUp.doc MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council Chris Bendon, Community Development Director Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer THRU: FROM: CC: RE: Sara Adams, Preservation Planner Paul Menter, Finance Director Resolution No. _, Series of 2007. Aspen Grove Cemetery Preservation Supplemental Funding Request DATE: March 26, 2007 SUMMARY: Community Development Staff submitted. a grant request to the State Historical Fund (SHF) to survey, document, and ultimately put together a cornprehensive preservation plan for the Aspen Grove Cemetery (similar to what was completed at the Ute Cemetery). The cemetery is owned and maintained by the Aspen Grove Association. The grant was rejected; however, we can reapply April 3, 2007 (grants are awarded twice per year). BACKGROUND: The Aspen Grove Cemetery is appropriately named: it sits in a lush three acre aspen grove at the base of Smuggler Mountain. The natural landscape contributes to the serene environment of the cemetery that draws visitors; however the overgrown state has begun to threaten and in many ways has caused severe damage to the historic grave markers. Artifacts and grave markers are being obscured and knocked over by the natural vegetation. Over the past year two aspen trees have fallen: one chipped a 100 year old wooden marker and the other tree remarkably fell through a gate that happened to be open in a Victorian era wrought iron plot enclosure. The overgrown landscape creates a dangerous environment for the grave markers, not just by knocking into them, but by fostering lichens and other biological growth through tree sap among other elements that eat away at historic material. It has been privately managed by a non-profit grassroots group. The volunteers have been unable to attract members capable of performing the intensive tasks required for the large three acre site. They are an older group of citizens and are experiencing extreme difficulty managing the cemetery. Furthermore, it is an active cemetery and without proper documentation, new plots could accidentally be placed over historic plots. The urgent need for funding to maintain, document, and create a planning program cannot be emphasized enough. CONCLUSION: The project will be completed in two phases: the first phase includes docurnentation, planning, surveying; and the second phase will require Parks Department involvement, volunteers, another grant application to the State and future' funding for implementation of the preservation plan created in phase one. The cost of phase one of the project is estimated at $71,602. The City of Aspen agreed to pay the minimum 25% cash rnatch for the SHF grant program or $17,900. The Aspen Grove grant was rejected based in part because the grant pool was very cornpetitive this year, the State Historic Fund wanted more details about our preservation plan and because the city is only matching the minimurn required for this type of grant. A few of the MEMORANDUM TO: THRU: FROM: RE: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council Chris Bendon, Community Development Director Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Planner $85,000 Supplemental Funding Request for Existing Conditions Report and Build-Out Studyfor Aspen Area Community Plan Revision DATE: August 29,2007 The City Council recently provided informal but clear direction to begin preparations for a revision of the Aspen Area Community Piaa (AACP). Council further provided direction that it would fund an Existing Conditions report :13 a supplemental budget request, and has previously requested a "Build.Out Study" ofthe City of Aspen. Community Development is requesting $50,000 for the Existing Conditions Report, and $35,000 for the Build-Out Study. Both documents would be used as educational materials for the AACP public process. A draft Request for Proposals is under review by the Community Development Department, and is attached. A Request for Proposals for the Build,Out Study is currently being drafted and is not yet available. Attachments: Attachment A - Draft RFP for Existing Conditions Report Page I of I MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer flU., . A Chris Bendon, Community Development Director \!}ANV) Paul Menter, Finance cc: RE: Request for Supplemental Funding for Revisions to Ordinance #30, Series of 2007 and Chapters 26.415 and 26.420, Historic Preservation and Benefits DATE: August 27,2007 SUMMARY: City Council held a work session regarding Ordinance #30, Series of 2007 on August 14, 2007, attended by staff, HPC and many citizens. The outcome of the meeting was direction to staff to lead in the completion of the following activities: (1) the establishment of a "Blue Ribbon" committee to study the economic impacts of historic preservation regulations in Aspen. Staff comments: Staff sees this as a small group (8 to 10 people) comprised of property owners, real estate professionals including appraisers, a Council member, an HPC member, and a consultant who specializes in development of historic properties. This component relies heavily on experts in our own comrnunity. Staff estimates this item to cost $25,000. (2) a second "Blue Ribbon" cornrnittee to review the current historic preservation ordinance, specifically the review criteria and evaluation tools used for landmark designation. Staff cornments: Staff sees a need to develop a "context paper" for post war architecture. Context papers describe the types of architecture of various periods and their local importance. The City has developed and relies on context papers for the period of history that the city already regulates. A context paper would likely reveal a need to revise the City's property scoring system, landmark criteria, and design guidelines. Staff estimates a context paper would cost roughly $20,000, updates to the scoring system and criteria to cost $10,000, and updates to the design guidelines to cost $20,000. Staff estimates an additional $5,000 for incidentals related to public process. Total cost of this item is estimated at $55,000. (3) development of a cornprehensive list of 20th century era properties found to be eligible for landmark designation. Staff comments: Staff see this item as the most time-intensive. Staff has approached this as a two-phase process. First, analysis of the "easy" properties. It is a large undertaking to complete this work in a form that can claim to be a thorough and accurate analysis of each property's history. Many properties will likely be able to be rejected from the list quickly, based on recent experience. This component could occur between now and the end of the calendar year and staff estirnates this item to cost approximately $20,000. Phase two would look at the more involved considerations and would necessitate a consultant. Many of these properties will require involvement and clarification from property owner's, research at the Aspen Historical Society, etc. Staff has estimated this 1 cost at $96,000. Staff sees phase two initiating after the community has fully discussed changes to the ordinance, criteria, scoring system, etc, discussed above. Both phases total $116,000. This represents approximately $55 per property. (4) The Mayor has suggested to staff one additional item to consider - a "public defender" type person that the City would retain to assist and advise property owners. Staff comments: If the items above are initiated, staff expects that the majority of property owners will postpone making a formal request for determination until any changes to the system are discussed and decided upon. In this light, funding this component may not be so critical until later. Staff suggests this component, if selected, be funded at $10,000. If this service requires additional funding, staff can return to Council at a later date. CONCLUSION: With the amount of workload already underway in our office, it is clear that this work product cannot be accomplished without substantial outside help. Staff believes the above work plan represents the quickest way to address Council's direction given the existing constraints on staff. As consultants are contacted and actual work scopes are generated, these estimates may need to be revisited. Comrnunity Development is requesting: 1) A total of $206,000 for the work product described above. 2) Authorization to proceed on this work prior to adoption of the Fall supplemental budget. In July 2007, Council gave approval to an expenditure of $22,500 for historic preservation ordinance review. The request was approved but never incorporated into the budget. That expenditure will no longer be necessary - it has been assumed into the scope of work described in this memo. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move the approval of $206,000 in supplemental funds for Community Development to accomplish the work program as presented." ALTERNATE MOTION: "I move the approval of $ in supplemental funds for Community Development to accomplish the work program as amended." AL TERNA TIVES: 1) This request could be considered along with other Fall supplemental budget requests in October. 2) One or two of the components of this request could be funded and staff could return to Council for future funding as needed. 2 A,mC~}\fNT A The RFP Document: City of Aspen Existing Conditions Report Introduction The Community Development Department is seeking a research team to generate an "Existing Conditions" report containing a broad range of information and statistics on a wide variety of topics. This report is intended as an educational document to be used as part of a revision of the Aspen Area Community Plan. This document must be prepared and formatted for easy understanding by the general public. The Vendor would be responsible for a limited number of public presentations on the "Existing Conditions" report. This project is estimated to take approximately 4-6 months upon initiation. Background The parameters of the Existing Conditions document will be identified through a collaborative effort between the City and the consulting team. The Existing Conditions document will be separated into chapters that reflect various community issues that will be explored as part of the Aspen Area Community Plan, such as: Growth Management, Affordable Housing, Transportation, Historic Preservation, Economic Sustainability, Environmental Sustainability/Global Warming, Parks & Open Space, Arts & Culture. The Vendor will need to extract information from past Existing Conditions reports and other existing documents; consult with a range of City department heads and other City staff, and consult with a range of organizations outside of City government that may have relevant statistical information. These organizations potentially include the Northwest Council of Governments, the Aspen Board of Realtors, the Aspen Skiing Company, the Pitkin County Assessor's Office, U.S. Census Bureau, the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, the Aspen School District, the Roaring Fork Transit Authority, the Aspen Chamber Resort Association, Stay Aspen/Snowmass, the Aspen Fire Protection District and/or conduct other research necessary to gather demographic information and other relevant baseline statistics for the City of Aspen. Specifications . Please list any certifications, bonds, licenses, and other education or experience that are relevant to intensive research initiatives, as well as the preparation and formatting of documents for review by the general public. The City requires Workman's Compensation and a license to do business within the City of Aspen. It is the Vendor's responsibility to read the instructions and contract they will be asked to sign if their Proposal is selected. Evaluation Criteria and Weights The following is a list of weighted criteria that will be used to evaluate proposals: Related Experience Price Completion Timeline 50% 25% 25% Format Proposals that omit any information or do not use the format requested may result in disqualification. Section I Introduction Introduce Company and staff including awards, certifications, and education. Section 2 Qualifications List + describe previous experience for this specific type of work. ' Section 3 Solution Explain proposal in depth without costs. Section 4 Timeline Phasing and completion schedule. Section 5 Costs Cost schedule, specifying rates for various individuals and/or entities. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Trish Aragon, P.E. City Engineer THRU: Bentley Henderson, Assistant City Manager DATE OF MEMO: July 27,2007 MEETING DATE: RE: Engineering Department Operation Budget Supplemental Request SUMMARY: Staff is asking for the sum of$97,416 for the 2007 Engineering Department Operational Budget in the form of a supplemental request. This addition to the Engineering Operational Budget will be used to cover costs associated with payroll and benefits for two new Construction Mitigation Officers and office space needs for the positions. DISCUSSION: Council previously discussed the appropriations for the costs associated with hiring two more Construction Mitigation Officers at the City Council meeting on May 29,2007. The hiring of these officers directly correlates to the City's new Construction Management Plan requirements that came effective June 29th, 2007. Due to the lack of space available at City Hall additional office leased space is needed for the positions. The office space is located at 517 E. Hopkins. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The cost for the two Construction Mitigation Officers is estimated to total $77,416 for the remainder of2007. These two positions have been advertised with interviews scheduled on August 1 st The given sum will supply payroll and benefits, training and education, and materials and supplies to the two positions. The Engineering Department's share of the office space at 517 E. Hopkins Avenue will total $20,000 for the remainder of 2007. Since the space is shared with other departments, Engineering is responsible to pay one quarter of the rent, utilities and services of the space being leased. The office space and utilities are estimated to cost the Engineering Department a total of $4,000 per month, and our lease starts August 1,2007. TO: Paul Menter, Finance Director THRU: Lee Cassin, Environmental Health Director FROM: Jannette Murison, Environmental Health Program Coordinator RE: 2007 Supplemental Budget Request DATE: August 20, 2007 Summary: Environmental Health is asking for a one-time supplemental to purchase an air flow meter for the City of Aspen's PMIO air monitor (TEOM sampler) for $3000. This flow meter is required under a change in the Air Quality statute, 40CFR58 Appendix A that rlecessitates t:1onthly flow verifications ofTEOM samplers. Our data will not be considered acceptable if 'X; do not purchase this flow meter so we can perform the require flow checks. Aspen has been using a TEOM sampler to monitor PMIO (particulate matter 10 microns or less) for over 10 years. Particulate matter -dirt, dust and smoke, is a reguhted by the federal Clean Air Act. Particulate matter is associated with increased hospital admissions, greater illness rates, and increased death rates. This graph shows PMl 0 levels taken from the TEOM sampler compared with traffic levels. " BACKGROUND: In the 1980's, the City of Aspen was designated by EP A as a non- attainment area for PMIO. Since then the City adopted several measures, including expanding the second-largest mass transit system in Colorado, paid parking, an anti, idling ordinance, an extensive bicycle/pedestrian trail system, a ban on new wood burning fireplaces, extensive street sweeping, and requiring emission controls for new restaurant char grillers. These measures helped the City of Aspen become a maintenance area on July 14, 2003. Average Daily Traffic vs PM,10 Levels 2005 25 000 25 20000 20 _ "' 15 11 <> 10 "';' ::;; 5 c.. >- .. e 15.000 ~, Q, ~ 10000 5.000 o fill s Su T W Th F Day of Week Staff recommends approval of this supplemental request to insure that the City's air monitoring is in compliance with Colorado and federal law. FmANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Staff estimates from a July quote from Intermountain Laboratories, Inc.! Air Science, the meter will cost around $3000. This investment will bring the City's TEOM sampler into compliance with 40CFR58 Appendix A. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Bentley Henderson DATE OF MEMO: 9,18-07 MEETING DATE: 10-9-07 RE: Supplemental Appropriation SUMMARY: The purpose of this memo is to provide clarity regarding a requested budget supplemental. The amount of the supplemental appropriation, specific to the Housing (150) Fund, is $9,588,876 dollars. DISCUSSION: Over the course of 3 months earlier this year the City Council authorized the purchase of 3 properties in the City of Aspen. The properties and their associated costs were: 488 Castle Creek - purchased May 2007 $5,398,876 517 Park Circle - purchased June 2007 $4,190,000 (Supplemental request only represents $500,000 with the balance due of $3,690,000 set to close after the first of the year) 802 West Main - purchased July 2007 $3,690,000 Pursuant to discussions held during the housing summit staff is set to begin development planning of the parcels at the direction of the City Council. RECOMMEl\'DA TION: Staff reconunends approval of a supplemental budget appropriation to the Housing Fund in the amount of $9,588,876. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Stephen Ellsperman, Director of Parks and Open Space ~ FROM: THRU: Jeff Woods, Manager of Parks and Recreation DATE OF MEMO: September 14, 2007 MEETING DATE: October 9,2007 RE: Parks Department Supplemental Requests REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The Parks and Recreation Department has created information within this memorandum outlining budgetary requests for the 2007 supplemental budget process for your review. The majority of these supplemental request items are previously approved City Council actions and this is simply the appropriation measure for the funding of the projects. The remaining requests are human resource items that are mandated by City of Aspen policy. If approved, the 2007 Parks Department supplemental requests would add $39,910 to the 100 Parks and Open Space Fund budget as a one-time appropriation. If the 340 Parks and Open Space Fund 2007 requests are approved, then this would add a $690,774 as a one-time appropriation. In the preparation of this supplemental request, the Parks and Recreation Department worked closely with the Finance Department to ensure that the status of the Parks and Open Space Fund is healthy and able to meet these requests. The Finance Department has provided an analysis of the Parks and Open Space Fund and shown the current and future health of the fund is excellent and able to absorb the costs of these supplemental requests. DISCUSSION: The following represents a brief overview of each supplemental request. 100 Parks Department Fund Supplemental Requests Supplemental Request #1- Bartolo Mendoza Pay Out Amount: $22,042 Bartolo Mendoza retired from the Parks Department on August 25, 2007. City of Aspen policy mandates that a departing employee be paid out all remaining wages and accrued benefits. This is a one, time request for appropriation of $22,042 to reimburse the 100 Parks and Open Space Fund. Page 10f3 Supplemental Request #1- Ramon Perez Pay Out Amount: $17,867 l\md~)~rez was terminated with cause from the Parks Department on August 30, 2007. City of Aspen pol'i'ty mandates that a departing employee be paid out all remaining wages and accrued benefits within 48 hours of termination. This is a one-time request for appropriation of $17,867 to reimburse the 100 Parks and Open Space Fund. 340 Parks Department Fund Supplemental Requests Supplemental Request #1- Pioneer Park Improvements Amount: $10,000 On June 8, 2006, City Council approved a proposed park enhancement and historic restoration plan for Pioneer Park, which was requested by a group of citizens and went through a public process for this approval. Most of the work was completed by a private donor. The Parks Department contributed project management, design and installation of an irrigation system, and replacement of a stone fence. This supplemental request is for appropriation of $10,000 to the 340 Parks and Open Space Fund for reimbursement of these costs. Please see Exhibit "A" for detailed information on this project. Supplemental Request #2- Rotary 'Centennial' Picnic Shelter at the ARC Amount: $146,139 On April 19, 2007, City Council approved the addition of a picnic pavilion at the Aspen Recreation Center on Rotary Field in partnership with the Aspen Rotary Club in honor of the club's centennial year. This shelter will provide a venue for special events and occasions, which will provide protection from the weather and currently does not exist in Aspen. The Rotary Club will contribute $50,000 and the Parks Department will fund the balance of $96,139 out of the 340 Parks and Open Space Fund. This supplemental request is for appropriation of the total project cost of $146,139 to the 340 Parks and Open Space Fund. Please see Exhibit "B" for detailed information on this project. Page 2 of3 Supplemental Request #3 - Nordic Snowmobile Amount: $9,500 The Nordic Program is fully funded by the Pitkin County Open Space and Trail Board while its operations and capital programs are run by the City of Aspen Parks and Recreation Department. The Pitkin County Open Space and Trail Board approved the emergency purcha'se of a snowmobile to replace a snowmobile that had broken down and was determined to be beyond repair. This supplemental request is for appropriation of $9,500 to the 340 Parks and Open Space Fund, which will be 100% reimbursed by Pitkin County. Supplemental Request #4 - Last Chance Mining Claim Acquisition Amount: $275,135 On June 25, 2007, City Council adopted Resolution No. 52 to purchase the Last Chance Mining Claim on Smuggler Mountain. The City of Aspen Open Space and Trails Board had secured the acquisition of this open space property on Smuggler Mountain, which was previously approved by City Council. This supplemental request is for appropriation of $275,135 to the 340 Parks and Open Space Fund for reimbursement of the cost of this purchase. Please see Exhibit "C" for detailed information on this purchase. Supplemental Request #5 -Wilkinson Estate Acquisition Amount: $250,000 On July 23 2007, City Council adopted Resolution No. 57 to purchase the Wilkinson Estate on Smuggler Mountain. The City of Aspen Open Space and Trails Board had secured the acquisition of this open space property on Smuggler Mountain, which was previously approved by City Council. This supplemental request is for appropriation of $250,000 to the 340 Parks and Open Space Fund for reimbursement of the cost of this purchase. Please see Exhibit "D" for detailed information on this purchase. ATTACHME~TS: Exhibit "A" Pioneer Park Improvements Exhibit "B" Rotary 'Centennial' Picnic Shelter at ARC Exhibit "C" Last Chance Mining Claim Acquisition Exhibit "D" Wilkinson Estate Acquisition Page 3 of 3 ~ EXHIBIT "A" Parks and Recreation Department Memorandum To: Thru: From: Date: Re: Mayor and Council Jeff Woods, Manager of Parks and Recreation W \/7U / Stephen Ellsperman, Director of Parks and op~ace ~ l../' 6/8/06 1 Proposed Pioneer Park Improv*':ments Steve Barwick, City Manager cc: SUMMARY: The Parks and Recreation Department looks forward to meeting with City Council at the June 13, 2006 work session to present the proposed park renovation plans for one of Aspen's beloved small parks in the center oftown named Pioneer Park PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council reviewed conceptual park improvement plans at a February 21, 2006 Council Worksession and directed staff to move forward with the public process and design effort for this facility. Background: Copeland, Twining Pioneer Park, more commonly known as Pioneer Park, is a place that is special to many residents of the West End neighborhood. A proactive citizen, Mrs. Maggie DeWolf, has acted as a catalyst and privately funded the creation of a rejuvenation plan for Pioneer Park. Mrs. DeWolf and a consulting landscape architect have been working with city staff to prepare a proposed landscape plan for Pioneer Park. As part of the planning process, the design team held two separate public forums to discuss potential park improvements with the community. Public feedback was taken and incorporated into plans and the final design represents a collaboration of community feedback. Additionally, the design team met before the Historical Preservation Commission and received approval for the project through their official process. Staff is seeking a review and support from City Council for the Pioneer Park Landscape Plan. (Refer Exhibit A, Pioneer Park Landscape Plan.) DISCUSSION: Pioneer Park is a small neighborhood park located in the West End neighborhood. The park was created and preserved in 1996 from a small portion of the Pioneer Park House grounds, through the generosity of neighbors and friends. A citizen group led by Les Holst raised $500,000 to purchase the land and then arranged to gift it to the City for the purposes of a city neighborhood park. Following the park's creation, the City installed a simple irrigation system to irrigate the turf grass and separate the park space from the adjoining property. Both the grand 19th Century House of the same name and surrounding grounds are an important and beautiful town asset. The public park can be used to spend a lunch hour or to stroll through at dusk. The interior park space is currently screened from the street by large non- historic evergreen shrubs and shadowed by a number of large fir and spruce trees. The environment has promoted a variety of undesirable activities to occur. Proposed enhancements include a refurbishment of the park gazebo structure and the perimeter historic iron fence, removal of the perimeter screening shrubs and the addition of perennial flower gardens. (Refer Exhibit A, Pioneer Park Landscape Plan.) Changes at the park are intended to make the park more open and visible from the street as well as make the park environment more appealing and enjoyable for users. The plan illustrates fO\lI'J4) ~ew l~ perennial flower and shrub gardens that have been designed in a Victorian vernacular as, ~ (4) regional "collections of plants." The proposed enhancements have been laid out in a typically Victorian manner using curvilinear forms set in a roughly balanced symmetry. Pioneer Park is not being proposed to be an "historic garden," but rather a park and garden that has a Victorian design influence reflective ofthe W~t End neighborhood. The existing dilapidated gazebo would be made handicapped accessible. This restoration has been reviewed and approved by HPC. The large non- historic evergreen Juniper shrubs would be removed to allow better view into and out of the park and also make the historic iron fence more visible. A private citizen benefactor, Mrs. Maggie DeWolf, would fund the majority of the proposed park enhancements. The City is being asked to support the park enhancement project and provide a small level of funding to complete a renovated and improved park irrigation system, cover staff project management time and complete some pruning and removal of selected plant materials. (Refer Exhibit B, Pioneer Park Proj ect Cost Estimate.) FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Primary funding for the Pioneer Park enhancements and flower garden maintenance would be sourced from a private donor to the City. City of Aspen funding requirements to complete the project include $11,360 for irrigation design, irrigation installation, tree and shrub removal, and minimal project management. Staffis requesting this amount in a supplemental appropriation to complete the project. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: The implementation of the proposed physical improvements for Pioneer Park will not have significant environmental impacts. Irrigation systems have been designed to integrate with existing systems which provide a high level of water conservation. maintenance staff maintain the turf grass, irrigation system and tree care similar to the existing scenario in place. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff is seeking City Council support for the proposed park enhancement/historic restoration plan for Pioneer Park. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A - Pioneer Park Landscape Plan Exhibit B - Pioneer Park Project Cost Estimate 2 EXHIBIT "B" ~ Parks and Recreation Department Memorandum To: Mayor and Council Tbru: Steve Barwick, City Manager From: Scott Chism, ~'Planner, Jeff Woods, Manager of Parks & Recreation " Date: 4/19/07 ., Re: Proposed Rotary 'Centennial' Picnic Shelter @ ARC SUMMARY: . Staff is presenting a proposal for the addition of a picnic pavilion at the ARC for City Council review and consideration of funding. Staff is proposing that the development of this picnic pavilion occur in August/September 2007 as a partnership between the City of Aspen and Aspen Rotary Club. A picnic pavilion with an added feature of an electric BBQ would significantly enhance the passive recreation opportunities available to the public at the ARC. Staff supports this proposal and pending City Council approval would coordinate the construction of the pavilion with the other proposed outdoor pool improvements at the ARC. BACKGROUND: The Aspen Rotary Club approached the City of Aspen Parks Department in late 2004 with the idea of a picnic pavilion that would be built somewhere around the ARC and Rotary Field. Since that time, staff has been coordinating with Rotary Club representatives to evaluate design concepts and location options. The Rotary Club has coordinated the final design of the picnic pavilion and obtained a land use approval for the proposed structure from the Community Development Department. This project is proposed to be partially funded from the Rotary Club and will be built in honor of the Club's centennial year. (Refer to Attachment D, Pavilion Plan) DISCUSSION: A picnic pavilion, other than the gazebo at Paepcke Park, does not currently exist within the City of Aspen Parks and Recreation infrastructure. A new pavilion located at the ARC would provide a venue for a multitude of possible events/occasions, including picnics, weddings, outdoor meetings under cover, etc. The proposed improvements also include an electric BBQ for the purposes of outdoor grilling. An electric powered grill versus a natural gas powered grill is being proposed to eliminate the fire hazard threat of an open flame near the typically dry native gambel oak/grass vegetation in the immediate vicinity of the proposed pavilion. Another proposed feature of the pavilion area is a low, curvilinear sandstone seating wall. The seating wall would be constructed in the same sandstone vernacular as the other sandstone walls and columns built around the ARC, Rotary Field and Iselin Field. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The comprehensive project cost is currently estimated to be $146.139. (Refer Attachment "A", Estimate of Probable Construction Costs). The costs include the actual cost of the proposed pavilion, anticipated costs for the seating wall, -J;.. integrated electric BBQ grill, landscape restoration, and in-house labor. The Aspen Rotary Club has made a commitment to contribute $50,000 toward the cost of this proposed project. The balance of the project cost would be covered by a City of Aspen budget supplemental. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: The design of the proposed picnic pavilion is designed with a timber structure and a weathering steel roof. The roof materials. will eliminate the need for intensive roof maintenance, saving staff resources. The timber posts and structure are proposed to be recycled timber. Utilizing construction materials that are recycled provides an environmental benefit because these products eliminate the need to utilize newly harvested raw materials and reduces the possibility of materials being dumped in a landfill. A solar powered series of overhead lights for the picnic tables is proposed to safely light the pavilion. Unfortunately, the level of electricity required for the electric BBQ grill cannot be supported by the solar system without significant additional infrastructure. However, all of the City's electricity is sustainably sourced from either hydro or wind. ALTERNATIVES: Council could choose not to approve or support this proposed community asset. The Rotary Centennial Picnic Pavilion would not be built and the anticipated sit~ would remain a turflawn suitable for outdoor picnics without shelter from weather. ., CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Estimate of Probable Construction Costs Site Vicinity Plan Aspen Rotary Centennial Shelter Detail Plan Picnic Pavilion Architectural Plan 2 A't'tachmen't A ROTARY PICNIC SHELTER Estimate of Probable Construction Costs Aspen Parks & Recreation Department 17-Apr-07 CONSTRUCTION ITEM QTY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST WORK ITEM 22-6"'x26-6'" Timber Picnic Shelter w/ Allow 50,000.00 50,000.00 Metal Roof & Sandstone column bases. Solar lighting system wi timer BBQ Electrical Service I LS 6,000.00 6,000.00 Electric BBQ Supply I LS 3,000.00 3,000.00 Crushed Rock (concrete slab base) I CY 50.00 50.00 Colored Concrete slab (4" thk 1270 s.t) 16 CY 500.00 8,000.00 Concrete Pumping (req'd w/l'td access-4 hr.) I LS 900.00 900.00 . Colored Concrete trail repair (4" thk 172 s.t) 2.12 CY 500.00 1,060.00 Bituminous Asphalt Trail patch (3" depth) I LS 250.00 250.00 Seating Wall foundation/structure (4.5 cy.) I LS 4,000.00 4,000.00 Masonry Seating Wall (20" height) 385 SF 60.00 23,100.00 clad both sides, 115 If. Masonry Wall Cap (20" x 4" thick) (115 If.) 100 EA 45.00 4,500.00 Masonry Rotary Column (48" high) I LS 3,000.00 3,000.00 Picnic Tables (6'x5') 4 EA 1,000.00 4,000.00 Subtotal Batting Cage Site Work 107,860.00 ROTARY SHELTER LABOR Project Management/In House Design Coord. I Allow 2,300.00 2,300.00 Clear/Grub Labor (2 days) I Allow 3,226.00 3,226.00 Excavation/In House Labor (2 weeks) 1 Allow 12,905.00 12,905.00 Landscape InstallationlIn House Labor (I wk.: I Allow 3,563.00 3,563.00 Plant Material/Seed replacement 1 Allow 3,000.00 3,000.00 Subtotal Batting Cage Project Labor 24,994.00 Subtotal Contingency 10% 132,854.00 13,285.40 Total Rotary Picnic Shelter Cost 146,139.401 AMOUNT I 50,000.00 96,139.40 IPROJECT FUND SOURCES Rotary Club Contribution 2007 Budget Supplemental Grand Total Rotary Picnic Shelter Budget 146,139.40 .".: EXHIBIT "e" A$I~cEN MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Brian Flynn, Open Space and Special Projects Manager THRU: Stephen Ellsperman, Parks and Open Space Director THRU: Jeff Woods, Parks and Recreation Department Manager DATE OF MEMO: June 19, 2007 MEETING DATE: June 25, 2007 RE: Approval of the contract to purchase the Last Chance Claim for open space CC: Steve Barwick, City Manager John Worcester, City Attorney REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Acquisition of the Last Chance Claim, the Kephart Parcel, will further strengthen the goal and success of protecting Smuggler Mountain. In a partnership between the City of Aspen and Pitkin County an additional 4-acres of open space will be acquired and protected for a total purchase of $550,000 dollars. The City of Aspen Open Space and Trails Board is requesting City Council's support, and approval of the contract to purchase the Last Chance Claim as open space for $275,000. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: During the May 22nd executive session, City Council approved $400,000 dollars allocated from Open Space Funds for the purpose of purchasing the 4-acre Kephart Parcel, the Last Chance Claim. (Exhibit A) BACKGROUND: Since the successful purchase in 2005 of the majority of the Wilkinson Estate, the City and County Open Space and Trails Boards have been focusing on acquiring the remaining undeveloped parcels in the Smuggler Mountain Area. One major priority to complete 1 the total acquisition of Smuggler Mountain is the four-acre Kephart Parcel, The Last Chance Claim. This parcel located on the front of the mountain sits adjacent to the County's observation platform. The owners of the parcel initially proposed a purchase price of $600,000 for the parcel. The Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Program countered that price with a $200,000 offer, which the parcel owners turned down. During the January joint meeting, both Open Space Boards approved making a second offer to the ownership group for $400,000. Since that time Ms. Kephart had offered the property in a public auction with a minimum bid of $750,000. The City of Aspen Open Space and Trails Board requested an allocation of $400,000 of City open space funds in order to split a potential offer of $800,000. City Council approved the offer and allocation of $400,000 dollars during the May 22nd executive session. Additionally, staff has learned that the private owner of the Flannigan parcel, another major parcel located on the front of the mountain and which adjoins the Last Chance, is also interested in acquiring the four acres from Ms. Kephart. DISCUSSION: The four, acre Kephart parcel, is situated next to the County's open space parcel that contains the Smuggler overlook. Staff is concerned that the development of a 1,000 square- foot cabin or purchase by a private individual would negatively affect the success of the Wilkinson and other Smuggler purchases. After the closing of the public auction. through discussion with the City and County, Ms. Kephardt has offered to convey her interest to the City and County for $550,000. The County and City Open Space Boards have each recommended that this purchase be authorized and that the purchase price be split equally between the City and County. This will require an allocation of $275,000 dollars out of the open space fund. This request is $125,000 less than was approved during the executive session held on May 22nd. John Worcester, City Attorney, received and reviewed the title and purchase contract on June 18, 2007. (Exhibit - B) Mr. Worcester suggested approval of the purchase subject to the City and County Attorneys approving the title documents. The BOCC approved, in first reading, the County's portion of the purchase during a special meeting held on June 5, 2007. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The long-term financial condition of the Parks and Open Space Fund is excellent; however, as discussed in the recent May 22nd executive session, the current cash position is tight because of early payoff of financing for the Lewis Ice Arena which saves the Parks and Open Space fund over $250,000 in interest over the next three years. The Finance Department and the Parks Department have been working on a combined strategy that: 1. Defers lower priority projects to out years. (Staff plans to meet with the new Council to review and gain approval for project deferrals that will save approximately $500,000 this year), and 2. Uses short,term financing if necessary to cover any possible year-end fund balance shortage. (It is possible that this will not be necessary depending upon revenue collections and how the Parks Department budget finishes the year). Staff recommends that City Council provide authorization for this important acqUISitiOn. If approved, staff will move forward with the acquisition now and formally request funding in the next supplemental budget. Finance and Parks staff will monitor the condition of this fund 2 through the remainder of the year and, if necessary, recommend short-term financing to cover any year-end fund balance shortfall. As discussed, the long,term fund condition is excellent. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Successful acquisition will incorporate an additional4,acres into the protection and management of the City and County Open Space programs. This acquisition also fulfills the goals of the City of Aspen Environmental Bill of Rights that guarantees to its citizens "the right to dedicated open space protected from urbanization and development" and the Aspen City Council's Resolution #108 in 2001 stating that it is the City's desire to acquire, maintain and manage open space properties for recreational, wildlife, agricultural, scenic, access, and related purposes; and to acquire, preserve, develop, maintain and manage trails for similar purposes." RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City of Aspen Open Space and Trails Board is requesting City Council's support, and approval of the contract to purchase the Last Chance Claim as open space for $275,000. ALTERNATIVES: There are no immediate alternatives for not supporting the request. Delaying the acquisition could result in a future acquisition with an increased sales price or the need to argue against any development applications. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve the purchase contract, subject to the City and County Attorneys approving the title documents, and funding for the acquisition of the Last Chance Claim." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATT ACHMENTS: Exhibit A ' Map of Property Exhibit B - Purchase Contract 3 '2 :;. 0 g. ::r 0 1;' > 2 [ ~ 5!~g~> " :;. ~ 0 00 " ." !l " 9 ~ "d " ~ ~8~~~ '" It\ s s ~ '" 0 " ... -<t tr1 " ~. tr1 '''"- " a ~ ~ "" '" .c tD ~ Z ![ ~ ;J>~tr1<0 ~~ "" ~ " "" n '" 0 in' .l" 0 " 0 " " -< 2!t"" ~r e: 0 " ...., ~ ~t '" ~ ij" '" 0' ~ .~ ~ ;J> 0' ~-<~(;)a '< 0 " "" ~ t"" "" 0 ... if 0 '" ... r.:; !!l. o " "" ] 0 [ ~ '0 :;. oOz;J>~ :;l "" ...., s; 5'J " " " 0 ;J> c 0 n " :i' " ~oo '8 ~ 0 ~ " '0 ~. 0 ~ 0 '0 .00 n~ n '" 0 '0 "d .~ ~ tr1 r to " a n 9 '< g: a :;. ::J_P~~ ." "" " 0 ~ -<t 5" 0 ::r " -<00> 5! _ 0 g. .l" ::r 9 .~ ...., " '" <l [';l ~ !l '" l: '" a:: en- -....,- 0 n " n " -a:: ~"" " 9. I. ~ ::r ::r ::r" > '" 0 o' 0 0 '" ;J>O. ntn ::. a 0.< 0' ~ .? ...., 0 c ...., '" ZZtD..,n 0 ::r " g. :;. ...., ~ 0' <l '" 0 ~ tD in' -<t if ;J>tr1m ~ :-' ~ '" 0 en " [ tn " O~~.., ~ r.n ~ ::;; ::l. s: 2). - '" tD ~ g men 0 :2..0 0 ~ " g '" n ::J S 0 ~. [';l , c .... " '" '" en '" .. a. ~ ...., :;. ~ " ~ q: " ... ~ & g~~~~ ' 0 FD ~ :;. ~ jl n [';l ::r "" n '" " 0 " i3 ",0 ~ :s p.. " ::r 0 "" 0 ::r i" ~ ~ 0 n a:: n [ '" ...., 00 ::r ...., g ~ !l t"" ~ go 0.. ~ ~. i q: g :> 0 " n ~~~~~ ~'a " ~ ~ a 0 " "" > '0 '" ~ a:: ,~o 0 a:: g 0 9 a:: s g,o i 8.::t. ...., 0 "" '" tn :> ... ..:3. S' t:I !l1 -<t S' :;. ~~~oo~ NZ > " a- n if Oz '0''''' -& n ~ S' Ei' t'< (') '< g ... tn n " Sp :;. ~. "" " tD ~ 0 "" n ~-<o~-l l....... _. .? n ~ -< i3 0 I ~.:< " a:: -<t r-' g: ~. at"""I1t"":I: I~ n s or '" ~ a. or . tr1 nO ~ :> ?:: :S' :g ~ ,a' n?::1;;[';ln ~. " '" n -'!l g '" s " ~ '" 00 '0 a g" 0 ~t:J;g~::J -<t"" n '" " ~ ::r lr ~ n :>! 5 ng. 0 " ... .~ ~ " g: g, -l :I:.Z -< 0 5 ~ s '< '" 0 _01 ~~"dmO c " " ~ ~ " " " ~ " ... '" " g- '" ;J>..,~~'Tl ,. " " ~ 0 o ::l ~ " :S. " ~ n 0 n .... _. " " ~ [ Q "" q-~2!~~ -.." 0 " r ~ i 0'< ...., '" S. l: a:: '" ""'S' S' ;;; " n " '" ~ 0 .; 0 .3. ~'" " ...., ~. O"I1trl ;::r~ '0 '" '" 'Tl n " 5' n a ;;; "" ~ 0 0 ~ :> 0 o.z 0 ~ 5! ~ g. S n" ~. " ~ ...., s i ~~~8 _. '" ::r 0 '0 0 :> r-' tD <<'>i 0 '" " ... ::r ~ tn ...., en .; 0 -& ~ o-<5!t"" o " > !' " < in' '< 0 ?:: .0 ....,<g ~ ~ ~ .? ~ ~ .g lr '" ~tDtr10 :> S' ~ a. g ~ 0 " :>! "" ::r ~ NOt""~ "",,,,, ...., P. .."C .... "" ~ II g: '" Vl 2!~1;;0 " '" g ~ ~ " ~ 0 " " :i' '" n "" " "I1 '" " == (;) -l_ EXHIBIT "D" A$.~,~ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Brian Flynn, Open Space and Special Projects Manager THRU: Stephen Ellsperman, Parks and Open Space Director THRl.': Jeff Woods, Parks and Recreation Department Manager DATE OF MEMO: July 10, 2007 MEETING DATE: July 23, 2007 RE: Approval of the contract to purchase the remaining Wilkinson Estate Parcels for Open Space CC: Steve Barwick, City Manager John Worcester, City Attorney REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Acquisition of the remaining Wilkinson Estate Parcels will further strengthen the goal and success of protecting Smuggler Mountain. In a partnership between the City of Aspen and Pitkin County an additional 8-acres of open space will be acquired and protected for a total purchase of $500,000 dollars, split evenly between both open space programs. This successful purchase will leave one remaining private parcel, which the County is actively pursuing, for acquisition. The City of Aspen Open Space and Trails Board is requesting City Council's support, and approval of the contract to purchase the remaining Wilkinson Estate Parcels as open space for $250,000. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: During the May 22nd executive session, City Council discussed a $250,000 dollar allocation from Open Space Funds for the purpose of purchasing the remaining Wilkinson Estate Parcels. BACKGROUND: Since the successful purchase in 2005 of the majority of the Wilkinson Estate, the City and County Open Space and Trails Boards have been focusing on acquiring the remaining 1 undeveloped parcels in the Smuggler Mountain Area. The final pnonty to complete the total acquisition of Smuggler Mountain is the remaining interests held by Wilk Wilkinson's Estate. The estate has a 1/9 interest in the Robert Emmit, owns the Rainstorm and Snowstorm mining claims as well as some other fractional interests shared with the USFS up Hunter Creek (Exhibit - A). In March, the City Open Space Board discussed and proposed an offer of $300,000 for the acquisition of the Robert Emmit interest only. Debra Goldstein, a local real estate agent representing the Estate, informed the Board that the estate would sell all of the remaining interest as a single offer only. At the joint open space meeting held on April 26th, both Boards authorized staff to offer $400,000 for the entire estate. The Estate countered this offer at $500,000. At the May 3rd joint open space meeting the Boards decided it was important to remove this potential development threat by making a final offer at $500,000. The offer includes the estate providing the City and County a quitclaim deed to any remaining interests that are unknown at this time. DISCUSSION: Staff has been orchestrating the potential acquisition of the remaining interests held by Wilk Wilkinson's Estate. The City and County have an option to purchase the remaining parcels for $500,000 contributing to an equal split of $250,000 each. One of the most important parts of this offer is the Robert Emmit. The 1/9th interest in the Robert Emmit held by Wilk's Estate is an immediate threat to the successful 2005 acquisition. The City and County acquired the other portion of the Robert Emmit during the original acquisition. At the time the City purchased the Wilkinson Estate the 1I9th interest was owned by others. Since that time the estate reacquired the 1I9th interest in the Robert Emmit for $200,000. The estates interest in the Robert Emmit could generate a partition action that could result in a piece of land subject to a development proposal and potentially a new single family home. Without knowing how such litigation would turn out, it seems clear that the owner of this interest is at least entitled to realize the value of their interest. The Estate has also included in the sale offer the acquisition of the Rainstorm and Snowstorm mining claims and several fractional interests up Hunter Creek. Although some of these parcels have questionable claims or deeds, both Open Space Boards feel that removing any future impediments and/or development potential is worth the investment of $500,000. If the two Open Space Boards are successful in their offer to purchase the estate's interest, the City and County will prevent another potential development scenario while acquiring an additional eight-acres. This will require an allocation of $250,000 dollars out of the City Open Space Fund. John Worcester, City Attorney, received and reviewed the title and purchase contract on July 11.2007. (Exhibit, B) Mr. Worcester suggested approval of the purchase subject to the City and County Attorneys approving the title documents. The BOCC approved, in first reading, the County's portion of the purchase during a regular meeting held on J ul y II, 2007. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The long-term financial condition of the Parks and Open Space Fund is excellent; however, as discussed in the recent May 22nd executive session, the current cash position is tight because of early payoff of financing for the Lewis Ice Arena which saves the Parks and Open Space fund over $250,000 in interest over the next three years. The Finance Department and the Parks Department have been working on a combined strategy that uses short-term financing if necessary to cover any possible year-end fund balance shortage. (It is possible that this will not be necessary depending upon revenue collections and how the Parks Department budget finishes the year). 2 Staff recommends that City Council provide authorization for this important acqUisItion. If approved, staff will move forward with the acquisition now and formally request funding in the next supplemental budget. Finance and Parks staff will monitor the condition of this fund through the remainder of the year and, if necessary, recommend short,term financing to cover any year-end fund balance shortfall. As discussed, the long,term fund condition is excellent. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Successful acquisition will incorporate an additional4,acres into the protection and management of the CilY and County Open Space programs. This acquisition also fulfills the goals of the CilY of Aspen Environmental Bill of Rights that guarantees to its citizens "the right to dedicated open space protected from urbanization and development" and the Aspen City Council's Resolution #108 in 2001 stating that it is the City's desire to acquire, maintain and manage open space properties for recreational, wildlife, agricultural, scenic, access, and related purposes; and to acquire, preserve, develop, maintain and manage trails for similar purposes. " RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City of Aspen Open Space and Trails Board is requesting City Council's support, and approval of the contract to purchase the remaining Wilkinson Estate Parcels as open space for $250,000. ALTERNATIVES: There are no immediate alternatives for not supporting the request. Delaying the acquisition could result in a future acquisition with an increased sales price or the need to argue against any development applications. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve the purchase contract, subject to the City and County Attorneys approving the title documents, and funding for the acquisition of the remaining Wilkinson Estate Parcels as open space for $250,000. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Map of Property Exhibit B - Purchase Contract 3 RESOLUTION NO. ~ Series of 2007 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT TO BUY AND SELL REAL ESTATE FOR CERTAIN REAL ESTATE INTERESTS ON SMUGGLER MOUNTAIN, BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND THE ESTATE OF WILK WILKINSON, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR OR CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a Contract to Buy and Sell Real Estate for the purchase of the Wilkinson Estate Parcels, Pitkin County, Colorado, between the City of Aspen, Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners, and the Estate of Wilk Wilkinson, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract to Buy and Sell Real Estate for the purchase of the Smuggler Mountain Wilkinson Estate Parcels, between the City of Aspen, Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners, and the Estate of Wilk Wilkinson, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the Mayor or City Manager to execute said contract and all other requisite documents, on behalf of the City of Aspen, to consummate said purchase. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the ;(3 daYOf~-'2007. /J / / :?FT' ~ r:[;kIuu 7~ ;77-0"7- Michael C. Ireland, 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 Cit Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated. ~ C:\Documents and Settingslbrianf.ASPENPITKIN\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKFA\WilkinsonEstate openspace.doc CITY OF ASPEN will not accept without line items associated with the request Supplemental Request Form DEPT Name: Originator: Parks Department Stephen Elisperman 9/14/20071 Date: Supplemental Request #:1: Pioneer Park Improvements Justification: On June S, 2006, City Council approved a proposed park enhancement and historic restoration plan for Pioneer Park. Most of the work was completed byaprivate donor. The Parks Department is requesting $1 0,000.00 insuppleme~tal funding for expenses incurred for the completion of the' Pioneer Park Improvements project Expenses'include project management, design and installation of a new irrigation system and removal and - replacement of a stone fence. Estimated Cost: Amount 340.94. TBD.8xxxx 80*** Payroll and Benefits $4,718 81 "** Training, Travel & Education 0 340.94.TBD.82999 82*** Professional Fees 5,282 83*** Materials and Supplies 0 84*** Contribution 0 86*** Fixed Asset Expenditures >$5k Q TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: $10,000 Supplemental Request #2 Rotary Centennial Picnic Shelter at the ARC Justification: On April 19, 2007, City Council approved the addition of a picnic pavilion at the Aspen Recreation Center on Rotary Field in partnership with the Aspen Rotary Club in honor of the club's centennial year; This shelter will provide a venue, with weather protection, for special events and occasions. Also included is an electric grill, which can be safely used when fire bans are in place. The shelter will be constructed with recycled lumber and solar powered lights. Costs include in~house project management design coordination and landscaping, and contractual services to build the shelter. The Rotary Club will contribute $50,000.00. Estimated Cost: Amount 340.94.TBD.8xxxx 80*** Payroll and Benefits $24,994 81 *** Training, Travel & Education 0 82*** Professional Fees 0 83*** Materials and Supplies 0 84*** Contribution 0 34O.94.TBD.86000 86*** Fixed Asset Expenditures >$5k 121145 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: $146,139 Supplemental Request #13 Nordic Snowmobile Justification: The Nordic Program had to purchase a new snowmobile on an emergency basis in January 2007 to replace a machine that had broken down and was irreparable. The Pitkin County Open Space and Trail Board approved this purchase and will reimburse the City 100%. The Parks Department is requesting appropriation of $9,500.00 to cover this expense. Estimated Cost Amount 80*** Payroll and Benefits $0 81*** Training, Travel & Education 0 82**'"' Professional Fees 0 83**'"' Materials and Supplies 0 84h* Contribution 0 340.94.81020.86000 86*** Fixed Asset Expenditures >$5k 9,500 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: $9,500 $16S,6391 TOTAL OF SUPPLEMENTAL REQUESTS: 2007 _NovemberSupplemental.xls CITY OF ASPEN will not accept without line items associated with the request Supplemental Request Form DEPT Name: Originator: Parks Department Stephen Ellsperman 9/14/20071 Date: Supplemental Request #4 Last Chance Mining Claim Acquisition Justification: City Council adopted Resolution No. 52 on June 25,2007 to purchase the Last Chance Mining Claim on Smuggler Mountain. This purchase will be paid for by the Parks and Open Space Fund balance. Estimated Cost: Amount 80**' Payroll and Benefits $0 81**' Training, Travel & Education 0 82'" Professional Fees 0 83"*" Materials and Supplies 0 84'" Contribution 0 340.94. TBD.86000 86'" Fixed Asset Expenditures >$5k 275.135 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: $275,135 Supplemental Request #5 Wilkinson Estate Acquisition Justification: City Council adopted Resolution No. 57 on July 23,2007 to purchase the Wilkinson Estate on Smuggler Mountain. This purchase will be paid for by the Parks and Open Space Fund balance. Estimated Cost: Amount 80'" Payroll and Benefits $0 81'" Training, Travel & Education 0 82'" Professional Fees 0 83'" Materials and Supplies 0 84'" Contribution 0 340.94. TBD.86000 86'" Fixed Asset Expenditures >$5k 250,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: $250,000 TOTAL OF SUPPLEMENTAL REQUESTS: $525,1351 2007 _NovemberSupplemental.xls MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Brian Flynn, Open Space and Special Projects Manager THRU: Stephen Ellsperman, Director of Parks and Open Space THRU: Jeff Woods, Manager of Parks and Recreation DATE OF MEMO: September 25,2007 MEETING DATE: October 9,2007 RE: Parks Department Supplemental Request REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The Parks and Recreation Department has created information within this memorandum outlining a budgetary request for the 2007 supplemental budget process for your review. The single request is for a previously approved City Council action and this is an appropriation measure for the funding of the project. If the 340 Parks and Open Space Fund 2007 requests are approved, then this would add $114,925 as a one,time appropriation. In the preparation of this supplemental request, the Parks and Recreation Department worked closely with the Finance Department to ensure that the status of the Parks and Open Space Fund is healthy and able to meet these requests. The Finance Department has provided an analysis of the Parks and Open Space Fund and shown the current and future health of the fund is excellent and able to absorb the costs of these supplemental requests. DISCUSSION: The following represents a brief overview of the supplemental request. 340 Parks Department Fund Supplemental Requests Supplemental Request #1 - Acquisition of the Contraband, Result and Della S. mining claims Amount: $114.925 On March 13, 2006, City Council adopted Resolution No. 13 to purchase the Contraband, Result and Della S. Mining Claims on Smuggler Mountain. The City of Aspen Open Space and Trails Board had secured the 24.acre acquisition of these open space properties on Smuggler Page 1 of2 Mountain, which was previously approved by City Council. This supplemental request is for an appropriation of $114,925 to the 340 Parks and Open Space Fund for reimbursement of the closing costs as outlined in the contract for the property purchase. Please see Exhibit" A" for detailed information on this purchase. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit "A" Smuggler Mining Claims Acquisition Page 2 of2 RESOLUTION NO. 13 Series of 2006 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT TO BUY AND SELL REAL ESTATE FOR PURCHASE OF THE RESULT, CONTRABAND AND DELLA S PARCELS, BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND SMUGGLER RIDGE ASSOCIATES, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR OR CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a Contract to Buy and Sell Real Estate for purchase of the Result, Contraband and Della S parcels, between the City of Aspen and Smuggler Ridge Associates, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract to Buy and Sell Real for purchase of Rcsult, Contraband and Deila S parcels, between the City of Aspen and Smuggler Ridge Associates, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the Mayor or City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 1.3 day o~006. I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day h einabove stated. TLO. saved: 3/612006-G:\tara\Rc:sos\Smuggkr open space.doc THE MYLER LAW FIRM PC 211 Midland Ave, Suite 201 Basalt, CO 81621 Phone: 970-927.(l456, Fax: 970-920-4259 The printed portions of this form. accpt differentiated additions. have been approved by the Coloi1l.do lkal Estate Commission, (CBS 3-7-04) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 I. AGREEMENT. Buyer agrees to buy, and the undersigned Seller agrees to scl~ the Property defined below on the tcnns and conditions 1 S set forth in this contracL 16 2. DEFINED TERMS. 17 L Buyer. Buyer. TIllS FORM HAS IMPORTANT LEGAL CONSEQUENCES AND mE PARTIES SHOULD CONSULT LEGAL AND TAX OR OTHER COUNSEL BEFORE SIGNING. CONTRACf TO BUY AND SELL REAL ESTATE (VACANT LAND - FARM - KANCA') Date: Fabruarv 28. 2006 Purchase Price: $ 3.570.000 City of A*pen, COlorado 18 will talee title to the real property described below 81 I8J Joiat Ten.nh 0 Tenantlla Common 0 Other 19 RIA 20 h. Property. The Property is the following legally described n:al csta1e: 21 s.. Bxbibi't .. 22 in the County of P1.Uin 23 24 2S 26 27 28 . Colorado. commcmly ~ as No. S.... Addrcsa City State Zip together with the interest&, casements. nihil, bencfJU, improvementa and alt8ched frxtures appllJ'tcnant thereto, all interest of Seller in vaca1cd streets and alleys adjacent thereto, except IS herein excluded. Co Dates ..d Dc.dUnes. Item No. Reference Event Date or DtadUne I l5a Loan Application Deadline R/A 2 ISb Loon Commitment Deadline: R/" 3 I5c Buyer'1 Credit Infonnation Deadline R/" 4 pc Disapproval of Buyer" Credit Deadline HIA 5 ~ 5d Existing Loan Documents Deadline R/A 6 pd Objection to Existing Loan Documents Deadline RIA 7 pd Approval of !.Don Tnmsfi:r Doadline R/A 8 f6a(4) Appraisal Dcadlillc RIA 9 pa Title Deadline :I day. a.f"ter MIle 10 po Survey Deadline sea 2. ... 11 f 80 Survey Objection ~dline 10 dAy. .fer MEC 12 Pb Documl:l1t Request Deadline 3 ciayW atter NEe 13 f 8a Tide Objl)Ction DcBdline 10 day. after MBC 14 f 8b Otr-Rceonl MatteI> Deadline 3 day. aftar JlEC 15 Ub Off~Recorrl Matler$ Objection Deadline 10 day. a.fu:c' DC 16 110 Seller's Property Diselosun: Deodline 3 cS.Y. after II!:C 17 f lOa Inspection Objcetioo Deadline March 16, 2006 18 II0b Resolution Deadline March 17, 2006 19 110e Property Insurance Objection Deadline Harch 16, 2006 PREPARED BY: Dwld J. Myler.. E..q. CBS 3-7-04, Contract to Buy anCl5atl Real Esta!e (Vacant l.M1d. Fllrm ~Ranch}. Colorado Real EstataCorrwniulon Re8lFASTID ~~02006. Vanllon 6.16. ~ Ragl_red to; Chef Bntrmw, THE MY~ER LAW FIRM PC Buy.,(s) ~~ 0212B10814.48.38 p~ SBhr(5l v.r- 20 111 C.....n& Date S.t.mber 17, 2007 21 116 'POSICSiion Date s.p_r 17, 20n Ir.?~ . 22 t 16 Pos.e&sion Time C10.~ 23 127 A_Dbaco DoadDae IlIIle - , 2006 r-~ 24 127 A~Dtance DeadJlne TIme Hoon #.? 29 30 d. 31 'Ill" Attacbmenta. The followlnl are a .part of this contract: 32 Note: The following disclosure forms are attadltd but are not a pan of this contTllct: 33 34 35 35 36 37 3S 39 40 e. AppliublUty orTerma. A check OJ similar mark in a box means that such provision i5 applicable. The abbreviation "N/A" means not applicable. The abbreviation "MEC" (mutual execution of this eontract) means the Illicit date upon which botlJ parties \lave signed this contract. ]. INCLUSIONS AND EXCLUSIONS. The Pun;base Price inoludes lhc following iteml (lnollllions): .. Fistarelo If atta<:hod 10 the Property on the date of this contract. lighting, heating. plumbing. ventilating, and air conditioning fixtun:18. inside telephone wiring and connecting block&Jjacka. plants, min'ors, floor coverings. in\crCOl11 systems. sprinkler systems and controls; and Don. 41 b. 42 Dca Exdllllon.. The following attached fIXtureS arc excluded from this IOIIle: 4] c. Pone.1II Property. Ifoa the Property wholberlllllC/lnd Drool on lhc date of this 0_" 44 stann windows. &tonn doors, window II1d porch liihades. awnings. blinds, tcreens, window coverings, curtain rods, dr2pery rods, storage sheds, 45 and all keys. If checked, the foUowing are included; 0 SJDGkelFire Oetecton, 0 Security SYJtemI; and 46 'Ill" 47 d. Tramer of Penoaal Property. The Personal Property to be conveyed at Closing ,hall be conveyed. by Seller, free and CICilT 48 of all tuc&, (except personal property taxCII for the year Df clOIing), liens and encurnbranccs. cxcc:pt 49 'Ill" SO Conveyanc:c shill be by bill of 881. Dr other applicoblc legal illltnDnenl 51 eo Tnde Flxturea. With respecllO trade fiXlun:l. Seller and Buyer agree as follows: 52 'Ill" 53 f. Waler RItl~... The following legally dcaoribed water riShts: S4 aJ.l.,..1.1 pend t8 owned by Bel.Joer S5 Any WBtcrrights ihall be conveyed by cruit ...1.;ft\ deed or other applicable legit instrument. 56 g. Growlnl Crop&. With rcapeet to the growing crops, Seller and Buyer agree a. follows: 57 HIA 58 4. PURCHASE PRICE AND TERMS. The Purchase Price set forth below shall be payable in U.S. DoIJIIn by Buyer as foIlDW&: 59 Item No. Reference 110m I 4 Purchase Price 2 ~ 4. Earn'" Money 3 ~4 1) New First Lean 4 ~ 4b(2) New Second Loan 5 t 40 A&S\Ullption Balance 6 t 4d Seller or Private Financin 7 S 9 t4e Cash at Closing 3,210,000 PRUAReD BY: DavldJ. M)'Mr.. E.q, CBS 3-1-04, Cmrract ID euyand Sell R-.I EaUne (VacenI Ulnd. farm- Randt). Cokndo ReBl Ellale commission Re.tFASTBl ~~e. VIdIon 8.16. SoftwI]'Il RegIstered b:l: 0. er.mmer, TJiE MYLER LAW FlA:W PC 6uyar(a) ~L-. 02126108 ''':48:31 s"':'~ 110 I I TOTAL 15 3,"0.00015 3.570.0001 60 Note: If there is an inconsistency between the Purchase Price 011 the first page and this. fi 4, Ihe amount in i 4 shall control. 61 L braelt MaBey. The Earnest Money set forth in this Retian. in the form Df ,/,,_1. . is pert payment 62 oflhe Purchase Pric:c: and ,hall he payable to and held by seller. \BIlriIl!II\Mo'loIl)\NOlI&~~i\o~Ia'tMt 63 ~1.'de~"iWlllt'ee~WIdn~ 'itt*~~~~lh!PW'WINlc:~"kh \Ili~kMftkMoll~\M]\II<liolo\r\,Ut\o~~ 64 ..~""'\ 'ilrlII\\ 'diIfMl\lWdlillc\ln\luldlih& 'f1lo\n pa~\ 'iM lol,^;~ \at'all1Vc\UlAIc!t'\M.IIIt\&llrllM 'IIl&l\l~~Ua, Ih'eI<llIls'lJlg 6S "-">lrlp\1I)\ ~\t'dr"'I\:lIlU:Io'IIu\~r.IrlIA~Wall&l\.ldnooll'flo'ldo\"~ ".~"le\MMW5\ln'o'loIl)\&!pOAilsllhillwn.l. k>\a 66 '4\o/ld. ~lsW\lr\tlol'pWp\>W.I>l\Ju'o"IdI1Ig.t.trcldWlll "'IoMi~""nlololdl>vu.~ 'ee\J\t'.r.lctI~\dt~~II1'1o\~ 67 'ihfd<!lNlc\ldlllg.a.U.. 'QMc\t'tll~~te/I 'WItII'tM.liM~ \lde~ 'IIo'ldek lrhjl,lsllllf/ll\llc~'Ioh \I\o'IIIIle......\to!nA 1o\,\,0f\, ~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \~~\\\\~\\\\~~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \~~\\\\\\\\\\\~}\\~~~~~~~"-'-lrh\h&*~\M~\lrhtll~~~~lrhlM~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \~\~~~\[]~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ . \~\\\\XNfi\k>Ol\~~~~y.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~I.~l~}~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \~\\\\\~~~~~~lrh~k~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\.""''IoRlrh~''~.~)4''i\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \V1\~~\~~~~~"\~~&~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~~~.And \~\~~~\\\\\\\\~~~~~~~w~~~~\~''Iol\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ V'i\ 'df'l/I! ~WlIlu'aI.lo!a\ ~~~fo!rly\lllk~\IJrWaldo\\IfIrlIA 'IllU\r."~lrhlo\Ms'l,"",,'dr~le\I\jloylril:nl \ \"i\ l~IIIt~IllA\MlI1""\~"'\tlo\IY'oktII.IwIt'c).lIllolI'IIIo\fIiuWo""fo\llo~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ V'i\ \ \ \ \rldlllt\diIl!oWll\fM\ihfl;~ If\~ 'slIAI\ lrh'lla"" \Ii. 1I!Il\llonlt\tldrilI's\lkld\UloW\lwlt\O<~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \%\M\dlh \dIAI\I..lrt-~Mnt. \V1\~~\Ia.\~~~tII..~\\\\\\\\\~.~~Ia"hM\~d~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ . \V9\..8~~~'i~W.~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ '8W\ \ \ \ \1l.1lt'clIIIIoW'tlIJ\o\~~~W ~1IIitli",",.~'I<\,WoI>"'" \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \%ldI'1t.MohJ\hIl.Mdt\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ '8'1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\(11}\ \ ~~.'fldolU ~llfllkII1"~"''&lIN'''tIIl\~OlI ~lilIl'll"~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \~\\\\\~W~~~~..\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~kL}~~'\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \'81\\\\~~G~~~~Vkk~~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~R\h'lo~.~.~.i\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \~\~~~\K1~mkk\~~~"'~~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~~~\And \ 'B'S\~~\~\\\ \ \\\ \ ,",~.m\I/\tloOW'liI~IaoW>\.!.mlo!l&llloltlW."'lk\o~/\I'llM,'tIla~ls""'~\Id~1 \~\,"",,~~~~\"~~h~~~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ 'iI" \ \ \ \lldo.\diI<\>ldU\~hls,\ 1f\Wt>\ 'ah~\ \h'\laldl \Ii. lo!I1\ilo'.\t\I:kls1l1's\Arld\Uloll\lwlt\O<~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \%\dI\lloh IdIaI\lW~MnL \'8i\~~~\~~~~&h~\\\\\\\\\I'll\n~\fM\ihla'ah~\~pndb;\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ , \'81\..a~~,,~~~'\laldI~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ W\ \ \ \ ~lIlDlI'tlIJ\o\~~~~W~\lbMIIIitliIllldl>'lo~'kl.h1h:'cM \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \%1dI'1~~1oolrlt\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ '\l't \ \ \ \ "" \ \ \ \ \.UI\a\dPdl>'~ \1Ihj<ir~ 'I<\, lrhiIl'lo!o'ulrld\~haiklrls\lolo. 'iI\ 'tIla~m",\S/\ddn\..t~IIol.~"oll ~ \ct \ '112\ 'Iln\ft, hM'"'sh<ltlo.~~~paJ'o'l>lcNhl\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \,..... \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \",.r..ru's\""M)loIt,\ 'I1klRk\~\.1 \ 'lIl\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \lMlrlolu\dn\,'v'oa....b'U\c'llldi~~"'~\1Ie'4\oMc\W/llklrhldd\ilale\tl.~1lolotJilcllte'aln~ \ riI~~ lw..~\l\ft,'alI..m \~\~8\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ . \ '9'i\ \ \ \ \1l.1lt'clI~~pa~h ldIolo'll'ahilllMoh'lo/,M,'c).MlI'$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \~lt.~'IIIol.ti"'h'dr~\&h",",""te'llS\~ kI\oll \ '9'i\ "....WoI>M \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \%',lek~IoldItlt\'IoW.'pij.1lclril~tultMdIh.\dehc\'$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 'p""hilolt\\M ~ ',!1M ~"'~ if \ W\ ..~\IfIrlIA.~liMlohImIde\dl\tloh'c).I'di~ klo'lo....'lJlbMt-Io~Io\t\J" 'IIIol.~'WI 'So""'~\Wtoa\", 'elot\oW. \1Ie\ilri\clUo\ Welsh \ '98\ 'W\dU'eM'll'olrI.8~'Io/\~k'1l).hl!.~~'>llMlIla'Iol\m \ \~ \~m \~~~\lIleh~'II'Ih; 'I'oI.\o"~ \lM.hdlMllt~/Ive \ '1>\1\ \J'p'Io1\1l!t\1'pl.~'$h1"""ill\jlMl1IriIt\oh\l'lo!lclc~'WI"\U1\\ \ \\\\ \\ \ \ \\ \ \ \\\\\ \ \\ \ \\\\ \\ \\ \ \\\\ \ \ \ \ \\ \\ \\ \ . \l'OlI\ \ \ \ '&lIa\ \ISlsIlOo. ~h<\ ~ lll!IWsM lrWo\1WollIlj'" 'A1\I\lbM \Ii lo/lIllll:'lolll'-'wldIt\PIiloNle\wllh \Ilo~loIa\e1ols\M lll!IhlM '\i\>m \1m \ 11ll"lIi~MIa"lrh",1Ilrldo/Ilo;MhI~'Cl~~~ln'ali!n\l!n\li\m\IhddoI.~!Ijlo}>hlllhlllr'rhl~"iliillll\l;'sIullN>e ~l\~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~.h.~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ~n \ \ \ 'cI. \ \ \ \ ~""_Ie\Rlolu\o!l"\ ~1,/gloloI.~ .'pldri\i\/Io'Ij\~M pa~"Ie\ra~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \I~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\....~~~~te\Kl~~W.t\!uD>>'a~&~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ , \I'9S\~'tIlaNX\~'k'Nk~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ~\riI~~~~~~~'ill~Kl~~~~~\~&~S~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ~\riI~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~"~'cI.\\\\\\\\\\\\\~kl.~~~~M~Q/\~.~~~g \l'Oi\ ..r.alllo~ 'ukIJok \lle\lWd\"'hWIIe\oh:ll~ \Kl$lrlo!l'Oolo\A\l~l'Nl. n~\ \ \ \ \ \ ~nedl~ l'J;])'lIl""~\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \I~\~~~~\~~~'$b.~~~}~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ll~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ . \N\\\\\\~~~"".~\ha~~~~~h~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~~~\(1~~'lla~MKAa' \In \ 'CI \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \~\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ';N!ihdihn~~"h4lrltirWt"\II1~""'''i\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\l ~ .hhdn\.\~a~ls \I~1\"'M\~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~&ftloh~QQ~1IW\\\\\\\~~~~mi\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\li'am \I~_\ 'UMdr'p\i'd,\~,"I'IoNle\dllph!ukJpal\dn~~mIo!lMMlo\Nle\dulo...a~~"lo\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 'a'Ulll. 'OIWi!lg. \~.y,,~lS \llS\~~..\[l~~~l'ah~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"i~~khl~~~~.mw\\\(1Shan\\~~"k~~ \In\ ~iIl!rhM4ll~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \dI'\5lim..h:II......lIlII~"1oIolnltlc>'1lrSIo/ulrh 'Il'i1'e\lblrt-k1lo\MIl<\~k'<r.a 'ilI1'll1fli"",,1e\M:\('I) if PREPAReD BY: David","'ler..~. CBS S-7.04. Ccnnct ID Buy and !lei Reel EItate (IIae8l"it Lend - Farm. Ranch). CdOIW:kl Real Elsatlt ConwnbeIon R-IFAITe $oftwlI!tI, 02006. VIQIon 6.16. So1Iwere R~ to; CMr ar.mmrw, THE MYL.ER I.AW FIRM PC [loyo<('1 -L,fr;:! 0212.....''''.:38 ....~. \Nl\ ",~'p&~1o\ddl'olcClv\d ~In\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~r.loAIIr~;IIlo\1lk lIU.Ufb.'eIAIo'cllA1'gk "1\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~llMlkto.~\~loll'lio""'., \Nl\ '<!"l\l~\b1\Ie'olI<<'diJliIIlR~""&!r'r.M.d"llrlllt"hlllM"l,~~ \~ \ \ \ \ ,"'p&Nln,,"").l3)\I'IIr...,,~'.atk"hM~~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \% ~~~\~~~~~~~wkh&k"~~~\\\\\\ \ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ . ~l1.~\ 'Uli~~ ~ UI\911.lr~dt\~"!ie\~li~loId. \Ilt\lSt'oWloA.\~ ~~""~'\IIn\t\blrot. 'f\rio'II..illk\9W\IolI....\1lAlIt\ng ~l1.\\'~~"'l~~~~'\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~\4)~~~~~~~~~~~~~l\l'th~~.. ~l1.l\\\\~\K1Sh~\~~...\~~~~,\muk~'1\'th!ie~\~~~h~~~~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \il1.l\ \ \ \..... \ \ \ \ \~~lIlo.\ \lIiUol.M1\j.PMk;.~'CItlo\rlg\ill'otlllll\lk'Oa\to.hMt"'~"hk.'lliM.tlBY<"hhW\ok~"1d. "llllI~!lil.II1\tu"d5 ~l1._\ ~1oIl.~ \>Iiih...t.tlPP\iUlIIol.o.~'1a'" ~i'Ilhlvll"kAU.\&1Mlt1do~!drlik\ ~~h~ 'lI&WIIjs\do\l'll...t.t..Nan.""''''k \ll1.1\'Uli~~h~'<~J~).\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \Il1.,\~\~~lTH)NS~~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ll1.1\ \ \ \ Iol. \ \ \ \ \t.IllId.A~\ ~ 'li>kI>~~UI\ 'o'I'p'oltWlllo~ ~IJ';II<i\"~ 'o'olaloli/lg.h'dM....a.\MINn\lll!iillll.\J'oml. i. ~l1.1\ '<ID\ ~t.i."'~'liWi~ 'Q/yhl\ \t.Iol!~,w. 'IlddWI "I\ilMlIlI~~ \I\IItIib'-l.W>'hAlklll\8t'>u,w, '-'J'lIlIleloW \&W/llll\('t\:k). \1'2" \BiIyhl>lllllll~'\lliIb\SM""!IM le"lIclr...'o\>le\o\...... "wn~~a.'\i~XMIj 'pIoto"" ~ lm~r.. ""'\&lk!.kJI, \MlI1\<!IIts \J'i~\ ...li'lUr'llIo....lI'1~'e\1li~l<ltlsi...!d\Ilt'>!iekcl<!r~ldb}<lc\~t._b l~'e\1li'l.1)\lkiIl'f\"'" \ilrll:lV-JlOY'dlHos\MNbIal1\illk \1\ch ~'i\ \ '1Nlr1\lm 'I&!Il\lM~). ~~ww.\lo\}"k/ofYl \Ilo\~~ls\bt. ~ "1KI.\Al\ 1,,\,\ \>Ii!l1\1lo\o.\ '8e\....hld<\MlIriI~lon IIn \ "\>~lIl!o\iM\ \,,10\ \oltAIlIkJlI~ 'Qi\s'e\~ ~llAolgh \111\ hlrlilln'ullllll'cM '1M \wMIll\t-'<}ulIlc\ \lolulM 'u\Pp\OrIll\ '<N\tIlh \....'" \;/p)ohOO'lleh \or lI'il\ 'i1u\di/l&"I\llo\\'o1J\ \JldYClIlolI~'db\d\1\ \INli:n\dl 'I!II~ jlkMdolI\Sellls\ ~\rio\1\ddIl~"M11)\ 1o'WI1d<~\loM.l'^'~ 'Ilu)>cr Vi_\'Ih~~~~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \/'ii\ \ \ \ 'II. \ \ \ \ \~l'\lII'olIhWdt.\ \lr'4l&IyhI> lo\to\PoY""t.M~.I\Ilo~ 1'Ia'hA 'oj!'dblo'\l\ift,lI'delrllh>hft"\ 'c\lMMl\iI1\t. ./s,\lI1is \/'i" '\:\lhts.lc\ 'Ii>&lII\I~~ft.t.D~",~ ldlllo""'lmJIilnll!n\ \1\Il;h hMdIll<ln\M1\oN "",,,,",,,,W,"w.a ....teU.~1o'I \!dI1Y"~ 'Ii'om Vi1\ 'Ilo.ly't/\ 'a.'Ilk1\Mid. W1\ o.~W.I(J\:k).\WliIfAd,Io&tla:\Ol\lIBY<" 'i1\Iib1l1l}. 'tb. ~,""hIlclI\I'oM. hMdn\tlriollt. 'II ~lIr\", ~'il\ 'tl\l\i5llM!1~ '''''\ h&\lNhUi/l~'lclrlriIllo'lA \ttl'IMU1i:Il\DIil'l:ll'J'llil'l\ft.tmVE\~~ nJ.'l'tlMlN..\rtWl1l'ellnR ~'i~\~J5~,~~~~L~1M~WL~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ~\j~\ \ \ \ \Q \ \ \ \ ~WdIMII'r.IMIldo"\ \ \~ It.~clr\.\lo\ ~ \II\MI8\ '<ll'\llol. ~ ~ 't/y\~\\P'om""~\1IdI1\ '1ft\tlo~\of \M \ 'Ile1l1ll\MH"e'a\lklo't""k'lIllll1\II\rio\ 'tb. \ol, ~ '0\ 'CIdo1olg\ \llih ~ iMdD\lkill'llM\1ljlll'a\.Clc!llhM~\ 'ot~""\1I1\i/l1h/l<~ \!>i'll'y Wl\ 'Uli~twm6lr1ll1o\ ~~'AhJl, 'bh....\SellW~U \0\1 'eWdIl\lkldiicWddo~ '11\ 'ctJa,\lulH:\~\91Jt'c\ 'sIulI~ \ioPp\)\ '10 'tlIon<<\by Wl\ ~ 'Ot-WI U..w.\1iM n.kalIrIe\ n ~" ....~ ~ '1~\WI.MuIoltll..\bdahOlt/ll.~~ 'ItlIlI1I<liaI~ ""'~Ioymhnl ~'4lI\ ..... \Mdi~ 'QIIdi!illol; \M ~ """*,,,18\ II/I<~ 'tlIoHlIr\ ftil~ \~ '9dVi!<i. 'IIo1olli!i~\ WliNty\loM. ..~_a.\\till<!llllli/l& 'o\1o\di1lt I Wi\ 'c"k\1\I\MdiklodpWll<\('S~ hl>j\ \Ml\",UIrlII\hM 11M \MlI1\<!II\s\~W 'oj! 'tlIoHllI\iI/ll~lIltW14 "~\9o'I1\o" 101\ lI<lr/fIIIWllle\ !1M \o6M.l<!Ued ~~\ 'h ..~'tll ~'IleN6r'o\i"leh:lok/ll\tloh"""Uc..'Ot\;I(ll} 1t\.geIM1IM"''o\ldo'vldt'lllo'llll!o\lldll..... "1~~Wl'tb. 'Ilu~lIr\by W1\ 'OlWPP\'l>"~'o\l:Wd1t. Utloan.w. ~UI>> IIltlt '6elIllI\wu\lw.t......../odII\I1tIo'a~ \f'&'I~lIblk\Plo~~ \rkktcII 'e\>li1l<i\llt.1It~~ to Wl\~~~\Ik&~~Io~~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \1'4" \ \ \ 'G. \ \ \ \ \1I~~u.ML~~ \'11\\0/\ \c"'o'ti"k\tlo~ 'U. 'do\ ...\"'" ~ lllt\tIoloi'Ilk.\ 'Il'tllllr\lIloll\PftIvId't\MPilk\loll 'It.!. loon IIft\ 'd\lk~ lihllihllihk 'a~~~...1I 'ok;. 