HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20071112CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
November 12, 2007
5:00 P.M.
Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Scheduled Public Appearances
a) Proclamation -Aspen High School Football Team
b) Outstanding Employee Bonus Awards
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
d) Board Reports
VI. Consent Calendar (These matters maybe adopted together by a single motion)
a) December Council Meetings
b) Resolution #92, 2007 -Contract Re-build One Compressor at the Aspen Ice
Garden
c) Minutes -October 9, 22, 29, 30, 2007
VII. First Reading of Ordinances
a) Ordinance #49, 2007 - GMOS Review -Christ Episcopal Church P.H. 12/10
VIII. Public Hearings
a) Resolution #93, 2007 - 2008 Mill Levy
b) Resolution #94, 2007 -Adoption of 2008 Budget
c) Ordinance #48, 2007 -Code Amendment Historic Preservation
d) Ordinance #28, 2007 - 508 East Cooper Avenue Subdivision
e) Ordinance #29, 2007 - Wienerstube Subdivision Continue to 11/26
f) Ordinance #46, 2007 -Extension of CC Business Mix and Historic Interiors
Moratorium
g) Resolution #95, 2007 -Extension of Vested Rights 110 E. Sleeker
IX. Action Items
X. Adjournment
Next Regular Meeting November 26, 2007
COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M.
November 12, 2007
Bentley Henderson
Trish Aragon
Trisha Nelson
Aaron Reed
Adam Trzcinski
Tyler Christoff
City of Aspen
130 South Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Engineering Department:
Ulb
W
THE CITY OF ASPEN
Congratulations! It is my pleasure to inform you that the Engineering
Department has been selected to receive the Outstanding Employee Bonus
Award. Please plan to attend the November 12 City Council meeting to
formally receive your award.
The Engineering Department is receiving this award because of the
department's excellence in teamwork, communication and overall ability to
build an outstanding department from the ground up.
All the while, the department continued to take on a plethora of extensive city
projects. The department had taken the lead in coordinating and executing
three new major city programs: construction mitigation, the Construction
Management Plan (CMP) and stormwater.
In order to take on the additional projects, the engineering staff had, and
continues to have, extensive dialogue with members of other departments,
and members of the public in order to execute these programs effectively.
They openly shared information and solicited the advice and expertise of
others, and strived to make sure everyone's needs were met as best as
possible. Changing regulations while maintaining positive relationships with
the construction industry, and citizens, is an impressive feat. Within the
construction mitigation plan, they have managed to ensure city codes are
being enforced while keeping citizens and contractors satisfied.
This department role models for everyone on how to work together. They
have been very effective in the art of cooperation and have brought
tremendous value to the city. Their approachability and willingness to help
other departments exemplifies how much more effective the city can be in
accomplishing our goals, and serving the citizens, when we work together.
Sarah Laverty
73O BOOTH GALENA STREET ~ ASPEN, COLORACO $1621-Iy~S ~ PHONE 970.920.5000 ~ PAX 970.920.5197
www. aspengov.com
Pcimcd an Rcrydcd Papcr
I~Ib
THE CITY OF ASPEN
November 12, 2007
Erin Hutchings
Aquatics Supervisor
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Congratulations! This letter is to let you
an Outstanding Employee Bonus Award
the AA~relw-12, 2007 City Council Meeting
o v.
know that you have been nominated for
and that you will receive the award at
1. Please plan to attend.
When another Aquatics Supervisor resigned in May, Erin took on both her job
duties and the departed employee's responsibilities during the busiest time of the
year for the ARC. Not only did the swim programs continue without a reduction
in service level, but Erin lead the most successful summer program the ARC has
had to date. These acts of dedication, teamwork and work ethic saved the city
the equivalent of a supervisor level full-time employee for five months, which is
approximately $20,000 in savings!
Furthermore, by demonstrating exceptional performance during times of staff
shortage, Erin allowed the Recreation Department time to analyze budgetary
concerns and organizational needs to adequately and responsibly staff the
position and serve the public.
Erin's dedication and commitment to excellence is truly an asset to the City of
Aspen. You are a fantastic example of leadership for your team and for the ARC.
Jonathan Godes
via,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
DATE: November 5, 2007
RE: December Council Meetings
The regularly scheduled Council meetings in December would be
December 10 and 24. Staff suggests Council meet December 3`d and
December 10`h. City Hall will be closed December 24.
By adopting the consent calendar, the regularly scheduled Council
meetings will be December 3`d and December 10`h.
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
THRU: JEFF WOODS, MANAGER OF PARKS & RECREATION
FROM: TIM ANDERSON, RECREATION DIRECTOR
DATE: OCTOBER 24, 2007
RE: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT FOR
REBUILD OF ICE GARDEN COMPRESSOR
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is requesting the approval of a professional services
contract with Tolin Mechanical Systems for the purpose of re-building one compressor at
the Aspen Ice Garden. Compressors require a complete re-build about every 20,000 of
operations or every 4 to 5 years as to avoid any catastrophic failures and to maintain
efficient operations. The City should begin to look at replacement of the current York
Compressors as they are no longer being manufactured and pazts are becoming a
premium commodity. Replacement of the two compressors would be about $100,000
each and could be phased.
BACKGROUND: In the past Council's have approved this contract in order to assure
the avoidance of down time at our ice facilities and to ensure smooth operations for our
local user groups. Are-build of the compressors adds about another 20,000 hours of
operational time at a reduced cost compared to the purchase of a new compressor. Every
6,000 our we provide a top end preventative maintenance step to the compressors which
entails changing the oil and taking measurement of the bearings, seals, cylinders, crank
shaft, etc. to see what wear is taking place. Generally after the 12,000 check up we can
begin to identify a time frame in which the re-build will be necessary. Anew compressor
would cost about $100,000 for purchase and labor.
DISCUSSION: Again, it is necessary to provide this type of preventative
maintenance on the compressors of the ice rinks. This is a major component in the
refrigeration system for the ice rink and without proper operations of the compressor(s)
we don't have ice. Any down time would be detrimental to operations and more costly to
repair at a later date. Each rink has two compressors so that we can always maintain ice.
In the case of maintenance such as this you can see in the scope of work that this
compressor will be down for two weeks, the back up compressor will allow us to keep ice
during this time. In the case of failure of one compressor we always have a back up so
we don't compromise an event such as the Fall Face Off presented by Junior Hockey and
which brings 100 hockey teams to [own over 3 weekends and an approximated revenue
source of $800,000 to $I,000,OOOto the local economy.
FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: The funds for this re-build are set aside in
the Asset Management Plan. To loose ice during an event such as the Fall Face Off
mentioned above could be a major blow to the local economy during a shoulder season
when the event is welcomed by local businesses.
ENVIROMENTAL IMPACTS: Not applicable
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the approval of this contract as it
is imperative to keep [he mechanical systems of our facilities operating at a high level of
dependency and efficiency. Failure to provide proper preventative maintenance on these
systems could lead to catastrophic failure, more costly replacement, and unnecessary
down time to our user groups.
ALTERNATIVES: The alternatives would be to provide a routine tune up to the
compressor which would cost about $12,000 to $15,000, hope that we don't see a
catastrophic failure which would mean the purchase of a new compressor at a cost of
$100,000.
PROPOSED MOTION: I rYl(T/~ "+Y .approve the contract
with Tolin Mechanical Systems for the re-build of a compressor to ensure continuous,
efficient operations of our ice facilities. ~~l u-tor -1~~1 Z~ Z.?C~ ~-
MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Professional Services Contract with Tolin Mechanical Systems.