'al<W\c'aIlMo) "" lil'ojlA'lilt'\ Walih, \t.Wa\ 'lWch/n1olllll\ w.lIlde\ \o.lh" 'q'b\S\W1'act ~'i\ \ 'I" ~Mitillrla\ \1\>M ~MhMc\\\ loM 1oJoi\o'o~\Ol\II1h~~ 1I1'clul1t> ldlllo\do'cWlllu\tl \H\~h&tla:\Ol\Mjllllt""\tlo\M;ft lI""n ~'n\ 'd\lk~ 'oI\llow'h~llht<!r.""lo!lMlllli~\Se'llkNlt"&k 'c)lliWildll\tll'&'Ulldl\t.OOn\~'lAl1WdIIlI'o \ 'l.t. \2Cl~ ~ls\ 'oIWe'plo\ \he ~'n\ ''''''''''......\:O/\diIi&Io'df't~~1\ hf>llrloWl..n....~ l/lIo'plo'lj\.'A<\dilolllltll"'\alo\oIr*!l-u.~lIIo1akI\dp\>"'Ilu'yer II~ \ 'o\>le'\l\illt 'lIlll!I/\ h)lpaW'l'WilllllOh hllllriP -.to \tluI, 'tblt/s\Ol\,w. \Iw.t, .....~... '1M 'lOt\lII '"" ,~ '3 'i&Id'tM ~ 'U. "'''k "lolllln'oll'by ~'lii\ \4PPrloWl'u'rllN/\ "I'rltWMl9WdI/loll \ If> l1\)\ 'tftih 'clIlIts.Ic\ 'Ul\Ih 'lIldII1IlIt'\a loft.\iWt, \I'IItt~ '11\ S&1le\ li1\ 'tb. ""'Vc~\frMo \1\a'b\lkj ""lIer ~n\ ..\obIt.Ill!i<<IlI.'MD.....~ lIllt1dlll8/\ \oIc'b'a>lrip~UIc'e,,\ lIat'lllMlItIt-.-o, 'tftih hIlrltIItkt.lok~!lil.lthItll>lolo.~~SMItV~lljItIdn~ \ \ \ \ \ \ 157 6. APPRAISAL PROVISIONS. 158 L Appl'1llul CDllCIIIIo., Th;. sobsectiOll I, 0 ShlU I8l S"'II Not apply, 1 S9 Buyer shall have the sole option and ~lcction to terminate this contract if the Purc;::hase Price exceeds the Property's valuation 160 dctcnnined by_ 8n appraiser engaBed by ilIA . The contnlct shall terminate by BuYCT living Se1\cr 161 writterl nolict. of tmninauOII and either a copy of such appraisal or writteD notice from lender thaI c;on'finna the Property's valuation is less 162 than the Purchuc Pricc, rccc:ivcd on'or bc:fore Appral.a. Deadline (0 2c). If Seller does not receive such written notice of termination on or 163 befom Apprallal DeadUne (t 2c), Buyc:r waives any right to terminate under this subsection. 164 b. Cost or AppraisaL Cost of any appraisal to be obtained after the date of this contract shall be timely paid by 0 "Buyer 165 0 Seller. I6/; 7. EVIDENCE OF TITLE. 167 .. Evidence otTIlie. On or before TItle Deadline (G 2c). Seller liball cause to be furnished to Buyer. at Seller's expense. a J 68 cummt commibncnt for owners title insurance policy (Tide Commitment) in an amount equal to the Purchase Price. or if.this box is cheeked. 169 0 An Abstracl oftitJe certified 10 a CllJ'ml1 date. At Seller's expeJlSC, Seller shan cause the title insunmce policy to be Issued and delivered 170 to Buyer 81 soon II practicable at or oftcr Cl05ing. (f a title insurance commitment is furnished. it 181 Sh.11 0 Shall Not commit to delete or 171 insure over thlll rrtandard exccption& wbich ~Iute to: 172 (J)parti.. in pos_ion. 173 (1) lQUOCOT(\od ..sements, 174 (3) survey mi."', 175 (4) any unrecorded mechanic'sliCfls, 176 (5) gap period (effective date of commitment to date deed is rccon:lcd), and t 77 (6) unpaid taxes, assessments and unredeemed tax sales prior to the year ofClming. PREPARED IV: Devid J. ~.. &q. CBS 3-7-0.\. ContraCt to Buy and SeI Real EIt8te (Vacant Lind - Farm- Ranch). CokndDRelll Esl8\eConv'\"lll:skx _AS" ~. V""",," e. Ie. SoIIwo.. R,.;.""""" ChM B""""'"'. THE MYlER LAW fiRM pC BUyer(5) c:; r"7"- 02.'28108 14:48:311 p'ou,1Y' seaer(SlW 178 Any additional premium expense to obtain this odditional covCnl8e shan be paid by 181 Bay... 0 Seller. 179 b. CopIes .f Elleepllo... On or bef"", nile Deodll.. (i 2C), Seller, at Sellets expense, shall furnish to Buyer and 180 RIA ,(I) a copy of any 181 plats, declarations. cov=ants, conditions and rcstridions burdening tbe Property. and (2) if 8 tide insurence commitment is required to be 182 furnished. and if this bmc il checked Igj Copies of ..)' Other Doeumentl (or, if illegible. summariCl of such documents) listed in the: 183 schedule of exceptions (Exceptions). Even jf the box. is nol checked, Seller shall have the oblisation to fumiai! these documents pursuant to this 184 aubseetion if requcs1cd by Buyer Bny time on or before Document Request Deadlllle (i 2c). This requirement sholl pertain only to 18S documcnt5 lIS shown of record in the offiCCil of the c1crlc. and roconicr. The abstract or title insurance commitmr:ml, together with any copies or 186 summaries of auctl documents furnished pursuant to this scctio~~~~tute the title documents (Title Documents). \~71 \ \ \ \~\ \ \ \ \ 'S\okW!y\ ~ 'IMlo!y\ltUdIlll\'<l'l\~ ~"k\G1lu\'\~ \U1Mo11~~\MtI1\'lo\iIr'dt"\M'lilllot\>IdI1\iIdl...t \. \~60~ ~\ktl.\ "'1a\dn\li'tllft\UlUiliId.ll,\I\'r~",,,~t\K:\ldo"M<~/aJ\~~ Wt~\t.lc'alllo'\ 'OMi~t.he \~\Kl\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~~~~.~~~~~~~~\Nk''\~S\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \~ \1i:Ir'SllM;'sIullNle'llo\d\h)\ \Ull~\ U1'Q,1Rl\ 1M&~'s~"''a\dcN.\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\1\0\1\ pa)\ 'tN\.1<il1I5\ W. 'or \~~\~~~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 192 S, TTIl.E AND SURVEY REVIEW. 193 L 11tle ReYiew. Buyer shall have the right to insped the Title Documcnti. Written notice by Buyer ofunmClChantabiUty of tille, 194 farm or content of Tide Commitment or of any odl<< UIlSBtisfllCtory title condition shown by the Title Documents. notwithstanding f 1:2. Ehall 195 be signed by or on tdlalf DfBayer and given 10 Seller on or before Ne Objectloa Deadllac (f 2c). or within five (5) calendar days after 196 receipt 'by Buyer of any change to ~ Title Doeumcnt:s or enoo1'5Cmcnt to the Title: Commitment together with IS cupy of the. document adding 197 any new ExcCption to ride. If Seller does not receive Buyer's notice by the date specified above, Buyer ac:cepts the condition of title as 198 d;ocloacd by the nde Documenls as satisfactmy, 199 b. Mattefl not Shown by the hblk: ~d.. Seller stutll deliver 10 Buyer. on or before OfT-Record Matten Deadline (~2c) 200 true copies ofallleaac& and surveya in Seller's passcl8ion penaming to the ~ and shall disclose to Buyer all ealCJnents, Hen6- (including, 201 without limitation. governmental improvements approved, but not yet installed) or other til1e maUers (including. wi1hout limitation. rights of 202 fint refusal, .and options) not shown by the public l;l:ICOftb of which Seller has adual knowledge. Buyer libal1 have the right to inspect the 203 Property to determine if any Ihird party hilS any right in the Propeny not shown by the public records (such lIS an unrcconied easement, 204 unrecorded lease. or boundary line discrepancy). Written notice of my unsatW'actory condition disclosed by Seller or revealed by such 205 inBJlOCtion, notwithstandinS 9 12, sholi be .isncd by or on behalf of Buyer and g1VCIl In Seller on or befon: Olf-Ro<ord Maners Obje<:tlon 206 DeodIiae (i 20). If SeUor does not n:ccive Buyer's notice by so;d date, Buyer accepts title subject to ..ch right&, if any, of third parties of 207 which Buyc:r hes actual knowledge. 208 c. Survey Revllnf. Buyer shall have the right 10 inspect Survey. If written notice by or on behalf of Buyer of any unsatisfactory 209 condition shoWll by SUI'\IO)I, DOtWilhstanding i Sb or 9 12. is n:ceivcd by Sellcr on or before Survey Objeetlou Deadline (I 2c) then such 210 objection shall be deemed an unsarisfllctory title condition. If Seller does not receive Buycr'& notice by Survey Objectlon De.dllne (9 2c), 211 Buyer accepts Survey 8$ satiafaclory. 212 d. Spec1alTuiacDlstrlell. SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICTS MAY BE SUBJECT TO GENERAL OBLIGATION 213 INDEBTEDNESS THAT IS PAID BY REVENUES PRODUCED FROM ANNUAL TAX LEVIES ON THE TAXABLE 214 PROPERTY WITHIN SUCH DISTRICTS. PROPERTY OWNERS IN SUCH DISTRICTS MAY BE PLACED AT RISK FOR 215 INCREASED MILL LI!VIES AND EXCESSIVE TAX BURDENS TO SUPPORT THE SERVICING OF SUCH DEBT 216 WHERE CmCUMSTANCES ARISE RESULTING IN TIlE INABIUTY OF SUCH A DISTRICl' TO DISCHARGE SUCH 217 INDEBTEDNESS WlTHOlIT SUCH AN INCREASE IN MILL LEVIES. BUYER SHOULD JNVESTIGATIi'. THE DEBT 218 FINANCING REQUlREMENTS OF. THE AUTHORIZED GENERAL OBLIGATION INDEBTEDNESS OF SUCH 219 DISTRICTS, EXISTING MILL LEVlES OF SUCH DlSTRICl' SERVICING SUCH INDEBTEDNESS, AND THE POTENTIAL 220 FOR AN INCREASE IN SUCH MILL LEVIES, . 221 In the cvont the Property is located within a special taXin. district and Buyer desires to terminate this contnKrt as a result. if 222 written notice is received by SeHer on or before Orr-Reeord M_tten Objection DeadUpe (t 2c), this contract shall tIlen terminate. If 223 Scller does nol receive Buyer's notice: by such date. Buyer accepts the effect of the Property's inclusion in ~h special texing district 224 and waivc& the ript to terminate. US e. Right to Object, Cure. Buyer's right to object shan include. but not be limited 10 those m11l1ers listed in ~ 12. lfSellcr receives 226 ootice of unmercbanllbility of title or any oaher unsatisfactory title condition or commitment terms BS provided in subsection 8 -, b, C IInd d 227 above, Seller shall use TCUOnIble effortB to correct Slid items and bear any nominal I;XpCDSC 10 correct the &ame prior 10 Closing. If such 228 unsatisfactory title condition is not corrected to Buycts IIltisfaction on or before Closing. this contracl shall then tenninotc; provided. however. 229 Buyer may, by wriucn notice mccived by Sellor on or before Closing, waive objection to sueh items. 230 f. Title "\'dvlJary. The Title Documents affecl the title. ownership and use of tile Property and should b~reviewed C*refully. 231 Additionally, other matters not reflecled in the Tide Documents may affect the title. ownership and use of the Property. including 232 without limitation boundary lines and encroacbments., IITea, zoning, unrecorded easements aod clalT1ll!i of easemeJtl5, leases and 233 other UIIT'eC-Orded agrccmenl&. and various laws and lovemmental tcgulalicna concerning land use, development and environmental matters. 234 TIte JUrfBce eahte may be awned separately from tlte undcrtylne minerai estate, and traIt.rer or tbe surface estate does not lPecessarily 235 Ineb.de tnnlfer .r the mineral rlEhtL Third pa"" ml)' "old interest III on. ps, other minerals. leothennaJ energy or water on or 236 under the Property. wblclllntereltJ may Kin them rlph to enter aad aN the Property. Such maners may be excluded from the title 237 insumnce policy. Buyer is advised to timely consult lep' counsel with re5pCCltD all such matters 88 there are strict time limits provided in this 238 contmct{e.g., Title Objection DeodUne [~2c] and Ofl'-Reford Matters Objection Deadline [~2eD. PREPARED BV: DIMe! J. Illy..... Eaq. CBS 3--7~. Comractio Buyencl Sell RNI Estate {Vacant Land - F8f'In- Rench~ COIor8dO Real E1lat8 CommiNion RINIlFA$Te ~;-~. \IenIiDn 6.16. Softwa~ RegIIt.IDd Ie: Cher Bl'IU1"IfTlID'f. THE MY'lER l.AW ARM PC _.) .L.~ 0212_ '0""''' ....:.i1I( 239 240 24\ 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 25\ 252 253 2'4 2'5 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 26' 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 The local tT8n&fcr tax of ..11 % of the Purchase Price ihall be paid at Closing by 291 Seller 0 Bayer 0 Seller 0 Otber 292 use tllX milt may aocroe bc:cawoc of this uansaction shall be paid when due by [81 Buyer 0 Seller. 293 15. PRORATIONS. The following shall be proraZd 10 a_ine Dale (I 2c), except as otherwise provided: 294 .. Tan.. Per50nal property tDXCl, if any, Bnd gcmcral real ernatc taxes ror the year of Closing. based on ~ T..us for 295 the ClJeadar Year Immedllllely Preeedfng CIoIlnc o MOlt Recent MiD Levy and Most Recent ~t DOdlcr 296 . 297 \,~ \ \ \ \ 'fWa'la 'Ada~ \ ~~ ~li<"~1Ij\ \kk'o....\ \ \ G1'l\.'c..Nlftl~ '6ek1lrltl<\l'tIld&~ ''tI.Nll'\Sl!lf<ll M\o\I\&c\c\r'.lli~\r" 298 \8~~.~~N.~hk~~lIn~.~>>"~~~h~"~~~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ - - -,-<_.~..__.._._--_..._"_...~--'-'-~-' ,. LEAD-BASEDPATNT. Unless cxcm~ if the improvement! on the property include one Of tnQ1l: tcBiden1ial dwellings for which a building pcrmitWlS issued prior 10 January t, 1978. this contnlcl shall be void unless a complc1cd Lead-Based Paint Disclostlre (Sltlcs) form is signed by SeHer and the required real estate liccnscea. which must occur prior to the parties signing this contract. 10. PROPERTY DISCL(lSURlt, INSPECTION AND INSURABILITY; BUYER D1SCWSURE. On or beron: Seller', properly Dlod...re Deadline (6 2c~ Seller .SJl'O& to provide Buyer wiJh a Sell.... Properly Di",losun: (Vocaor Land) fonn complelod by Seller to the best of Seller'. CUlTOllt aewal kllOwled&". a. bspectkta ObJeetioll De.dUne. Buyer shall hI1ve the right to hllV.c in~on~ of the ~hysical condi~on_ of tl~e ~rty Emd Inclusions, at Buyer'. expense. If the physical condition of the Property or InclusJOJUi 15 unsal1sfactory m Buyerl& subJCcuve discretion, Buyer .ball. on or befan: loopeellon Objecll... [)aHIIln. (f 20): (1) notify Soller in writing that this contraCt is terminated. or (1) provide Seller with a wri~ description of any unsatisfactory physical condition which Buyer requires Seller to conect (Notice to Correcl~ lfwrittcn notice is not received by Seller on or before Inaped:lan ObjectiDn Deadline (~ 2c), the physical condition of the Pl"Opert)' and Inclusions shall be deemed to be &ati:sfactory 10 Buyer. b. ResoIDtlo. Deadlinlll. If 8 Notice to Correct is received by Seller and if Buyer and Senor have not Ilgrced in wricing to B settlement Ibcn:of on or befDn: RelGlutloD Deadline CIU}, Ibis contract shell tcnninete one ca\ondrr day following the Resolution DelKlliae. CO 2c). unless before such 1CJ1'Rination Seller recoivcs Buycr'r1 written withdnlwal ofebe Notice to Correcl c. Innrablllty. 1'biti contract is conditi~d upon Buyer', satis6tction. in Buym subjective discretion, with the availability, tcnns, conditions and premium for property insurance. This contraCt shall terminate: upon Seller's receipt. on or before: Propert)' lauranee Objectioll Deadline (i 2e) of Buya"s'written notice that such il18URnce \VU not IifIIlisfaclof)' 10 Buyer. If said notice is not timely received. Buyer shan hevc waived any right to terminatc under this provision. d. Damaae, (JellS and Indematty. Buyer is rc:sponlib~ for payment fOT aU inspections. sW'VC)'S. cn.inccring reports or for any other work performed at Buycr'& request and shall pay for MY damegc which occurs to Ihe Property and Jnc1usiOlll a. II rrsuh of such activitiu. Buyer shan nDt permit claims or Hens of any k.ind against the Property for inspections. surveys. engineering reports and for any oIber work performed on the PmpcrI)' at Buyer's request. Buyer agrees to indemnify. proteCl and hold Seller harmless from and agninst any liability, damage, COlt or expense incuned by Seller in connection with any such inspection. clu.im, or lien. This indemnity includes SeJICJ'& right to recover all costa and expenses inmmcd by SeHcr 10 enforce this subsection, incJudinll ScUerrR reason.ble attorney and legal fees. The provisions of Ihis subsection shall survive the termination of this contract. II. CWSING. Delivery of deed from Seller to Buyer sball be at <IOIiog (Closing). ClcsinS ilball be 00 the date specified .s Closing Date (~ 2c) Dl"by mutual agreement at a.n carli=- date. The hour Ind place of Closina shall be as designated by lII..d.ual. aara-"'t:. 11. TRANSFER OF TITL&. Subject to lender or payment 81 Oosing u required herein and cDmpliance: by Buyer with the other termS and provisions bereo~ SeIll!lrshll.lI execute and deliver a good and suffICient 1I'tJ8c.1a1 warrant:v deed to Buyer. at ClOSing. conveying the Property free and clear of an Wtel except the gennltaxes for the year of Closing. Except as provided herein, title SBall be conveyed free and clear of an liens. iocluding an)' govemmental liens fDr' spc:cial improvementS installed as of the date of Buyers signature hcrwn. whelhcr assessed or not. Title shun be conveyed subject to: . .. mose specific Exception. described by reference 10 recorded documents as reflected in the: Tille Documents BCceplr;d by Buy~ in accordance with 6 Sa (Title Review), b. distribution utility cuemenm, e. those specifically described rights of third parties not shown by the public records of which Buyer has actual knowledge 8J1d which were acce:pled by Buyer in accordance with f 8b (Matlers. Not Shown by the Public Records) and ~ Be (Survey Review), d. inctusion oftbe Property within any special tBxing district. c. the benefits and burdens of any declaration and party wall agreements, if any, and r. other none 13. PAYMENT OF ENCUMBRANCES. Anyencumbltlncc required to be paid shall be paid 01 or before Closing from the proceeds of this tran&8C1ion or from any other IOW'CC. 14. CLOSINGCOSTS,DOCUMENTSANDSERVlCES. Buyer and Seiter shall pay. in Good Funds. their respective Closing costs and all other items required to be paid lit ClOiing, except as otherwise provided herein. Buyer end Seller s.han sign and complete all customary or rcascmably required documents at or befDre: Oosing. Fees for real estate OORing serv1ce!' s.hall be paid at Closing by t!l:I Ono-bolf by Bnyer and OlIo-boil by Sell... 0 Buyer 0 SeDe. 0 Other o ODe-halt by Buy"r and One-hair by . Any sales and PREPAReD 8Y: DlWld J. MytI>r" &q. CBS a-7-04. Conttact III Buy MlCl SeI R88I E.1IIIe (V.cant Lllnd. Farm - Renoh). CoIaral*l RNI Estate CommioeIon ....FA$TIl ~ CIlOO/J. V_ .,'......... R"'_Io' ""'" B........ lHE MYlER lAW FIRM PC BUY"'(lI) 0212&10614:48:38 ~,,:.~ 299 300 3DI 3D2 3D3 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 ll5 3\6 3\7 318 319 320 32\ l22 323 324 32S 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 c. Other Prorations. Water and sewer charses; interest on continuing loan, and Done d. Finat Settlement Unless otherwise agreed in writing, these pT01'1ltions shall be final. 16- POSSESSION. Possession of the Property shill be delivered to Buy",r on POSItlMon ,Date and Poaessicm TIme 0 2c), subjec1 to the fol1owlng lcalC& or tChancies: n"" [fSeller, after Closing, fails to deliver possession as lptXlificd, Seller &hall be subject to eviction and &llBII be additionally liable to Buyer for payment 01$ 200.00 per day from the Po_on Dale <i 2c) until_ion i. delivlllOll. 17. NOT ASSIGNABLE. This contract shall not be l8lignablc by Buyer without Scl1~l!l prior wrinen consent. Except as so restricted. this contract shalt illUre to the benefit of and be binding upon the hci..... personal rcprcacntatives. SUcce590rs and 8S6igns of the parties. 18. INSURANCE; CONDmON OF, DAMAGE TO PROPERTY AND INCLUSIONS. Except as othcnvise provided in this contnct, the Property, Inclusions or both shan be delivered in the condition existing as of the date of this contract. ordinary weBr and tear ex.cepted. L Casualty 'osaranee. In the event the Property or Inclusions shall be damaged by tire or other caslJ8lty prior 10 Closing, in an amount of not more than ten percent of the tohd Purchllsc Price, Seller shall be obligatod to repair the same before the Clolln, Oaite n 2c). In the event such damage is nct repaired within said time or if thc damages exceed such sum, this contract may be Icrminatcd at tbe option of Buyer by dclivering to Seller written notice of tmnination. Should Buyer elect to carry out this contract despite sud! damage, Buyer shBlI be: entitled 10 a credit, at Closing, for all the insurance proceeds Te5ulting from such damllgc to the Propcrt)' and Inclusions payable to Seller but not the Dwners' associalion, if any, plus the 1I110unt of an)' deductible provided for in such insurance: policy, such credit not to cxc:eod the total ~h8se Price. b. Damaae, IndudeD' and Stnrlcea. Should any Inclumon or servicc (including systemS and components of the Propcrt)', e,g. heating. plumbing. etc.) fail or be damaged belwcen die dale of this contraCt and Clcsing or possession, whichever shall be earlier, then ~llc:r sJqIl be liable for the repair or replacement of such Inclu5ion Of service with II unit of similar size, age IPld qUllity, or an equivalent credit, but only to the O(toRt that the rnaintcnanCC or replacement of such Inclusion. service or fixture: is not the responsibility of the ownen;. aaSociation, if OIlY. lc88 any inSUJ1U'tCe proceeds received by Buyer covering sucb repair or replacement. The risk of loss for any damage to growinS crops, by fire or otllCT casualty. shall be borne by the party entitled to thc growing crops.. if any, as provided in f 3 and f!.uch party shall be entitled to such insurance procceda orbcnefils for the growing crops,. ifany. C. Walk/fhl'Ollgb aad Verification of Condition. Buyer. upoII rcuoll8ble notice, shall have the tight to walk through tbe Propcny prior to Closing to verify that thC physical conditioo of the Property and Inclusions complies with this contract. 19. RECOMMENDATION OF LECALAND TAXCOUN8EL By signing this document. Buyer and Seller acknowledge that the respective broker h. advised that this docwncnt has important legal consequences IIIld haa recommended the CMmination of tiUe and consultation with legal and tax or other oo1.lOsel before signing this contract. 20. TIME OF ESSENCE, DEFAULT AND REMEDIES. Time iJ of the essonce hereof. If any ""Ie or check received as Earnes1 Money t.ercunder or any other plyment due he:rcundc:r i. Dot paid., honored er tendered when due, Of if any other obligation he:n=undcr is not pcrfonned or waived as herein provided, thCl"e shall be the following remedies: .. If Boyer b III D.,.,.It: 181 (1) Spedllc Performance. Seller may e~ct to treat this contract illS canceled. in whicb case all payments and things ef value received hen:under shall be forfeited end reblined on behalf of Seller. and Seller may r;covcr such damages as may be propct', or Seller may e&ect to treat this contract 81 being in full force and effect and Seller shaU have the right to specific perfonnance or damagc6, or both. o (1) Liquidated Damages. All paymeats ond things of vlllue received hereunder shall be forfeited by Buyor and retained on behalf of Seller and both parties shall thereafter be released from all obligationl hercunde1'. ]1 is agreed that such payments and things of volue are LIQUIDATED DAMAGES and (except as provided in subsection c) an: SELLER'S SOLE AND ONLY REMEDY for Buyer'. failW'll to perform the obligations of Ibis contract. Seller expressly waives the remedies of specific performance and lldditional damages. b. . 11 Seller 111. Default: Buyer may cicci to treat this contract us cDllccled. in which case all paymonts and thingl ef value received hereunder shall be returned and Buyer may recover such dnmagcs as may be proper, or Bu)'er may elect to treat this cClttractBt being in fnll force l'l1ld offect and Buyer shall have the right Ie specific performance or dlIme.~es. or both. e. CDItI and ExpellHlo In the eVCllt of any arbitnltion Of'" Iitiga1:um rcllllting to this contract, the arbitrator ar court shan award to the prevailing pliny all reuonable costs and cxpens.es, including attorney Bnd logal fees. 11. MEDIATION. If. dispute arises rc:1ating 10 thiB contract, prior to or after closing, and is 1101 resolved, the parties shall fin;t proce=d in good raid!. to submit the matter to mediation. Mediation is a prDCeU in which the partiea meet with an il11panial person who helps to fCIOlvc the dispute infonnally and confidentially. Mcdiatol'B cannot impose binding decisions. The parties to the dispute must agree before any settlement is binding.. The pertiOl win jointly appoint an IlIceeptable mediator and will share eqlJ8lly in thc cost of sucll mediation. The mediation, unless otherwise agreed. shallrenninatc in the event the entire disp1.lte is nOl resclvcd within 30 calendar days of the date wrincn notice requesting mediation is &ent by Dne part)' to the other at the party's last known address. l1lis sec1ion shall hOt alter any date in this contract, unlC!18 otherwise agreed. U. EARNEST MONEY DISPUTE. In the evCItt of any con~ regarding Earnest Money and things of value (notwithstanding any termination of this contraCt, or mutual written instnlctions). Earnest Money Helder shall not be required to lIIkc any action. Eamest Money Holder may await any proceeding, or at its option and BOle discretietn, in1eJ'plead mil parties and deposit any money or things of value into a PREPARED BV: Dn1d J. Myler" Eaq. CBS 3-7..()4, Car'lftd 10 Buy and Sell RMI Eatate (VIl'*lt Land - Farm - Ranch). cot~ RuI Estate Commlsllion RlNIIFASTe So~' VIII"Iion 8.18. Softwaf1l RlIglSI&rIMlID: Oler Bnlmmer, THE MYlER LAW FIRM PC _.) .-2.. 0212..... ""8,,," ~iff. 359 360 36\ 36~ 363 court of compcrtcnt jurisdiction and shall recover court costs and reasonable .ttorney and legal foes fec6. 23. TERMINATION. 1rI the event this contract is terminatod. all payments and things of value received hereunder shall be returned and the parties shall be rclilMld ofall obliptions hcrcUndeT. subject to O~ IOd, 21 and 22. 14. ADD1110NAL PROVISIONS. ("The fallDwinl additional provisions have not ~ approVt:d by the Colorado Real Bawe Commission.) s_ ".... -~ A att.aah.o har_= and lnoorporabld. he:z:e1n by 'thia J:.ference. 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 15. ENTJREAGREEMENT.MODlFlCATION,SURVIVAL. This agrocment constitutes the entire contt8ct between the partlC& relating to the subject hereof. and any prior agreements pertaining \hereto, whether oral or wrincn. have been merged and integrated into thia contract. No sub&cquent modification of any of the termS of this connel shall be: validl binding upon the parties, Of enforceable unless: made in writing and signed by the parties. Any obligation in this contract that, by its ~ is intended to be perfonned after termination or ClOllna shal1survivc the &ame. 16. NOTICE. DELlVJtRY AND CHOICE OF LAW. .. Physical Delivery. Except for the notice requcstinS mediation described in f 21, and except IS provided in G 16b below, ell notices mll51 be m writing. Any notice to Buyer- shall be effective when received by Buyer or by Selling Brokenlge Finn, and any notice to Seller shall be e.ffective when received by Seller or Listing Brokerage Firm. b. Eledronk DelIvery. As IIn alternative to ~ieal dcliYC!1l any signed document and written notice may be delivered in electronic fann by I:he following indicated methods only; t8I paeslmlle D &-man 0 Noe. Documents with original signatures shall be provided upon n:qQOIIt ofllllJ' POI1y, to OGke of Law. This contrKt and all disputes arising hereunder shall be governed by IlJ1d constued in M:cordancc with the laws ofthc State of Colorado thl. would be applicable 10 ColoradD residents who sign 8 contr1lCt in this state for propertY located in Colurado. 17. NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE. COUNTERPAIlTS. This propoul shall e.pi", unloss accepled In writing. by Buy... .nd Seller, DS evidenced by lbeir &ignatureS below, and the offerinS party receives nGt.icc of acceptance pursuant 10 i 26 on or befure Accep_ DeodI\Il. Date (i 20) and Acceptance Deadllna TIm. (i 20). If acccple<l, this document &ball become a contract betwun Seller and Buyer. A copy of this document may be ex.ecuted by each party. separately, aod whim each party haa executed I copy thereof, such copics taken together shall be deemed to be a full and complete connet between the parties. ~tyof~ !f~ By:Cil:y D>.!l'Z .3 - 3-~ b BtTfER By: DATE 385 INOTE: Irthis offer is being countered or reJected. do nol sign thll document. Refer to 1181 386 ....!I9~l- ..oc"'Uon, LLC SIILLI!:R By: SmUggler Ao80ci.aUon, ~ D>."" ;yl;~~ !&~\)L\~~~~~~~~~\\\~mkk~\\~~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ !&&\~~~~~~~~~S~)~~~~~n~~~~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ )&~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 1~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~~~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ U~ lU l\I\o...'Ct~lolslo'u'''I~.....'tk\ill\ftiY\Jt~''''.olIlI'We..It!a''l~'aIdr'&'Yr.~~ llIoL<lIIde'(l'll\:) \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ PREPARED BY: Deyld J. MyW.. Eact. CBS 3-7.04, contraclto BIlY 100 Sell RnI E.Itate (Vacant L8Ild. F.rm -.Ranch), Colorado RaaI EsteteCllmrni8llion RealFASW SotlwIre, C2OO6, V&ralon e. 16. Solwllr8 ~red to; Cher Brwnrnef, THE MYLER LAW ARM PC 02128106 '-4:48:38 P.ge I of. 1~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ U4. \ lllrolUll~WL'EIl(I~ \ lMkiI<Io!m/plc\l\MJklR's ~Mt!l:v.ll<lipM1\M \Bo\,\,!,~ Mda~ 'ltoPdok\Spibil1lwl. ""1\4. kNJ. 1U \"k~k~'tOlIIt"..htdc\,"'~Nle'tO\<\dp'ele""U)lo\>~~'Ill.~\diM\dn\do"I~~l\.\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ l'~\~S~ki~.~~k\~"~\~~k~1l~\m~5~~.~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 1~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 1~\~\.kkkill~5W\~~k~I~\\~~.~.~\m~5~~""~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ -~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ _ft~\ll~~\~~NS~~~~~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ WI \ ~hi ll'IdIIoIo-, 'l'ldd\I"l<....~\illr\ ll1\(\dn\rloldillr\ k'fh ~ ~'Il"'y~ \ {SJ~IINl1Malit"'i1"'\ \0 "'~M'I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~\O~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ , _&4\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ W. \~ll<l.~"~Ll<"~llldkWl\r.~fulg\II/o\doll~..r.n.""om~MrMr~~\d.lll!Ij\lIi<l.h~\ \ \ G"".&\ \ ~k\ \ \ \ ~ftA\O~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\. ~ft~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ~ft&\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ _~\i~~i~~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ By: Signature Date ~\~\Lk"hi~~~~\N~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ~\~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ _\1\D>~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\S~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ _\4.\~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ~~\W~~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ PREPARED BY: Dmd J. Myler" EIIq. CBS 3-7..tM., Cona'aClt to 8uy ItKl SeD Rul EIt8Is (Vacant L.ancI ~ f8l'm. Ranc:h~ CQonKIo Ro8I !alate CommIssion RulFAmO ~ CDroa, V...... 6,'6, _ R_ lo: C.... B,"",""". THE t>M.ER LAW FIRM PC Buyer(s) 0212M)6 ''':48:38 Pas-IIof' SoIIef(s)_ ADDENDUM A to Contract ~ Buy and Sell Real Estate B>jYer: City of Aspen Da~: February 28, 2006 i 24. Additional Provisions a. S' (-h b. c. d. The EameSl Money described iniparagrapb 4 shall be paid to Seller no later than I business day after the Jnspectioni Objection Deadline. SurveyS. Seller shall deliver to ~uyer copies of such surveys of the Property as Seller has in its possession prior to the SurYey Deadline. Buyer shall be entitled to obtain updates of the surveys at its expenses. : I Seller's Acquisition of the pro~'rty. Buyer acknowleges and understands that Seller is not the owner of the Property 0 the date of this Contract but has a valid and enforceable option to purchase the Property m its current owners, Tulasi and Jaya Wilkinson. Seller's perfonnance is conting t upon its acquisition of the Property prior to the Closing Date. ' i , , Conservation Easement. Prior jo Closing, Seller shall have the right to create one or more conservation easements ir\ grosS on the Property ("Conservation Easements") pursuant to the requirements of\Article 30.5 of the Title 38, C.R.S. and Section 17O(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of IP86, as amended, (the C.R-S. are IRC requirements"). Provided that the docume nts ei2denCing the Conservation Easements shall satisfy the CRS and IRC requirements an approved by Buyer, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, Seller execute and deliver any documents deemed reasonable and necessary by S lIer to grant the Conservation Easements including recordation of the documents e0dencing the Conservation Easements, and the Conservation Easements shalll:ncumber the PropertY at Closing. The Conservation Easements shall be Permitted J!,xceptions and Buyer agrees to accept title to the Property subject to the Conservation Eaj.ements. Seller shaU provide Buyer with copies of all documents evidencing the COliservation Easement prior to execution thereof by Seller and Seller shall allow Buyer t9 make comments on the fonn of the Conservation Easement. Seller shall considclr the comments of Buyer in connection with finalizing thc Conservation Easements but S~ller shall nnt be obligated to incorporate all of thc commen~ of Buyer into the Ctservation Easements. Bargain/Sale. Sellers have o~ed an Option to purchase the Property since January 31, 2002 (the Option"). The Selle\li recently exercised the Option. Since the date Sellers aequired the Option and subs~quent to the date of the exercise of the Option, Seller and Buyer acknowledge that the PFoperty has substantially appreciated in value. Seller in furtherance of the charitable ~urposes of Seller, Seller desires to give, donate, transfer, gift over and convey to Buyei~ and Buyer desires to receive, accept and aequire from Seller the excess of the value pf the Property over the Purchase Price. The transfer of the Property to Buyer by Seller cqmtemplated hereby will qualify as a charitable contribution as defined in Section 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the e. ~( "Code"). Buyer shall use the Property exclusively in furtherance of its public purposes. On the Closing Date, Buyer shall have accepted the gift contemplated hereby. Buyer will comply with all reporting requirements ofthe Code, as amended, in connection with the tranSaction contemplated hereby. Buyer acknowledges that Seller's gift hereunder is made out of Seller's detached and disinterested generosity and that, from and after the Closing Date, Sellers shall not retain any residual or pecunilU)' interest of any nature whatsoeVer in the fee interest in the Property which is the subjcct of such gift. Buyer covenants and agrees that it shall execute such further documents as Seller may request in confirmation of such acknowledgment The parties agree to execute and deliver such I.R.S. fomlS as Seller may reasonably require in connection with the making of a gift to a taX-exempt organization and the acceptance thereof, including, but not limited to, I.R.S. Fonn 8283. Seller and Buyer agree that the fair market value (as that tenn is defined in I.R.S. Regulation l.l 70A-I (c)) of the Property, which is the subjcct of the gift contemplated herein, as of the Closing Date shall be determined by an appraiser mutually agreed to by the parties. f. Assignment The Property consists of three separate parcels of Property (individually, a parcel"). Prior to Closing, Seller shall have the right to convey title ("Conveyance") to the separate Parcels to one or more members of Seller and/or to one or mme entities owned in whole or part by members of Seller (individually, a "Pennitted Assignee") provided that a Permitted Assignee assumes the obligations of this Contract as it relates to a Parcel conveyed to a Permitted Assignee (" Assumption") In connection with such Conveyance and Assumption. the Seller and Permitted Assignee shall have the right to allocate the Purchase Price among the Parcels not in excess of the Purchase Price bereunder pursuant to a written agreement executed by Seller and all of tbe Permitted Assignees. Further, at the request of Seller, Buyer agrees to enter into separate Contracts with all of the Pennitted Assignees on the same tenDS and conditions therein. except as to account for the sale of only one Parcel provided that a condition to Closing all of tbe Parcels shall be required to be closed simultaneously. g. Seller's Costs. Seller shall provide Buyer with a description of its costs incurred in connection with acquiring, holding and seeking development approvals for the Property no later than March 10, 2006: h. Continuance of Approval Process. Seller's perfonnance in contingent upon an agreement by the Board of COlmty Commissioners of Pitkin County to continue its consideration of pending land use applications for the Contraband and Result to a date following the Closing Date. i. Aspen City Council Approval. This Contract is specifically contingent upon the foimal approval thereof by the City of Aspen City Council as evidenced by a resolution authorizing and ratifying the Contract. Buyer sball deliver to Seller a resolution of the City Council authorizing the terms of this Contract no later than March 17, 2006. j. Seller shall convey any and all mineral rights appurtenant tn the Property and owned by Seller to Buyer at Closing by quit claim deed. ' O:\Cllcnl\Smuggler Ridge Aaociatel\Cily of Mpen Smug&ler 'RidSC AI&OC Contract Addendum A 0302D6,wpd ~r 5/rfc1' MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council CC: Steve Barwick, City Manager FROM: Phil Overeynder, Public Works Director DATE: May 30, 2007 RE: Red Mountain Waterline replacement SUMMARY: The City of Aspen Water Department desires to replace portions of the Red Mountain Waterline coinciding with Pitkin County's reconstruction of same road. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council requested review and re-submittal with revised cost structure line items. Existing 2007 appropriations for water mainline replacements together with hydrant replacements totals $165,000. BACKGROUND: N/A DISCUSSION: The County owns Red Mountain Road, (the "Road") and will be reconstructing portions of the Road from Spring to Fall of2007, (the "Project"). The City owns and maintains a waterline located within the Road right of way and desires to work with the County's Contractor on the Project, (Aspen Earthmoving), to replace portions of the waterline, (the "Waterline Work") within the Project's scope. Executing this project during this time period is critical to avoid future destruction of the reconstructed Road. Validation for the Waterline Work includes history of increasing failure, shallow burial, and need to replace the outdated cast iron pipe with improved ductile material pipe. Plans The engineering plans were prepared by Schmueser Gordon Meyer, entitled "Red Mountain Road"; dated 08/28/06, revised 4/3/07, (the "Project Plans"). The Waterline Work plans: prepared by McLaughlin Rincon LTD, entitled "Red Mountain Road Water Line and Electrical Replacements"; dated 01/06, (the "Waterline Plans"). Responsibilities and communication The City will undertake all design and permitting relating to the Waterline Work, and be responsible for construction inspection of the work. Change requests by the City shall be communicated to the County Engineer and the County shall retain ultimate authority over how work on the Waterline Work shall progress. The County shall advocate the City's position if a 1 conflict arises with Aspen Earthmoving with regard to what is required by the Contract or the Plans. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The Waterline Work would be executed based on unit prices agreed to between the County and Contractor. The City shall reimburse the County for any and all costs pertaining to the Waterline Work included in the County's contract with the Contractor. The County will invoice the City, which shall be paid within 30 days from the invoice date. The total cost to the City is $314,716.09. (See attached cost structure in the LG.A.). A supplemental appropriation of $150,000 will be necessary. This cost can be offset against two budgeted system expansions (Tiehack Road & Burlingame to AABC connection), which will not go to construction in 2007. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: Executing the Waterline Work in collaboration with the Road reconstruction will utilize resources, equipment, manpower, materials, and time most efficiently. This will minimize construction waste in the local landfill and use less fuel and natural resources. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Red Mountain Waterline replacement in collaboration with the County's Red Mountain Road reconstruction. ALTERNATIVES: Red Mountain Waterline replacement could be postponed to a future date. This would cost more than synchronizing efforts with the County's Red Mountain Road reconstruction since destruction and reconstruction of the Road would need to be completed. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Resolution # of 2007. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: (A) Intergovernmental Agreement between Pitkin County and City of Aspen concerning City of Aspen Water Line and Red Mountain Road Construction. 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Phil Overeynder, Public Works Director THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager DATE OF MEMO: May 21,2007 MEETING DATE: June 11, 2007 RE: Purchase of a replacement turbine runner for the Ruedi Hydroelectric Powerplant. REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff recommends the purchase of a replacement turbine runner for the Ruedi Hydroelectric Power plant. The recommended replacement option will cost $356,030 for fabrication and delivery, but will not include installation at the present time. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council approved $155,000 for the replacement of the bassler relay (generator exciter) for Ruedi in the 2007 Asset Management Plan (AMP) and $136,000 for the replacement of the turbine runner in 2008. BACKGROUND: A small 301 crack has been identified on the turbine runner (wheel) and some corrosion is taking place. Although information from Gilkes (turbine manufacturer) indicates the crack is not immediately concerning, it should be monitored in future armual inspections. DISCUSSION: The City of Aspen Public Works has a quote from GE Energy for furnishing a proofed machine casting (phase 1) and furnishing the final dressing, machining, and shipping (phase 2) of the runner. Staff believes it is in the City's best interest to purchase the runner now as we are seeing dramatic increases in material costs and fluctuating exchange rates for the British Pound (the runner is fabricated in Great Britain). Acquiring a back-up runner is the best contingency plan in the event of a failure ofthe current runner. A failure of the turbine runner would account for the Ruedi Hydroelectric Plant being off-line for a year or more due to the lead- time on this piece of equipment. At current purchase power rates, this would result in an increased power cost of $800,000 to make up for lost production at Reudi. Present contingency thinking is to order the runner, thereby locking in material costs, but not install the replacement runner until it is clear that failure is imminent. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The 2007 Asset Management Plan has $155,000 budgeted for the replacement of the bassler relay (generator exciter) and $136,000 budgeted for Page 1 of2 the replacement of the Ruedi turbine runner in 2008. The total cost of the turbine runner (phases 1&2) replacement contract with GE Energy is $356,030. Staff would like to use the 2007 bassler relay moneys in the amount of $155,000 in addition to a supplemental in the amount of $201,030 for the remaining contract amount of with GE Energy for this 2007 contract. We will then request appropriations for additional funds for the bassler relay replacement in 2008. The relay equipment replacement is not as critical as replacement of the turbine runner as parts are available on a relatively short lead-time. ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACTS: If the existing turbine runner fails without the availability of a replacement, the City would lose a year or more of a renewable energy source. This accounts for approximately 1/3 of the City of Aspen's energy portfolio. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the purchase of a replacement turbine runner for the Ruedi Hydroelectric Powerplant. AL TERNA TIVES: Alternatives include deleting phase 2 of the contract with GE Energy for the manufacturing of a proofed machined casting at a cost of $131,697. This alternative would avoid rapid escalation of material cost, but still runs the risk of putting the power plant off line for a substantial time period. This alternative implies a delay due to the need to finish machine work on the runner and arrange for shipment of the runner from Great Britain in the event the existing turbine runner fails. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Resolution # of2007. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: April 18, 2007 GE Energy Standard Services Quick Quote for runner replacement (p. 1,6) Page2of2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Transportation & Parking Department John Krueger, Lynn Rumbaugh, Tim Ware THRU: Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager DATE OF MEMO: May 3, 2007 MEETING DATE: May 14, 2007 RE: Supplemental Request - 2007 Summer TDM Measures REQUEST OF COUNCIL: To follow up on direction received at the May 1 City Council work session, staff requests that Council approve the attached supplemental budget request for $226,500 from the General Fund for the purpose of implementing summer Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures. Council's approval of this item on the May 14 Consent Calendar will direct staffto proceed with these expenditures and this funding request will be included on the next supplemental appropriation ordinance. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: . At its May I work session, City Council approved a package of summer TDM measures including enhanced bus service to the Brush Creek park-and-ride lot, afternoon peak hour intersection improvements, changes to carpool parking policies, increased residential enforcement, carpool facilities at Brush Creek and marketing/promotion efforts. . At its April 23 meeting, City Council expressed concerns about summer traffic congestion. Council requested that staff generate a menu of short-term options to help mitigate the traffic congestion problem this summer. BACKGROUND: The Aspen Area Community Plan states that traffic entering and exiting Aspen should be kept at 1993 levels in perpetuity. This goal has been met through a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management program that includes: paid parking; frequent transit service; carpool incentives; a carshare service and employer outreach. Although Average Daily Traffic has remained at 1993 levels, peak congestion hours have extended resulting in longer periods of congestion. In summer 2006, 40-minute travel times between Aspen and the Airport Business Center were commonplace, even during mid-day hours. In April 2007, Council requested that staff bring forward a menu ofTDM options that could be instituted quickly for the purpose of easing summer traffic congestion. Page 1 of4 DISCUSSION: Staff brought forth a number of summer TDM options. At its May 1 work session, Council approved the following measures for summer implementation: Brush Creek Transit Service Staff will attempt to contract with RFT A to provide bus service between Rubey Park and the Brush Creek Park & Ride. This bus will depart Brush Creek at :15 and :45 past each hour, creating IS-minute service when combined with existing departures at :00 and :30. This service will be free to the users. In addition, the City will cover fares for riders boarding existing Valley bus service (:00 and :30 departures) between Aspen and Brush Creek. This service will operate from 6am-6pm at an estimated cost of $90,000. It is important to note that, although this service will be requested, staff cannot guarantee its implementation. This is due to the fact that driver shortages continue to be a major problem for RFT A. Changes to CamooI Parking Program Staff will modify the current parking policy in order to encourage increased carpooling. Specifically, two-person carpools will be allowed free carpool parking year-round provided that all members of the carpool are of driving age (16 and older). Currently, free carpool parking permits are provided to carpools of three or more people during the summer and winter seasons. Two or more people qualify for a free permit during the spring and fall shoulder seasons. Staff believes that the benefits of this policy change will be many: . Eliminate the confusion and frustration associated with seasonal changes . Eliminate free carpool parking permits being provided to carpools consisting of only one adult. . Promote the program's ultimate goal of encouraging adults to carpool, therefore removing more vehicles from traffic. . Encourage increased carpooling as forming a two-person carpool is less daunting than putting together a larger group. Carpool Permits at Brush Creek In conjunction with providing carpool permits to groups oftwo or more people of driving age, staff will immediately begin the process of hiring a part-time parking officer to man a summer carpool permit pick-up location at the Brush Creek Park & Ride. Staffs hope is that solo drivers will be encouraged to meet at Brush Creek and form casual carpools for the purpose of receiving convenient free parking. Increased Enforcement of Residential Parking Zones As part of the summer TDM package, staff will immediately begin the hiring process for a part- time parking enforcement officer to increase the enforcement of residential parking areas. The half-time position discussed above will also be dedicated to increased residential enforcement in addition to services provided at Brush Creek. With the addition of two seasonal staff, the Page 2 of 4 majority of residential areas could be enforced with more regularity. Staff believes that an increased need to shuffle on the part of drivers could decrease the incentive to park in these areas. It is estimated that the cost of hiring two part-time summer officers is $15,000. The estimated revenue associated with increased residential enforcement is $77,000. Hwv 82 Traffic Flow Imurovements at Cemetery Lane and Truscott Intersections Staff will immediately begin working with CDOT on a proposal to eliminate left turns from Cemetery Lane or Truscott Place onto Hwy 82 from 3-6pm on weekdays during the summer. In addition, left turns from Power Plant Road to Hwy 82 will be prohibited during these same hours. Drivers traveling to Bugsy Barnard Park and the City Parks Department will be allowed to make the left turn. In order to gain CDOT approval for this demonstration, staff would need to hire a professional traffic control firm to man the impacted intersections. The estimated cost of this traffic control is $50,000. Traffic Analvsis In conjunction with the traffic flow improvements discussed above, staff will hire a traffic engineering firm to perform data collection and analysis at the affected intersections. The estimated cost of these services is $58,000. Marketin21Communication An extensive print and radio campaign will be needed to communicate these options and policy/traffic changes should they be adopted. In addition, staff will provide amenities such as bottled water, coffee coupons, giveaways and appreciation events at Brush Creek to further highlight the location as an intercept location. Staff estimates a cost of $12,000 will be needed for the purchase of newspaper, radio and other advertising as well as updating and reprinting of various schedules, brochures and other public information pieces. FINANCIAUBUDGET IMPACTS: As discussed at the May I work session, the Transportation and Parking Fund is not equipped to cover the expenses associated with the above summer TDM measures. With that understanding, Council agreed that funding would be provided by the General Fund. A supplemental budget request form is included with this memo as Attachment A. Expenses Brush Creek Transit Service $ Part-Time Parking Staff Traffic Control Personnel Traffic Analysis CommunicationlMarketing: Miscellaneous supplies Total General Fund Expense 90,000 $ 15,000 $ 50,000 $ 58,000 $ 12. 000 $ 1500 $226,500 Revenue Residential enforcement $ 77. 