RESOLUTION NO. l
Series of 2007
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR YORK COMPRESSOR REBUILD AT THE
ASPEN ICE GARDEN, BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND TOLIN
MECHANICAL SYSTEMS COMPANY, 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 for services
to rebuild a compressor at the Aspen Ice Garden, between the City of Aspen and ToIin
Mechanical Systems Company, 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
services to rebuild a compressor at the Aspen Ice Garden, between the City of Aspen and
Tolin Mechanical Systems Company, 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 day of , 2007.
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 on the day hereinabove stated.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
G:\[ara\RESOS\AIC. compressocdoc
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This Agreement made and entered on the date hereinafter stated, between the CITY OF
ASPEN, Colorado, ("City") and _Tolin Mechanical Systems Company
("Professional").
For and in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as
follows:
1. Scope of Work. Professional shall perform in a competent and professional manner
the Scope of Work as set forth at Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated
herein.
2. Completion. Professional shall commence work immediately upon receipt of a
written Notice to Proceed from the City and complete all phases of the Scope of Work as
expeditiously as is consistent with professional skill and caze and the orderly progress of the Work
in a timely manner. The parties anticipate that all work pursuant to this agreement shall be
completed no later than .Upon request of the City, Professional shall submit, for the City's
approval, a schedule for the performance of Professional's services which shall be adjusted as
required as the project proceeds, and which shall include allowances for periods of time required by
the City's project engineer for review and approval of submissions and for approvals of authorities
having jurisdiction over the project. This schedule, when approved by the City, shall not, except for
reasonable cause, be exceeded by the Professional.
3. Payment. In consideration of the work performed, City shall pay Professional on a
time and expense basis for all work performed. The hourly rates for work performed by
Professional shall not exceed those hourly rates set forth at Exhibit "B" appended hereto. Except as
otherwise mutually agreed to by the parties the payments made to Professional shall not initially
exceed $52,920.00 . Professional shall submit, in timely fashion, invoices for work performed. The
City shall review such invoices and, if they are considered incorrect or untimely, the City shall
review the matter with Professional within ten days from receipt of the Professional's bill.
4. Non-Assignability. Both parties recognize that this contract is one for personal
services and cannot be transferred, assigned, or sublet by either party without prior written consent
of the other. Sub-Contracting, if authorized, shall not relieve the Professional of any of the
responsibilities or obligations under this agreement. Professional shall be and remain solely
responsible to the City for the acts, errors, omissions or neglect of any subcontractors officers,
agents and employees, each of whom shall, for this purpose be deemed to be an agent or employee
of the Professional to the extent of the subcontract. The City shall not be obligated to pay or be
liable for payment of any sums due which may be due to any sub-contractor.
5. Termination. The Professional or the City may terminate this Agreement, without
specifying the reason therefore, by giving notice, in writing, addressed to the other party, specifying
PSI-971.doc Page 1
the effective date of the termination. No fees shall be earned after the effective date of the
termination. Upon any termination, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys,
drawings, maps, models, photographs, reports or other material prepazed by the Professional
pursuant to this Agreement shall become the property of the City. Notwithstanding the above,
Professional shall not be relieved of any liability to the City for damages sustained by the City by
virtue of any breach of this Agreement by the Professional, and the City may withhold any
payments to the Professional for the purposes of set-off until such time as the exact amount of
damages due the City from the Professional maybe determined.
6. Covenant Aeainst Contineent Fees. The Professional warrants that s/he has not
employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working for the
Professional, to solicit or secure this contract, that s/he has not paid or agreed to pay any company
or person, other than a bona fide employee, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts or
any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this contract.
7. Independent Contractor Status. It is expressly acknowledged and understood by the
parties that nothing contained in this agreement shall result in, or be construed as establishing an
employment relationship. Professional shall be, and shall perform as, an independent Contractor
who agrees to use his or her best efforts to provide the said services on behalf of the City. No
agent, employee, or servant of Professional shall be, or shall be deemed to be, the employee, agent
or servant of the City. City is interested only in the results obtained under this contract. The
manner and means of conducting the work are under the sole control of Professional. None of the
benefits provided by City to its employees including, but not limited to, workers' compensation
insurance and unemployment insurance, aze available from City to the employees, agents or
servants of Professional. Professional shall be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the
acts of Professional's agents, employees, servants and subcontractors during the performance of this
contract. Professional shall indemnify City against all liability and loss in connection with, and
shall assume full responsibility for payment of all federal, state and local taxes or contributions
imposed or required under unemployment insurance, social security and income tax law, with
respect to Professional and/or Professional's employees engaged in the performance of the services
agreed to herein.
8. Indemnification. Professional agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its
officers, employees, insurers, and self-insurance pool, from and against all liability, claims, and
demands, on account of injury, loss, or damage, including without limitation claims arising from
bodily injury, personal injury, sickness, disease, death, property loss or damage, or any other loss of
any kind whatsoever, which azise out of or are in any manner connected with this contract, if such
injury, loss, or damage is caused in whole or in part by, or is claimed to be caused in whole or in
part by, the act, omission, error, professional error, mistake, negligerice, or other fault of the
Professional, any subcontractor of the Professional, or any officer, employee, representative, or
agent of the Professional or of any subcontractor of the Professional, or which arises out of any
workmen's compensation claim of any employee of the Professional or of any employee of any
subcontractor of the Professional. The Professional agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, and to
provide defense for and defend against, any such liability, claims or demands at the sole expense of
PSI-971.doc Page 2
the Professional, or at the option of the City, agrees to pay the City or reimburse the City for the
defense costs incurred by the City in connection with, any such liability, claims, or demands. If it is
determined by the final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction that such injury, loss, or
damage was caused in whole or in part by the act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or
its employees, the City shall reimburse the Professional for the portion of the judgment attributable
to such act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or employees.
9. Professional's Insurance. (a) Professional agrees to procure and maintain, at its own
expense, a policy or policies of insurance sufficient to insure against all liability, claims, demands,
and other obligations assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. Such insurance
shall be in addition to any other insurance requirements imposed by this contract or by law. The
Professional shall not be relieved of any liability, claims, demands, or other obligations assumed
pursuant to Section 8 above by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance, or by reason of
its failure to procure or maintain insurance in sufficient amounts, duration, or types.
(b) Professional shall procure and maintain, and shall cause any subcontractor of the
Professional to procure and maintain, the minimum insurance coverages listed below. Such
coverages shall be procured and maintained with forms and insurance acceptable to the City. All
coverages shall be continuously maintained to cover all liability, claims, demands, and other
obligations assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. In the case of any clalms-
made policy, the necessary retroactive dates and extended reporting periods shall be procured to
maintain such continuous coverage.
(i) Workers' Compensation insurance to cover obligations imposed by
applicable laws for any employee engaged in the performance of work under this contract, and
Employers' Liability insurance with minimum limits of FNE HUNDRED THOUSAND
DOLLARS ($500,000.00) for each accident, FNE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($500,000.00) disease - policy limit, and FNE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($500,000.00) disease -each employee. Evidence of qualified self-insured status may be substituted
for the Workers' Compensation requirements of this paragraph.
(ii) Commercial General Liability insurance with minimum combined single
limits of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE MILLION
DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) aggregate. The policy shall be applicable to all premises and
operations. The policy shall include coverage for bodily injury, broad form property damage
(including completed operations), personal injury (including coverage for contractual and
employee acts), blanket contractual, independent contractors, products, and completed
operations. The policy shall contain a severability of interests provision.
(iii) Comprehensive Automobile Liability insurance with minimum combined
single limits for bodily injury and property damage of not less than ONE MILLION
DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,00-
0.00) aggregate with respect to each Professional's owned, hired and non-owned vehicles
assigned to or used in performance of the Scope of Work. The policy shall contain a
PS1-971.doc Page 3
severability of interests provision. If the Professional has no owned automobiles, the
requirements of this Section shall be met by each employee of the Professional providing
services to the City under this contract.