000 Page 3 of4 Total Revenue $ 77,000 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The Environmental Health Department is supportive of the above TDM measures as a means of reducing air pollution and emissions. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that City Council approve the supplemental budget request for $226,500. ALTERNATIVES: 'Council could choose not to fund this package ofTDM measures. 'Council could choose to fund selected portions of the above TDM measures. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: 'Attachment A: Supplemental Budget Request Form Page 4 of 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tim Ware. Parking THRU: Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager DATE OF MEMO: MEETING DATE: RE: Transportation & Parking Work Session PROPOSED PARKING MODIFICATIONS: In 1995, the City of Aspen implemented the parking management program in the commercial core and the Residential Permit Parking areas. This program included several payment and permit options to address the diverse needs of many different types of customers. The Transportation and Parking Department has reviewed the program over the last year and has identified some options to improve the parking program that Council may wish to direct staff to explore and implement. In our review, staffs primary focus was on implementing programs that would help reduce levels of traffic and improve pedestrian friendliness in town during the peak seasons. A number of parking program modifications have been offered for consideration as potential measures for reducing parking occupancy, encouraging transit ridership and increasing revenue generation for TDM programs. These include changes to residential parking, service vehicle parking and seasonal fee variations in the commercial core. 1. Residential Parking Modifications Parking staff would like Council to consider modifications to the residential parking program. The current enforcement practice involves staggered routes and schedules in order to create unpredictability and discourage a shuffling of vehicles every two hours. Even with that effort, it is estimated that over 50% of the vehicles in two-hour residential parking areas are simply moving their vehicles whenever they are chalked. This results in increased traffic and parking congestion and a reduction in potential transit ridership. Parking Officers have completed the process of collecting data on the number of vehicles parked within a four-block radius of the commercial core to determine the number of cars using residential parking; how many of these vehicles are permitted; and how many drivers are simply moving their cars to avoid the two-hour limit. Staff has used these survey data to make the following recommendations to City Council. The purpose of the current residential program was to prevent spillover parking from the commercial core into residential areas once the paid parking component was put into place. The program allows for up to two hours of parking without a permit Monday through Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm. Residents are issued permits that exempt their vehicles and their guest's vehicle from the weekday time restrictions. 1 Other permits that are valid within the residential zones include Lodge Permits, carpool permits, and $5.00 Day Passes. The residential parking area includes approximately 3,000 parking spaces that are divided into four different zones that surround the commercial core area and cover the area between the Castle Creek Bridge and the Cooper Avenue Bridge. Residents who live within the residential zones receive permits that allow them to park at or near their homes. The number one enforcement challenge is the two-hour parking allowance without a permit. Currently officers enforce the two-hour zones by chalking tires or using an electronic vehicle marking system. The officers make rounds at random times throughout the day checking for chalked tires. Staff conducted surveys this winter to determine what kinds of parking are occurring in the residential parking zone spaces. The three blocks surrounding the commercial core were the primary focus of the survey. The survey was conducted over a two-week period at various times of the day. There were approximately 1500 spaces and 4000 parked vehicles observed during the survey period. · 49.7% of all vehicles surveyed displayed no permit of any kind. This represents approximately 500 - 650 cars a day that are moving every two hours to avoid being ticketed. · 7.3% of the vehicles displayed the $5.00 per day passes. · 11.9% of the vehicles had valid residential stickers. . 8.3% had guest passes. . 8.5% of the vehicles had business residential passes. . 2.0% had carpool passes. (not including carpool vehicles parked in carpool-only spaces) . 2.5% had lodge permits. . 9.8% had various temporary permits (e.g., short.term residential, construction, special event permits) The survey clearly shows that are largest user group of the residential parking spaces are moving around to defeat the two hour time restriction. The department is requesting Council's consideration of the following options that would not only assist with freeing up residential parking spaces, but would have a significant impact on peak season traffic congestion and increase the incentive for using transit. Residential Parking Option 1 This option outlines an expanded paid parking system. The paid parking area would expand approximately three blocks in each direction from the commercial core and include about 1500 2 parking spaces (see attached map). The plan would prevent all the shuffling that is occurring to beat the two-hour restriction. This option would replace the current two hour parking restriction and would work as follows: )> $1.00 per hour Monday through Friday 1 0:00am - 5:00pm. )> Full day passes from the meter would be $7.00 per day )> Residential, Guest, Lodge, Carpool and Hybrid Vehicle permits would be exempt from payment. )> The rest of the residential areas beyond the additional three-block radius would remain residential permit parking. The two hour parking would still be allowed but changed to reflect the following: Any non'permitted vehicle will be allowed to park for up to two hours in one zone per 24 hour period. Once a vehicle has been registered in that zone they will be required to move after that two hours. This option would provide parking patrons with a considerable number of payment options. Current day pass customers would no longer need to stop to buy day passes, this payment option would be available at the residential pay stations, as well. The plan does require the purchase and installation ono - 75 pay,and,display meters. Financial Implications The cost of the additional meters would be approximately $850,000 for the 75 units. An additional $50,000 for new signs and posts and $50,000 for delivery and installation would also be needed. While this option is intended to be in place year-round, using a very conservative revenue calculation formula of 25% occupancy during only peak seasons at $7.00 per day, staff estimates additional revenue of about $350,000 per year from the meters and citations. When the current revenue of about $90,000 per year from day pass sales is netted out, net new revenues from this option would be approximately $260,000 per year. All start-up costs would be paid off within three years and there are no anticipated increases in labor necessary to implement this option. Residential Parking Option 2 The entire residential permit parking zones could be converted into "permit-only" parking. This would eliminate the two-hour parking allowance. This plan does limit parking options and present some difficulties for visitors who would be required to obtain a permit of some kind before parking. The "convenience costs" of this option are very significant and the number of parking tickets issued to violators can be expected to increase dramatically. Financial Implications While there are no up-front equipment costs for this option, the big cost would be converting all the current residential signs for approximately $50,000. There would be additional printing cost that created by a higher use of one-day passes at $5,000 annually, and public information costs would need to increase by about $25,000 per year in order to clearly communicate the need to obtain a permit before parking anywhere outside of the core. 3 Revenues from this option are difficult to predict, but could approximate the $260,000 a year that Option I would produce, once steady compliance and a very high level of public information are attained. Residential Parking Option 3 This option could involve more or less of an expansion of the paid parking area, with a corresponding increase or decrease in the "permit-only" parking zone. Residential Parking Option 4 Leave the residential zones the way that they are. Recommendations )> For the residential program staff recommends option I or 3. This gives our customers the most flexibility and eliminates vehicles moving around to avoid the two-hour limit. 4 TO: THRU: CC: FROM: RE: DATE: Mayor and City Council City Manager's Office Finance Office Tom McCabe 2007 Supplemental Budget Request 9/18/07 Summary: Truscott is requesting additional funding for the renovation of the laundry facility in the 100 building. Currently there is $35,000 in the AMP plan for this project. The new projected cost is approximately $91,480. The original plan was to break the project up over two years. Truscott would like to do the whole project at once because the laundry machines have reached the end of their useful life and it is costing more to repair them than it would to replace them. The technology is old and they use large amounts of water and gas. Background and Discussion: The laundry room in the 100 building at Truscott serves as the main laundry room for approximately 98 apartments. This laundry room consists oftwelve washers and seven stacked dryers. The current machines have been in operation for approximately 14 years. The expected life cycle of these machines is 5-7 years. Truscott is interested in renovating the current facility and upgrading the machines with high efficiency front loading washers. New energy efficient machines use 2/3 less water and spin more water out reducing drying times. The current room is outdated and has had problems with trespassers. Truscott is also interested in installing a smart card system which can adjust laundry pricing during peak times as well as secure the facility from non-tenants. The goal of this project is to reduce GHG emissions and water usage by 50% and also create a pleasant environment for tenants to do their laundry. The following estimate is based on a site visit from a contractor from the Denver area who specializes in commercial laundry. Equipment and materials: $66,480 (includes $15,000 discount) Labor: $25,000 (Plumbing, electric, flooring and installation) Total: $91,480 The laundry room in its current state generates: $25,000/year. Projected revenue with increased pricing: $40,000/year. Besides utilities, maintenance after the warranty period would be the only additional future costs. With routine maintenance, the new machines should have a useful life of lO+ years. Alternatives: Laundry is a great source of revenue at Truscott. Contracting the service has not been considered. Cheaper machines that are not energy star compliant are available at a lower cost. Higher utility usage will make these machines cost more over time. Different configurations of machine sizes may keep costs lower. TRUSCOTT 100 BUILDING LAUNDRY ROOM RENOVATIONS The City of Aspen is accepting proposals for the renovation of the laundry room in the 100 building at Truscott. The Offeror will provide the design, equipment, and installation to upgrade the current laundry facility. The city is interested in high efficiency machines and also the use of smart cards to reduce "coin labor" and increase security. The laundry room in the 100 building at Truscott serves as the main laundry room for approximately 98 apartments. The laundry room currently consists of twelve washers and seven stacked dryers. The number of replacement machines can vary depending on size to meet the current industry standard of washers to dryer pockets. The room is approximately 28' x 24' with 8' ceilings. Two design concepts including one with a smart card system and one with coin operated machines will be necessary. Please include all cost comparisons and projected utility use. In general, the scope of work is to remove and replace the existing laundry machines, make any necessary upgrades to plumbing and electric, and replace flooring. Replacement equipment ",ill be installed and programmed as well as all necessary appurtenances for a complete and functioning laundry facility. The scope of work shall include, but is not limited to the following: 1. Remove and dispose of existing laundry machines. 2. Cap lines appropriately to provide continuous domestic water and gas service. 3. Remove flooring and clean debris and stains from floors and walls. Perform remedial work as necessary to return room to "like new" condition. 4. Inspect all drains and supply lines to insure proper operation. 5. Install new flooring preferably a non-skid epoxy and vinyl stair treads. 6. Add ventilation for dryer combustion. 7. Install new laundry machines including plumbing and venting. 8. Retain or rebuild bulkheads hiding utilities. 9. Install smart card system. 10. Program, test, adjust and balance all systems according to specifications. II. Replace entry lock to function with the smart card. 12. Report any discrepancies discovered to the engineer immediately. 13. Report all site conditions with cost impacts to the engineer prior to bidding. The work is to be scheduled as to impact the building for as short of duration as possible due to the fact that tenants will be residing in the complex during construction. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Janet Krasnoff, Operations Specialist, Truscott Phase I THRU: Cindy Tucker-Davis, Properly Manager Supervisor, Housing THRU: Tom McCabe, Director of Housing DATE: August 13, 2007 RE: Ongoing Supplemental for Truscott 4912007 budget SUMMARY: This is to increase the maintenance wage and supply budget at Truscott Phase 1. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: N/A DISCUSSION: Maintenance has experienced unanticipated overtime wages due to snow removal and other emergency after hours calls. Also, there were an unusually high number of turnovers due to tenants needing to prove their legal status in the country prior to lease renewal. There has also been extra work performed by our maintenance team to continue improving the properly's current condition. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The Truscott fund has sufficient cash balances to support this request. We are estimating that maintenance wages and benefits will need to be increased by $25,000 and maintenance supplies by $10,000. We anticipate that this will be an ongoing issue that needs to be included in all subsequent budgets. RECOMMENDATION: Approval to increase budget authority by $35,000 for 2007 and subsequent years. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve increasing the budget authority for Truscott Phase I by $35,000. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Bentley Henderson DATE OF MEMO: September 18,2007 MEETING DATE: October 19, 2007 RE: 2007 Asset Management Fund Adjustments SUMMARY: Provided for your consideration is the following additional information regarding certain adjustments to the 2007 General Fund Asset Management Plan (AMP). As staff has worked through the plan, the need for certain changes has become evident. As you will note form the attached information, the changes include both reductions and increases to appropriations. The net change to the 2007 AMP is a $1.6 million dollar reduction. BACKGROUND: Provided is a spreadsheet defming all of the changes. Itemized Adjustments in the 2007 Asset Management Capital Plan Project 07.83095- Council chambers remodel 11.82060- First Floor Remodel-carry forward project 13.82077- General office improvements 13.82078- Computer software 15.82002 - ROW C&G ADA Corrections 15.82022- Survey monuments 15.82130- Pedestrian Improvements- Park Ave 15.83075- Bridge replacement program 25.25505- Opacity meters 41.81047- Old shop + Power Plant Original Budgeted Amount $274,990 $75,000 $40,000 $5,400 $340,560 $12,000 $36,000 $45,000 $5,000 $416,890 Reduction I Addition $0 $0 -$30,000 $0 -$110,384 $0 $0 -$45,000 -$5,000 $0 New 2007 Capital Budget $274,990 $75,000 $10,000 $5,400 $230,176 $12,000 $36,000 $0 $0 $416,890 Project Original Budgeted Amount $50,000 $35,000 $40,000 $367,890 $1,023,100 $7,690 $170,500 $503,560 $33,850 $23,930 $25,000 $15,500 $10,000 $22,000 $10,000 $20,000 $256,450 $38,870 $44,940 $20,000 $30,000 $35,000 $13,490 $12,000 $8,500 $15,000 $40,000 $12,000 $95,000 $6,000 $16,000 $28,000 $24,000 $6,000 $6,600 $10,000 $5,000 $13,000 $31,700 $8,000 $6,000 $9,800 $959,100 $8,000 $48,710 41,81090- Efficiency measures 41,81097- Mason/painting/power washing/roof exten 41,81098- Concrete/Asphalt repair 41,82003- Street Improvements 41,83005- Fleet Acq.lReplacement 41,83062- Air Reels For City Shop 61,61500-I.S. County Only 100% Reimbursed 61.82057- I.S. Gen Fund Systems 61,83060- City/County Phone Sys 61.83061- Fiber-backbone-City Net 71.11000- REC Administration 71.71001- Carpeting for high traffic area 71.71002- Batting cages 71.71003- Iselin tennis courts replacement 71.71004- Hydraulic bungee system 71.71005- Mats for Gym & Climbing wall 71.83065- Redbrick West End expansion 71.83070- Red Brick Energy Saving Improvements 72.72101- ARC Operational Improvements 72.72601- ARC Capitallmpr, Master 72.72606- ARC-Drop Slide 72.72609, Pool Spray Features 72,72612- Underwater pool lights 72.72613- Supplemental pool lighting 72.72614- Strip and rewax concrete 72.72620- ARC faciiity carpet 72.72621- Cardio workout machines 72.72622- Copier 72.72623- Locker room renovation 72.72632- Overhaul Sewer Ejector Pump # 1 72.72641- Back entry ceiling replacement 72.72642- Skid steer loader 72.72643, Ballast and bulb replacement 72,72644- Vapor barrier installation 72.72645, Install water meters 72,72646- Install safety shroud 72.72647 - Address chronic roof defects 72.72702- L1A Refrig Compressor 72.72703- L1A Separate Shower Forman 72.72704, Mondo Rubber Floor 72.72706, L1A acrylic hockey board faces 72.72707- Replace hot water boiler zam room 72,82062- Energy Efficiency -ARC 72.83027- L1A Battery Pack 74,81021- Compressor Reduction / Addition $0 $0 $0 -$367,890 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 .$22,000 -$10,000 $0 $165,450 $0 $0 $0 -$30,000 $0 $0 $0 -$8,500 $0 $0 $0 -$83,497 -$6,000 -$8,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$31,700 -$8,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$48,710 New 2007 Capital Budget $50,000 $35,000 $40,000 $0 $1,023,100 $7,690 $170,500 $503,560 $33,850 $23,930 $25,000 $15,500 $10,000 $0 $0 $20,000 $421,900 $38,870 $44,940 $20,000 $0 $35,000 $13,490 $12,000 $0 $15,000 $40,000 $12,000 $11,503 $0 $8,000 $28,000 $24,000 $6,000 $6,600 $10,000 $5,000 $13,000 $0 $0 $6,000 $9,800 $959,100 $8,000 $0 Project 74.81038- Locker replacement 74.81039- Floor scrubbing machine 74.81067-lnstall best lock system 74,81068- Skate sharpener replacement 74.81069- Replace dehumidifier wheel 74.81070- Replace water meters 74.81071- Shower redo project 90.72601-ARC Outdoor Swimming Pool 90.82051- Jenny Adair Constructed Wetlands 90.82076- Side Walk Improvements 91.03000- Tax collections Adjustment 91.24211- Yellow Brick Capital Repairs 91,31068-lsis Remodel 91,55110- Retail Property Maintenance 91.71655- 455 Rio Grande Place 91.81001- City Hall Repairs 91.81005- Cemetery Lane houses 91.81006-AMP HVAC 91.81007- City Hall Carpeting 91.81023- Lighting 91.81033- City Hall A1C 91,81048- Dwell Project 91.82001- Animal Shelter 91.82054- City housing AABC 91.82060- City Hall First Floor Remodel 91.82110- Rio Grand Recycle Center 91,82120- Construction of Storm Sewer 91.83042- Water Place Employee Housing 91.83069- Redbrick remodel 91.83096- Waterplace housing repaint Total AMP Expenses Transfers for Debt Service Total A ro riations: Reduction in 2007 Capital Budget for 2nd Su lemental Original Budgeted Amount $10,000 $7,000 $6,500 $13,000 $6,000 $7,000 $20,000 $322,390 $736,230 $1,174,540 $90,000 $30,000 $1,525,000 $1,880 $119,600 $103,830 $40,700 $29,000 $95,000 $79,200 $548,270 $8,000 $0 $274,670 $300,000 $49,000 $25,000 $10,000 $0 $130,000 $11,177,830 $839,270 $12,017,100 Reduction I Addition -$10,000 $0 $0 -$13,000 $0 $0 -$20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$99,600 -$88,830 -$20,700 .$14,000 $0 -$79,200 -$548,270 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$80,000 -$1,622,831 $0 -$1 622831 -$1 622831 New 2007 Capital Budget $0 $7,000 $6,500 $0 $6,000 $7,000 $0 $322,390 $736,230 $1,174,540 $90,000 $30,000 $1,525,000 $1,880 $20,000 $15,000 $20,000 $15,000 $95,000 $0 $0 $8,000 $0 $274,670 $300,000 $49,000 $25,000 $10,000 $0 $50,000 $9,554,999 $839,270 $10394269 -$1,622831 DISCUSSION: The plan reflects the following adjustments: The following projects reflect adjustments that are the result of actual expenditures following either full or partial completion of the project. Or those project budgets that will only be partially completed. Project Original Reduction I New 2007 BUdgeted Addition Capital Amount Budget $40,000 -$30,000 $10,000 $340,560 -$110,384 $230,176 $95,000 -$83,497 $11,503 $16,000 -$8,000 $8,000 $119,600 -$99,600 $20,000 $103,830 -$88,830 $15,000 $40,700 -$20,700 $20,000 $29,000 -$14,000 $15,000 $130,000 -$80,000 $50,000 13.82077- General office improvements 15.82002 - ROW C&G ADA Corrections 72,72623- Locker room renovation 72,72641- Back entry ceiling replacement 91.71655- 455 Rio Grande Place 91.81001- City Hall Repairs 91.81005- Cemetery Lane houses 91.81006- AMP HVAC 91.83096- Waterplace housing repaint The following projects reflect adjustments that are the result of a recognition that a particular project may not be completed as was originally contemplated or is time constrained. Original Reduction I New 2007 Project Budgeted Addition Capital Amount Budget 15.83075- Bridge replacement program $45,000 -$45,000 $0 25.25505- Opacity meters $5,000 -$5,000 $0 41,82003- Street Improvements $367,890 -$367,890 $0 71.71003-lselin tennis courts replacement $22,000 -$22,000 $0 71.71004- Hydraulic bungee system $10,000 ,$10,000 $0 72. 72606- ARC-Drop Slide $30,000 -$30,000 $0 72.72614- Strip and rewax concrete $8,500 -$8,500 $0 72,72632- Overhaul Sewer Ejector Pump # 1 $6,000 -$6,000 $0 72,72703- L1A Separate Shower Forman $31,700 ,$31,700 $0 72.72704- Mondo Rubber Floor $8,000 -$8,000 $0 74.81021- Compressor $48,710 -$48,710 $0 74.81038- Locker replacement $10,000 -$10,000 $0 74.81068- Skate sharpener replacement $13,000 -$13,000 $0 74.81071- Shower redo project $20,000 -$20,000 $0 91.81023- Lighting $79,200 -$79,200 $0 91,81033- City Hall A1C $548,270 -$548,270 $0 The Red Brick Building west end expansion suppiementai is required to complete the project as was originally planned. At the outset, it was understood that there would be an additional appropriation required as the pricing for the project when it was initially bid was over 18 months old. This information was disclosed to the City Council in April of 2006 when the contract was let for the project. 71,83065- Redbrick West End expansion $165,450 New 2007 Capital Budget $421,900 Project Original Budgeted Amount $256,450 Reduction I Addition FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: As is evident from the spreadsheet, the actual appropriation for the 2007 Asset Management plan has been reduced. The only line item that realized an increase was the Red Brick Building. RECOMMENDATION: 8taffrecommends approval of the revised 2007 Asset Management Plan as reflected in the attached spreadsheet. MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL THRU: STEVE BARWICK, CITY MANAGER JEFF WOODS, MANAGER OF PARKS & RECREATION CC: PAUL MENTER, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES LEE CASSIN, DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH GARY GOODSON, COMMUNITY OFFICE FOR RESOURCE EFFICIENCY FROM: TIM ANDERSON, RECREATION DIRECTOR DATE: APRIL 30, 2007 RE: ASPEN RECREATION CENTER ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROJECTS Request of Council: Staff is seeking the approval of a $1,165,694 contract between the City of Aspen and Long Building Technologies, for the implementation of energy efficient projects at the Aspen Recreation Center. Staff is excited to take this step towards a significant reduction in Green House Gas emissions while reducing utility costs at the ARC and enabling the ARC to exceed energy reductions set as part of the Canary Initiative Goals. This contract will take a huge step towards recognizing not only the ARC, but the City of Aspen as leaders in actively moving forward to further reduce our GHG emissions. At the same time staff is asking Council for an additional $162,000 in funding for this project. At this time approved funding is: . City of Aspen . CORE (REMP Funds) . Additional Funding Requested $919,000 $ 85,000 $162,000 Total $1,166,000 (rounded up) 1 . Council will find in their packet attachment "A" which includes table 2.1 or the implementation costs, gas and electric savings and energy reductions, along with the payback timeline for the implementation costs of this project. . Item 6.1 of this table identifies the sale of an existing piece of equipment at the ARC, and an estimate as to the price we could procure for such equipment. Staff has already addressed and is implementing items 6.2 & 6.3 (the family pool surfactant and the lap pool cover respectively) of this table. . Further more Council will see that item 6.19, the solar/thermal component of this plan has been extracted and placed alone on the bottom of the table. This is due to a recommendation from staff that this portion of the project should take a separate parallel track in design to include the outdoor pools and any other building additions that may be planned. Staff will bring this component of energy savings back to Council when a direction for outdoor pool construction has been established. . Items identified in 6.22 thru 6.24 are all components which have been considered for any future expansion or increases in use at the ARC. At this time staff is only recommending the installation of 6.22 and 6.24 of this table. The current mechanical systems in the ARC are maxed and are unable to handle any expansion. With the knowledge that outdoor pools will hopefully increase the user base at the ARC, and the improvement plan identifies added floor space to the ARC, it makes sense to move forward with these components now rather than later to accommodate the consideration of future expansion in patron's numbers as well as square feet to the facility. To wait on such additions to the mechanical systems would cost 3 times as much in the future. . Item 6.23 is not being recommended by staff at this time. This is the addition of a 3 rd domestic hot water heater to the facility in order to provide a constant delivery of hot water to patrons when taking showers or washing hands. However, the systems and space needed for the addition of this boiler are being provided such that it can be added at such time the user base warrants such an addition. The implementation of these system retro fits to the ARC will reduce GHG emissions by over 1.5 million pounds each year. This project would assist the ARC in meeting its 1 % internal greenhouse gas goals and the Chicago Climate Exchange reduction goals by reducing emissions 36% compared to the baseline year of2004. This is a considerable contribution to the City's Canary Initiative. The payback on the initial improvements to the existing systems at the ARC is estimated to be just over $130,000 annually in utility cost reductions or a payback on the improvements of7.7 years. With the addition of items 6.22 and 6.24 the return rises to just over 9 years, but with the consideration for future GHG reductions. 2 Option for Measurement & Verification (attachment "B") Staff is not recommending the measurement & verification option attached to this contract. It is not part of the contract price and is only in this packet as an option if Council chooses to add it. As identified in this attachment, there are too many variables to accurately measure and verify the accomplishment of projected energy reductions. Increased usage by patrons, weather conditions, and increases in utility costs can all affect energy consumption and cost reductions. Long Building Technologies have used sophisticated engineering calculations which have led to these estimates. Staff will stay on top of the energy costs at the ARC; compare charges and consumption by tracking the baseline usage and costs in years 2006 and 2007. In 2008 when the systems are fully functional, we will compare the % of reductions in cost and consumption against our baseline with consideration for increases in energy costs and numbers of patrons served. Previous Council Action: In the spring of2006 Council approved a contract with Long Building Technologies to perform an energy audit of the ARC and identify the potential for reducing energy consumption, thus reducing GHG emissipns and energy costs at the ARC. In October of2006 Long Building Technologies provided the findings of the audit, which had identified 22 mechanical system retro fits which would significantly reduce energy consumption at the ARC and reduce utility costs at the same time. The audit has identified a significant reduction in GHG emissions and a potential of reducing energy costs by a significant amount each year. A contract was presented to Council at that time for the design of the system retro fits and the identification of the implementation cost of these improvements. The contract before Council at this time is the implementation costs of this project following the design of system retro fits and upgrades. Background: When the City of Aspen adopted the Canary Initiative, and departments were directed towards energy reductions in City facilities, the ARC began seeking a mechanical engineering firm who would identify, develop, and implement energy efficient recommendations for the facility. The City contracted with Long Building Technologies and moved forward with an energy audit of the ARC in the spring/surruner of2006. The intent was to improve energy efficiency at the facility and to meet Canary Initiative Goals, while reducing energy costs and thus operational costs. A list of 22 projects were identified in the initial audit, and adopted by City Council in the fall of2006. At the same 2006 meeting Council directed 3 Long Building Technologies to begin design work on the projects identified in attachment and come back with implementation costs. What Council has before them today is a contract for the implementation of the projects identified in the fall 2006 audit and attachment "A". Currently, staff has implemented item 6.3, the lap pool covers, as identified in the audit and attachment "A", and is moving forward with the implementation of item 6.2, the family pool surfactant. Discussion: The City of Aspen organization has identified goals for departments to decrease their energy consumption by 1 % annually over a baseline year identified as 2004. In order to accomplish this goal on an ongoing basis, staff looked to the Community Office for Resource Energy (CORE), to assist us in how to accomplish this goal. CORE ran some initial calculations and assisted staff with some minor changes to mechanical systems which were implemented immediately. At the same time CORE identified that there was a huge potential for energy savings at the ARC and this needed further and deeper investigation. CORE assisted staff in the recruitment of Long Building Technologies for the purpose of auditing the energy consumption at the ARC and thus providing solutions to minimize that energy usage in the building. The contract before Council at this time is the final step after and audit of the mechanical systems, design of the retro fit of these mechanical systems, and now the implementation of the retro fits to take a monumental step towards reduction in energy consumption and meeting the Canary Initiative Goals established by this organization. Not only will the implementation of these improvement allow the ARC to reduce GHG emissions, but at the same time move in a direction of an increased cost recovery goal at the ARC. Staff and CORE would like to note that energy prices are expected to continue increasing over the next several years, which can adversely affect the cost savings the ARC may realize. At the same time the GHG reductions will be in place and allow the ARC to meet Canary Initiative goals. Financial Implications: Current expenditure authority along with REMP funding from CORE totals $1,004,000, amounting to a shortfall of$162,000 to implement the recommendations identified in this memo and attachment "A". The financial savings to the ARC operating budget is estimated to be over $130,000 annually. Recommended funding for this project stands as follows: Current available funding: CORE (REMP Funding) $919,000 $ 85,000 4 Additional Needed Funding $161,694 Contract amount: $1,165,694 Staffrecommends that the additional $162,000 needed to fund this contract be taken from the Asset Management Capital Fund. Environmental Impacts: This project will reduce the operational costs of the ARC by over $130,000 annually according to calculations by Long Building Technologies. In addition it is anticipated to reduce GHG emissions at the ARC by over 1.5 million pounds each year or the equivalent of 60 average U.S. homes annually. This would assist the ARC in meeting its 1 % internal greenhouse gas goals and the Chicago Climate Exchange reduction goals by reducing emissions 36% compared to the baseline year of 2004. This is a considerable contribution to the City's Canary Initiative. Recommended Action: Staff is recommending the approval of this contract for the purpose of reducing energy costs at the ARC, reducing GHG emissions, and continuing to reflect a leadership role in our community regarding the goals of the Canary Initiative. Alternatives: These projects as designed are the alternatives, Councils decision at this point would be to move forward with the project or not. Staff and the Engineers feel that we have the best alternatives identified to meet our goals of energy cost reductions and GHG emissions. Other alternatives would be to eliminate components of this contract. Proposed Motion: The proposed motion would be to approve resolution #_, a contract with Long Building Technologies, for the purpose of energy improvements to the Aspen Recreation Center, which will ultimately take unprecedented steps toward the accomplishment of the Canary Imitative Goals, a significant reduction of Green House Gas emissions, and take steps towards operational cost reductions at the ARC. Manager's Comments: 5 Attachments: . Contract by and between Long Building Technologies & the City of Aspen . "A" pricing . "B" Measurement & Verification Option . "C" Commitment ofREMP funds from CORE . "D" Specifications . Addendum to Scope of Work ************************** 6 RESOLUTION NO. 3t Series of 2007 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROJECTS IN THE ASPEN RECREATION CENTER, BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND LONG BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES, At'ill AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR OR CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONiRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a Contract for implementation of energy efficient projects for the Aspen Recreation Center, between the City of Aspen and Long Building Technologies, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract for implementation of energy efficient projects for the Aspen Recreation Center, between the City of Aspen and Long Building Technologies, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the Mayor or City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the d day of ~007. I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated. C:\Documents and Settings\tima.ASPENPITK1N\Local Settings\Temponu'Y Internet Files\OLKJD\ARC energyefficient.doc MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Tricia Aragon, P.E. City Engineer THRU: Bentley Henderson, Assistant City Manager DATE OF MEMO: September 20, 2007 MEETING DATE: RE: Additional Vehicle Request for Construction Mitigation Ofticers SUlVIMARY: Staff is requesting $25,000 for the 2007 Engineering Department Capital Budget in the form of a supplemental request for an additional vehicle. DISCUSSION: Council previously discussed the appropriations for the cost of two new Construction Mitigation Ofticers, and with these new positions Council also discussed the appropriations of funds for an additional vehicle for transportation around town for site visits for the Officers. A ballpark sum of $20,000 was discussed at the May 29,2007 City Council meeting. FINAc.'\lCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The sum of $25,000 will be used to purchase a new energy efficient vehicle for the Engineering Department, purchased through the Streets Department and added to the rotation of replacement schedule. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a new vehicle for the two new Construction Mitigation Officers. ALTERNATIVES: The Engineering Department does currently have one pick-up truck dedicated to construction mitigation, but with three officers one vehicle is hardly sufficient to cover the amount of construction square, footage it town. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Vlllh MEMORANDUM FROM: Mayor Ireland and City Council Jessica Garrow, Plannel(,) Wlb TO: THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director 0ith1 DATE OF MEMO: September 27, 2007 MEETING DATE: October 9, 2007 RE: Wienerstube Subdivision, Ordinance 29 Series 2007 After examining the agenda for the October 9,2007 Council Meeting, Staff requests the Public Hearing for 307 S. Spring and 625 E. Hyman (Wienerstube) Subdivision be continued to November 12,2007. This request is being made because this project has a later Ordinance number than the two other Land Use Applications on the Public Hearing portion ofthe October 9, 2007 City Council agenda (Cooper St. Pier at 508 E. Cooper and Jerome Professional Building at 201 N. Mill St.) and therefore Staff does not feel it is realistic that this application can be heard as it is currently scheduled. The Applicant is prepared to support this request from Staff. The Staff memo, findings, and information requested by City Council at first readin~ will be provided as part of the November 12,2007 packet. Staff will be at the October 9t meeting to answer any questions related to this continuation and the project.' PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to continue the Public Hearing for Ordinance No. 29, Series of2007, approving a Subdivision for the redevelopment at 307 South Spring and 625 East Hyman, to November 12,2007." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: 1 Staff is recommending approval of the Subdivision request. If City Council wishes to hear this application Staff is prepared to give a Staff presentation. '~a MEMORANDUM DATE OF MEMO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council Chris Bendon, Community Development Director C!JA W1 October 1, 2007 TO: FROM: MEETING DATE: October 9, 2007 RE: Isis Agreement Amendment - Resolution No. '6.;2, Series of 2007. REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The request before City Council is to amend the "Occupancy and Use Deed Restriction" for the Isis commercial unit # 1 - the retail space. The use restriction is an agreement between the City of Aspen and the Isis Property Group, LLC (the Isis Group). The agreement limits the tenants of the commercial space to local merchants, mid-level retail (which is defined in the agreement), and prohibits restaurants. The agreement allows the City Council to amend the restaurant provision at its sole discretion. The prohibition on restaurants is also a condition of the land use approvals granted by the City, which can be amended administratively as long as additional housing mitigation is paid. For simplicity, the administrative amendment has been incorporated into the proposed resolution. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council has not previously considered this request. The agreement is attached as Exhibit A. The land use approval is attached as Exhibit B. BACKGROUND: The Isis redevelopment went through a land use process in late 2006 and early 2007. The project was a joint venture between the City of Aspen, the Isis Group, and Aspen Film. The City is the owner of the facility with master leases to the Isis Group and Aspen Film. Aspen Film operates the "theater side" ofthe building which is also known as Commercial Unit 2. The Isis Group operates the "retail side" of the building which is also known as Commercial Unit 1. The retail side has the ability to rent to one tenant or split their space and rent to two tenants. The current plan is for two tenants in this retail side. At the time of the approvals, restaurants were prohibited as a means oflowering the payment-in-lieu. Because this was a joint venture, City Council and the Isis Group were able to enter into an agreement specifying the type of retail tenants that would be acceptable. Mid-Level retail was defined along with a list of example tenants. The agreement provided City Council with the ability to remove the restaurant prohibition at its sole discretion. Page 1 of2 DISCUSSION: The specific "restaurant" is wine tasting and sales. The wine tasting requires food service and is therefore considered a restaurant in the City's land use code. Roughly half of the eastern retail space (or 700 square feet) will be dedicated to the "restaurant" use with the remaining space solely dedicated to sales. Please refer to Exhibit A of the Proposed Resolution. Courtney Lord of the Isis Group will be attending the meeting and will be able to describe the nuances of this business model. Staff has included a condition requiring compliance with all State and local liquor laws. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. ~ Series of 2007, allowing a restaurant to occupy a portion ofthe Isis retail space." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Isis Occupancy Restriction Isis GMQS Approval- Ordinance 6, 2007 Page 2 of2 RESOLUTION NO. ~ SERIES OF 2007 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE OCCUPANCY AND USE DEED RESTRICTION, AGREEMENT, AND COVENANT FOR A PORTION OF COMMERCIAL UNIT ONE OF THE ISIS THEATER BUILDING, 406 E. HOPKINS AVENUE, LOTS L, M, AND N, BLOCK 87, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO WHEREAS, the applicant, Isis Property Group, LLC, represented by Courtney Lord has requested an amendment the Occupancy and Use Deed Restriction, Agreement, and Covenant as recorded at reception no. 534579 to allow a restaurant to occupy a portion of Commercial Unit One of The Isis Theater Building, 406 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lots L, M, and N, Block 87, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, the City Council may, at its sole discretion, amend the restaurant prohibition if the appropriate affordable housing mitigation is paid to the City of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director, pursuant to Ordinance No.6, Series of 2007, may approve an amendment to the Growth Management Approvals for the Isis Theater Building regarding restaurants pursuant to the affordable housing mitigation requirements in effect at the time of application; and, WHEREAS, The Council finds that the applicable development review standards are met by the proposal, provided that the conditions established herein are complied with. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Amendment to Occupancv and Use Restriction The City Council approves an amendment to the Occupancy and Use Deed Restriction, Agreement, and Covenant as recorded at reception no. 534579 to allow a restaurant to occupy approximately 700 square feet of Commercial Unit One of The Isis Theater Building, 406 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lots L, M, and N, Block 87, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, as depicted in Exhibit A. Section 2: Amendment to Growth Manal!ement Approval Restaurant use shall be and is hereby permitted as part of this approval as a use in approximately 700 square feet of Commercial Unit One of The Isis Theater Building, 406 E. Hopkins Avenue. Section 3: Affordable Housinl! Mitil!ation Affordable housing mitigation requirements shall be satisfied by payment of a cash-in-lieu fee at the time of building permit issuance for the tenant finish of the retail space; the payment due shall be based on the actual amount of Net Leasable Area (NLA) provided for in the tenant finish building permit application, and the following formula: . 4.1 FTE per 1,000 square feet ofNLA restaurant space; . 2.6 FTE per 1,000 square feet ofNLA non-restaurant space; Resolution No. _' Series of 2007 Page I of2 . First 4 FTE = zero employee mitigation; . Next 4 FTE mitigated at 30%; . Remaining FTE mitigated at 60%; . Apply credit of three (3) FTE already housed; . Access cash-in-lieu fee based on Category 4 requirement in place at time of building permit application. Section 4: The Applicant shall comply with all local and State liquor laws. Section 5: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in verbal or written documentation presented before the City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 6: 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 7: 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 8: The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved on this _ day of ,2007. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Micheal C. Ireland, Mayor Approved as to form: Exhibit A: Map of Isis Retail Space. City Attorney Resolution No. _' Series of 2007 Page 2 of2 08.24.07 ~ ~UI~I b 'A. -n, ~\vtWI }Jo. ~'ZtXR- I- I I I I I I I I I ~ II. \dUb/I-~ --- -- 6. 0.1 1--"-- RET ML B 1,tT5 sf DSI ..., ... t , I "- I " I I , I I I t , I ' t t I I -- . i tWtk- L-i1M'\- ot r~ \Xoe. a-~i\ A" ~ "a~\\~" '" ~o.\ ~\t ~ ISIS THEATER RENOVATION CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCH/TECTS ~- ~~ WoNW.cunniffe.com 406 E. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN. COLORADO (,10 fAST HY,I,V,N A\II'.' ASPEN, CO 8](,11 . TIlE; 9;u91;..;S90 . fAX: 97fl'l10-~ ,57 ~41 MNN ,",EH' <.:AABOND~lE.CO "'oB' TWo: 9'....63...<00.". fAX; 97ll'1h.<-Q"" 101 wrUllloR.\OO A\lDlJ[.\UlIlJOIAf'() B(l~ l"''' 'I(IJ.L~DE,m ."" '1El.!,'F"",f\-'j;JP.' T.\\-'lIl:ll\-"4u I 11\\11 I\n'~ II \I'IUI"\ 1111111\ \111 \11\ :~~~~;:~ :1461 JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY cO R 46.00 0 0.00 ~ OCCUPANCY AND USE DEED RESTRICTION, 'L.A,."..AAI. ~ AGREEMENT, AND COVENANT ,-Jl rr~ ~lbl~ ^ - TIUS OCCUPAj'JCY AND USE DEED RESTRICTION, AGREEMENT, AND COVENANT (the "Agreement") is made and imposed this J6 $-day of 2007, by the CITY OF ASPEN PUBLIC FACILITIES AUTHORITY, a Colorado nolf rofit Corporation ("Owner"), for the benefit of and enforceable by the CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, (the "City") a home rule city and political subdivision duly organized and existing under the constitution and laws of the State of Colorado. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City has been duly organized and is validly existing as a home rule city under the Colorado Constitution and the home rule charter of the City: and WHEREAS, the Owner is a Colorado nonprofit corporation that is duly organized. validly existing and in good standing lmder the laws of the State of Colorado, and is duly qualified to do husiness in the State of Colorado; and WHEREAS, the Owner has, on the date hereof purchased the following condominium units: Commercial Unit A, Isis Theater Condominiums according to the Condominium Map thereof, recorded on December 9, 1999, in Plat Book 52, Page 1 at Reception No. 438434 in the records of the office of the Clerk and Recorder ofthe County of Pitkin, Colorado (the "Plat"), and as defined and described in the Condominium Declaration for Isis Theater Condominiums recorded on December 9. 1999, at Reception No. 438433 in said records; and Residential Units C & D, Isis Theater Condominiums according to the Condominium Map thereof, recorded on December 9, 1999, in Plat Book 52, Page 1 at Reception No. 438434 in the records of the office of the Clerk and Recorder of the County of Pitkin, Colorado, and as defined and described in the Condominium Declaration for Isis Theater Condominiums recorded on December 9, 1999, at Reception No. 438433 in said records (the "AH Units"): (collectively. Commercial Unit A and Residential Units C and D shall be rcfcned to herein as the "Acquired Property") as assignee of the Isis Property Group, LLC ("Isis Group") pursuant to the Purchase Agreement dated as of September 12, 2006, between Isis Group and CC Aspen, LLC; and WHEREAS, the Owner is authorized, under its articles of incorporation and bylaws, action of its board of directors and applicable law, to: (a) acquire and own the Acquired Property; IIIIIIIIIIIII~III 01/111111/11/1111011111111111111111 ~~~~~;!:1' 46F JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 46.00 0 0.00 ' (b) lease to the City the Acquired Property; and (c) execute, dcliver and perfonn its obligations under this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized, pursuant to Section 1.4 of its Chartcr, to accept and pcrfoml its obligations under this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the execution, acceptance, and performancc under this Agreement has been duly authorizcd by the City in accordance with that cert.1in Memorandum of Understanding approved by the City of Aspen City Council by Resolution No. 99, Series of2006, on record with the City of Aspen City Clerk's Office; and WHEREAS, the Ov,ner, pursuant to and in accordance with, the above refercnced Memorandum of Understanding, agrees to restrict the future oecupancy and use of thc Acquired Propeliy in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, for value received as described above, the receipt and sufflciency of which is hereby acknowledged, Owner hereby represents, covenants and agrees as follows: I. This agrcement shall constitute covenants running with the real property described hereinabove as a burden thereon for the benefit of, and shall be specifically enforceable by the City Council of the City. Upon the conveyance of tile Acquircd Property from the Authority to the City, and upon any re-convcyancc of the Acquired Property from the City to any other grantce, assignec, purchaser, or other successor in interest, the restrictions and covenants shall continue to run with the real property, but the beneficiary and the right to enforce this Agreement shall remain with the City Council of the City. The right of enforcement shall be exercised, ifat all, by the City Council of the City, hy any appropriate legal action including but not limited to injunction, reversion, or eviction of non-complying owners and/or occupants. The City Council of the City shall have Ihe right to amend or modify the covenants at any time in its sole and absolute discretion. 2. The name of the building which includes and incorporates the Acquired Property shall be named the "Isis Building." 3. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained in the Condominium Declarations for Isis Theater Condominiums (recorded at Reception No. 438433, et seq. in the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office), no further development shall be authorized or permitted on the Isis Building's roof (including the highest floor of the Isis Building on which are located the AH Units and Unit B the decking and mechanical elements, including any replacements thereof.) Reconstruction or replacement of existing improvements and structures on the roof are not restricted hy this provision, provided they are made in the same locations and with the same dimensions as the improvements anti structures existing as of the date of recording of this deed restriction or are made within the unit boundaries shown on the Plat. The addition of a bedroom lhat tlocs not 2 I I11III 11111 11I1I1 111I1 IIIIIIIU 1I11111111111111111111 :;~~~~~;!: 146' JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 46.00 0 0.00 exceed 500 square feet to Residential Unit B (the free market residential unit on the third 11oor) shall not be restricted by this provision. 4. Upon any re-condominiumization or the subleasing of portions of Commercial Unit A within the Acquired Property to create a retail spacc (Commercial Unit 1), a theater area comprising thc easterly ground 1100r theater and the lower level theaters (Commercial Unit 2), or the construction of an addition of approximately 576 sq. ft. in the current exterior open space in the southeastem comer of the Isis Building (Commercial Unit 3, also referred to as the "Notch" area), the following restrictions shall apply to the respective units or sublease areas of the Acquired Property: a. The tenant under any sublease from the City to, or owocr of Commercial Unit 1 shall use commercially reasonable efforts to sublease Commercial Unit I to one or more tenants that are dcemed "mid-level" retail uses or any retail uses which are local businesses (as opposed to national or chain type storcs). Mid- Levcl retailers shall generally be defined to bc those rctai 1 merchants that meet the retail industry's middle three classifications of merchandise categories as descrihed below as Moderate, Bridge and Better. The businesses named below are included by way of example, but not limitation, and are not intended to be the only ones pennitted in each category but arc listed as examples of the type of husinesses that are representative of each category. Moderate is defined as tenants such as Gap, Hollister, Banana Republic, Victoria's Secret, Replay, Ron Hcrman, Fred Seigel, Club Monaco, American Eagle, J. Crew, bebe Sport, Lucky Brand Jeans, Abercrombie & Fitch. Lcvi's, Ann Taylor Loft. Bridge is defined as tcnants such as 1\nn Taylor, Anne Klein, Sigrid Olsen, Puma, Juicy Couturc, Guess, Annani AX, BCBG, Bebe, Coldwater Creek, Urban Outfitters, Anthropologie, and 1. Jill. Better is defined as tenants such as Brooks Brothers, Lisa Klein, Stuart Weitzman, David Yumlan, RLX, RL Ralph.Lauren, Rugby, Lacoste, Apple Computer, Sony Style, Scoop, Coach, Sony Style, Apple, Talbot's, Tcd Baker, Diesel, Williams Sonoma, Pottery Bam, Toumeau, Giorgio Annani White Label, Emporio Armani, Tommy Bahama, Burberry, Cole Hahn, Movado, Hugo Boss, John Varvatos, Eilcen Fisher, Calvin Klein, Intern1ix. f b. No restaurant uses shall be permitted in Commercial Unit I, unless appropriate mitigation is paid to the City pursuant to the Citv Land Use Code in effect at the time of requested conversion to that use; 3 I1nll\ "I~ n~11 Inll \11 II1II1 IMII III nlll 111\ Inl ~;~~~~:;~:1. 46' JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 46.00 D 0.00 and, provided further, that the City Council of the City, in its sole discretion, approves such change in use. e. The uses for Commercial Unit 2 shall be limited to only the purpose of operating movie theaters, subject, howevcr, to occasional use for live performances, community events, meeting rooms, speeches, auxiliary uses for AspenFilm presentations and other artistic, educational, nonprofit or community purposes; and provided, however, that the restriction set forth in this paragraph (c) shall terminate and be of no further effect upon any tem1ination of the Lease Purchase Agreement dated as of the date hereof between Owner, as lessor, and City, as lessee (the "Lease"), if such tennination occurs pursuant to clause (ii) or clause (iv) of Section 4.01(b) of the Lease. d. The uses for Commercial Unit 3 shall be limited to the uscs set forth above for Commercial Unit 2, and, in addition, shall include a cafe bar or similar use. e. Other uses may be approved by the City Council of the City for Commercial Units 2 & 3 if it determines in its sole discretion that teclmological, sociological or economic changes rcndering theater usc obsolcte or impracticable. 5. Notwithstanding any language to the contrary contained in that certain Occupancy Deed Restriction and Agrcemcnt for an Employee Dwelling Unit Approved Pursuant to Ordinance No. 95-59, recorded in the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Otlicc as Reception No. 419855, et seq., relating to the All Units, the owner or tenant of Commercial Unit 2 shall have the firsl right to select thc tenants who will lease either of the AH Units as they become available from time to time. subject to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The City shall have the second right to select tenant to said units for its employees. subjcct to the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines The owner or tenant of Commercial Unit I shall have thc third right to select tcnants to said units for its employees, subject to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owncr or tena.nt of Commercial Unit 2 and City shall both be given notice by the owner or tenant of Commercial Unit 1 at the time the owner or tenant of Commercial Unit I learns of an upcoming vacancy of any AH Unil and both shall havc the same 30 days from the giving of said notice to exercise said rights by providing written notice to the owner or tenant of Conunercial Unil I within said 30 day period. The owner or tenant of Commercial Unit I shall provide said notice upon learning of an upcoming vacancy, but 110t carlier than ninety days from the expiration date of the existing lease on either of the AH Units that will become vacant. The rights granted ahove shall be subject to the owner or tcnant of Commercial Unit l's (as the landlord under the leases for the 4 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 :;~~~:;!: 1 ; 46F J~NICE K vas CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 46,00 00.00 AH Units) ability to deliver the AH Unites) in the event of difficulties which may be encountered with the existing tenant. 6. Upon the conveyance of cither of the AU Units to any third party, such transfer shall be subject to a conveyance by the City to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, of a y, of ] % undivided owncrship interest in ~ach of the units. however, such ownership shall not include any right to rents or proceeds of sale, nor other economic interests, nor any obligation for the payment of any costs of ownership, nor any decision making authority with respect to the use, operation, control, etc, of the AH Units. In order to facilitate any conveyance of the AH Units, City agrees to execute such documents and take any actions as may be necessary to perfect the transfer of title desired by the transferor or transferee of the AH Units, without any further consideration owing to City or Owner. 7. The owner or tenant ofColTul1ereial Units 2 & 3 shall not scll or grant any naming rigbts to any portion of Commercial Units 2 or 3, including, but not limited to, the interior theaters without the consent of the City Council of the City. In i,'Tanting or denying its consent to such naming rights, the City Council of the City shall take into consideration the reasonable needs of the then current owner or tcnant , but shall have absolute discretion in its decision. BREACH 8. In the event that City has reasonable cause to believe the current owner or tenant of any unit subject to the Agreement is violating the provisions of this Agreement, City by its authorized representative, may inspect any unit of the Acquired Property between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, after providing the owner or tenant with no less than 24 hours' prior written or oral notice. 9. City, in the event a violation is discovered, shall send a notice of violation to the owner or tenant of the unit detailing the nature of the violation and allowing the owner or tenant thirty (30) days to cure. Said notice shall state that the owner or tenant may request a hearing before the City Council of the City within tifteen (15) days to deternline the merits of the allegations. REMEDIES 10. There is hereby reserved to the parties hereto any and all remedies provided by law for breaeh of this Agreement or any of its terms. In the event the parties resort to litigation with respeet to any or all provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover damages and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees. 5 -.... I I\~II \~II \\~II II \\\\\ll\\ \\\\\1 III "11\ \111 1\\1 ~;~~~~~0:1. 461 JANICE K vas CAUDILL PITKIN COUNlY co R 46.00 11. In the event the Acquired Property, or any unit within the Acquired Property, is sold andlor conveyed without compliance herewith, such sale andlor conveyancc shall be wholly null and void and shall convey no title whatsoever upon the purported buyer. Each and every conveyance of the Acquired Property, or any unit within the Acquired Property, for all purposes, shall be deemed to include and incorporate by this reference, the covenants herein contained, even without reference herein to this Agreement. 12. In the event that the owner or tenant of a unit fails to cure any breach, City may resort to any and all.available legal action. including, but not limited to, specific perfonnancc of this Agreement or a mandatory injunction requiring sale of the unit by owner; or in the event of a lease, to relinquish all leasehold interests to the City. GENERAL PROVISIONS 13. )'J()tices. Any notice, consent or approval which is required to be given hereunder shall be given by mailing the same, certified mail, retum receipt requested, properly addressed and with postage fully prepaid, to any address of the pany as long as prior wlitten notice of thc change of address has been given to the other parties to this Agreement and shall be deemed given on the third business day after mailing as required above. Said notices, consents and approvals shall be sent to the panies hereto at the following addresses unless otherwise notified in writing: To Owner: At the mailing address of the unit owner as shown in thc records of the Pitkin County Assessor's OfIice To Aspen: City Manager 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 14. ~jlverability. Whenever possible, each provision of this Agreement and any other related document shall be interpreted in such manner as to be valid undcr applicable law; but, if any provision of any of the foregoing shall be invalid or prohibited under said applicable law, such provisions shall be ineffective to the cxtent of such invalidity 01' prohibition without invalidating the rcmaining provisions of such document. 15. Choice of Law. This Agreement and each and every related document is to be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. 16. Successors. Except as otherwise provided herein, the provisions and covenants contained herein shall inure to and be binding upon the heirs, successors and assigns o!'the parties. 6 11111\\ 11111 111111 11111 1111 I1II1I 11111\ 1\\ 11111 \I~ 111\ :~~~~:;~: 1461 JANICE I< VOS CRVDIl-L PITKIN COUN~Y CO R 46.00 00.00 17. Waiver. No claim of waiver, consent or acquiescence with respect to any provision of this Agreement shall be valid against any party hereto except on the basis of a written instrument executed by the parties to this Al,'feement. However, the party for whose benefit a condition is inserted herein shall have the unilateral right to waive such condition. 18. Further Actions. The parties to this Agreement agree to execute such further documents and take such further actions as may be reasonably required to carry out the provisions apd intent of this Agreement or any agrcement or document relating hereto or entered into in connection herewith. 19. Modifications, The parties to this Agreement agree that any modifications of this Agreement shall be effective only when made by writings signed by both parties and recorded with the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado, [Remainder of page intentionally left blank] 7 111111111 11111111111111 ::~~~::~ ~ 1:31 JI=lNICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 26.00 0 0.00 ORDINANCE NO.6, SERIES OF 2007 [tin Ao(~+ t'i'MM!~ t? - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL GRANTING GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPROVAL PURSUANT TO SECTION 26.470.040 (C)(I) & (D)(3), ENLARGEMENT OF A HISTORIC LANDMARK AND ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY AND FOR AN EXPANSION AND CHANGE IN USE, ALLOWING RETAIL, FOR A PORTION OF THE ISIS THEATER, 406 E. HOPKINS AVENUE, LOTS L, M, AND N, BLOCK 87, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL 10: 2737-073-30-006, -011 and-012 WHEREAS, the applicant, Isis Property Group, LLC, represented by Haas Land Planning, Klein, Cote, and Edwards; and Charles Cunniffe Architects, has requested approval for Growth Management in order to enlarge, partially remodel and change the use of a portion of The Isis Theater, 406 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lots L, M, and N, Block 87, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado; and WHEREAS, the applicant submitted an application to the Community Development Department for a Minor Historic Preservation Development, Commercial Design Review and Parking Waiver specifically from the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), and Growth Management Review for an Enlargement of a Historic Landmark and Essential Public Facility specifically from the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z); and both of these boards have reviewed and handled the applications in accordance with their purview; and WHEREAS, the HPC, through its Resolution No.2, Series of2007, granted approval for a Minor Development Application for changes primarily to the doors and windows of the Isis Theatre building, approved a waiver of the parking requirements and fees associated with the additional commercial area, and approved the Commercial Design Review; and WHEREAS, the P&Z, through its Resolution No.5, Series of 2007, recommended that the City Council approve the Growth Management allotments for an Enlargement of a Historic Landmark and Essential Public Facility Minor Development Application allowing 1,861 sq. ft. of net leasable area; and WHEREAS, the application has identified that, due to the fact that no specific tenant has been identified and that tenants will change, the proposed space configuration within the building is not set but will change over time within the old "Theatre One" area (the western-most ground floor theatre); however the, application proposes to establish a total of 1,861 additional square feet of new net leasable area, for a total gross retail area of 5,725 sq. ft., with 5,226 sq. ft. allowable as net leasable area; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has found and decided in his letter of December 22, 2006, that the Isis Theatre qualifies as an Essential Public Facility, because of its ownership by a public entity with a future transfer to a non-profit corporation serving a public Isis Growth Management Ordinance No.6, Series of 2007 Page 1 of 5 11111111111I1111111111 ::~~~~:;~ ~ I: 31 JANICE K VOS CI=lUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 26.00 D 0.00 interest, perpetual deed restriction for a theatre or public use, and undivided public own~rship interest in the affordable housing units and a perpetual restriction limiting additional development on upper levels of the building, all of which serve a public interest and the needs of the community; and WHEREAS, the application is considered exempt from Ordinance No. 19, Series of 2006 and Ordinance No. 51, Series of 2006, otherwise known as the "Moratorium Ordinances", because the project is considered an Essential Public Facility; and WHEREAS, the Isis has a long history of land use approvals that have allowed for various approvals, uses and dimensions for the building including the following: 1) Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 36-95; 2) City Council Ordinance No. 58-95; 3) City Council Ordinance No 59-95; 4) A March 19, 1996 amendment to Resolution No. 36-95 was granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission without formal adoption of a resolution; 5) City Council authorized use of the Special Review process to consider the amortization of open space payments via adoption of Ordinance No. 45-96; 6) Final approval by the HPC on March 12, 1997; 7) Council adoption of Resolution No.l8-98 approving the deferral of payments in-lieu of open space for a five year period (such payment has been made); 8) A pair of minor HPC amendments to the final approval were approved on March 10, 1999 and September 8,1999; 9) Growth Management Commission Resolution No. 2-01, approving a re-evaluation and exemption from the scoring and competition procedures ofthe GMQS for the conversion of the ground floor of the Isis building to retail use; and 10) MOU executed pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 99, Series of 2006. WHEREAS, the City Council, according to Section 26.470.040 of the Land Use Code, must review the Growth Management application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the applicable criteria and the City Council may recommend approval, disapproval, or approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director, pursuant to his authority under Section 26.304.060(B)(l), finds that the Growth Management reviews for Enlargement of a Historic Landmark for Commercial Use and for an Essential Public Facility should be combined finding that the combination would eliminate or reduce duplication and ensure economy of time, expense and clarity; and final approval rests with the City Council; and WHEREAS, The Council finds that the applicable development review standards are met by the proposal, provided that the conditions established herein are complied with. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Isis Growth Management Ordinance No.6, Series of2007 Page 2 of 5 -_._.~'"......".,-- 536448 Page: 3 of 5 o 0.00 Section 1: Enlarl!ement of a Historic Landmark for Commercial Use and Essential Public Facility Growth Manal!ement Allotments The City Council grants a Growth Management Allotment for an Enlargement to a Historic Landmark and for an Essential Public Facility finding that the project meets the applicable criteria. The Growth Management approval allows for an area of new gross leasable of 1,861 sq. ft. and a gross retail area of 5,725 sq. ft., with 5,226 of that area allowable as net leasable area, as such term is defined in the Land Use Code. * Section 2: Limitation for Restaurant Use A restaurant use is not permitted as part of this approval as a use in the "retail area" and any future proposed conversion to a restaurant use must gain approval by the Aspen City Council in accordance with the deed restriction recorded at Reception No. 534579, in the offices of the Pitkin . County Clerk and Recorder. Such conversion, if approved by the City Council, may gain its Grov.>th Management Review and approval administratively in accordance wit.h the Land Use Code in place at the time of application. Section 3: Affordable Housinl! Mitil!ation Affordable housing mitigation requirements shall be satisfied by payment of a cash-in-lieu fee at the time of building permit issuance for the tenant finish of the retail space; the payment due shall be based on the actual amount of Net Leasable Area (NLA) provided for in the tenant finish building permit application, and the following formula: . 2.6 FTE per 1,000 square feet ofNLA; . First 4 FTE = zero employee mitigation; . Next 4 FTE mitigated at 30%; . Remaining FTE mitigated at 60%; · Apply credit of three (3) FTE already housed; · Access cash-in-lieu fee based on Category 4 requirement in place at time of building permit application. Section 4: Buildinl! Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: 1. A copy of the final Ordinance and P &2 Resolution. 2. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. 3. A construction management plan pursuant to the requirements of the Community Development Department. 4. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Department. Section 5: Exterior Lil!htinl! Lighting shall be pursuant to the Historic Preservation Minor Development approval pursuant to Resolution No. 20, Series of2007, and the City's lighting regulations. Isis Growth Management Ordinance No.6, Series of 2007 Page 3 of 5 11111111111111111111111 ~~~~~::; ~ 1 : 31 Section 6: JANICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 26.00 D 0.00 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 7: 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 8: 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 9: The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 10: A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 2nd day of April, 2007, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED Council of the City of Aspen on the 12th day of March, 2007. ) 1'" KJl.LL'I/' . " , , FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved on this 2nd day of April, 2007. Attest: . Isis Growth Management Ordinance No.6, Series of 2007 Page 4 of5 Approved as to form: .-~It:'7I'~~~~ JohiiP. \\forcester, CIty Attorney IIIIIII~I~II~ g~~ ~'" JANICE K VOS CAUDIll PITKIN COUNTY CO R 26.00 0 0.00 Isis Growth Management Ordinance No.6, Series of 2007 Page 5 of5 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk DATE: October 5, 2007 RE: Appointment of Protest Hearing Officer - Jeffrey Evans Initiative Petitions Regarding the Entrance to Aspen The deadline for filing a protest to the direct connection and modified direct connection petitions filed August 31, 2007, is Wednesday October 10, 2007. See below: C.R.S. 31-11-110. Protest states: (1) Within forty days after an initiative or referendum petition is filed, a protest in writing under oath may be filed in the office of the clerk by any registered elector who resides in the municipality, setting forth specifically the grounds for such protest. I have certified the petitions sufficient as to signatures and plan on reporting that at your next Council meeting, October 22,2007. I have been assured a protest will be filed by the deadline, tomorrow. Due to the tight time lines as outlined in the Colorado Revised Statues, I am requesting approval of the appointment of a protest hearing officer before the fact. If no protest is filed, this issue will be moot. C.R.S. 31-10-111(3) states: (3) Every hearing shall be held before the clerk with whom such protest is filed. The clerk shall serve as hearing officer unless some other person is designated by the legislative body as the hearing officer. . . I request Council designate Karen Goldman as the hearing officer. Ms. Goldman was city clerk of Lakewood, Colorado, for 11 years and is presently Secretary to the Colorado State Senate. Ms. Goldman was appointed by City Council as hearing officer in July 2002 for the initiative petition on the Entrance to Aspen and in April 2004 as the hearing officer for the initiative petition on the parking garage and most recently as the hearing officer in the initiative protest April 2005 regarding the Burlingame annexation. VANN ASSOCIATES, LLC Planning Consultants October 9, 2007 RECEIVED Mr. Chris Bendon, Director Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 nrT C! q 2007 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HAND DELIVERED Re: Vacation of Dean Street Right-of-Way Dear Chris As we discussed, Aspen Land Fund II, LLC wishes to withdraw it request to vacate the remaining portion of the Dean Street right-of-way. The vacation request was submitted in connection the Applicant's final PUD application for the Lodge at Aspen Mountain. With the denial of that application, vacation of the right-of-way is no longer required. I would appreciate it if you would inform the City Council of the Applicant's desire to withdraw the application and remove it from consideration at tonight's Council hearing. It is my understanding that no further action is required on behalf of the Applicant to terminate the application review process, and that the original vacation request will not be subject to any prejudicial treatment pursuant to the Land Use Regulations. Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Yours truly, cc: John Sarpa Arthur C. Daly, Esq. C: \oldc\bus\city .ltr\ltr44802 .cb2 230 East Hopkins Ave. . Aspen. Colorado 81611 . 970/925-6958 . Fax 970/920-9310