(iv) Professional Liability insurance with the minimum limits of ONE
MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) each claim and ONE MILLION DOLLARS
($1,000,000) aggregate.
(c) The policy or policies required above shall be endorsed to include the City and the
City's officers and employees as additional insureds. Every policy required above shall be primary
insurance, and any insurance carried by the City, its officers or employees, or carried by or provided
through any insurance pool of the City, shall be excess and not contributory insurance to that
provided by Professional. No additional insured endorsement to the policy required above shall
contain any exclusion for bodily injury or property damage arising from completed operations. The
Professional shall be solely responsible for any deductible losses under any policy required above.
(d) The certificate of insurance provided by the City shall be completed by the
Professional's insurance agent as evidence that policies providing the required coverages, condi-
tions, and minimum limits aze in full force and effect, and shall be reviewed and approved by the
City prior to commencement of the contract. No other form of certificate shall be used. The certifi-
cate shall identify this contract and shall provide that the coverages afforded under the policies shall
not be canceled, terminated or materially changed until at least thirty (30) days prior written notice
has been given to the City.
(e) Failure on the part of the Professional to procure or maintain policies providing the
required coverages, conditions, and minimum limits shall constitute a material breach of contract
upon which City may immediately terminate this contract, or at its discretion City may procure or
renew any such policy or any extended reporting period thereto and may pay any and all premiums
in connection therewith, and all monies so paid by City shall be repaid by Professional to City upon
demand, or City may offset the cost of the premiums against monies due to Professional from City.
(f) City reserves the right to request and receive a certified copy of any policy and any
endorsement thereto.
(g) The parties hereto understand and agree that City is relying on, and does not waive or
intend to waive by any provision of this contract, the monetary limitations (presently $150,000.00
per person and $600,000 per occurrence) or any other rights, immunities, and protections provided
by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24-IO-101 et seq., C.R.S., as from time to
time amended, or otherwise available to City, its officers, or its employees.
10. City's Insurance. The parties hereto understand that the City is a member of the
Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Shazing Agency (CIRSA) and as such participates in the CIRSA
Property/Casualty Pool. Copies of the CIRSA policies and manual aze kept at the City of Aspen
Finance Department and are available to Professional for inspection during normal business hours.
PS1-971.doc Page 4
City makes no representations whatsoever with respect to specific coverages offered by CIRSA.
City shall provide Professional reasonable notice of any changes in its membership or participation
in CIRSA.
11. Completeness of A egr ement. It is expressly agreed that this agreement contains the
entire undertaking of the parties relevant to the subject matter thereof and there aze no verbal or
written representations, agreements, wazranties or promises pertaining to the project matter thereof
not expressly incorporated in this writing.
12. Notice. Any written notices as called for herein may be hand delivered to the
respective persons and/or addresses listed below or mailed by certified mail return receipt
requested, to:
City: Professional:
City Manager
City of Aspen Tolin Mechanical Systems Company
130 South Galena Street 12005 East 45~' Ave.
Aspen, Colorado 81611 Denver, CO. 80239
13. Non-Discrimination. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, marital
status, affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry, handicap, or
religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform services under this contract.
Professional agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, Section 13-98,
pertaining to non-discrimination in employment.
14. Waiver. The waiver by the City of any term, covenant, or condition hereof shall not
operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term. No term, covenant, or
condition of this Agreement can be waived except by the written consent of the City, and
forbearance or indulgence by the City in any regard whatsoever shall not constitute a waiver of any
term, covenant, or condition to be performed by Professional to which the same may apply and,
until complete performance by Professional of said term, covenant or condition, the City shall be
entitled to invoke any remedy available to it under this Agreement or by law despite any such
forbeazance or indulgence.
15. Execution of Agreement by City. This agreement shall be binding upon all parties
hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns. Notwith-
standing anything to the contrary contained herein, this agreement shall not be binding upon the
City unless duly executed by the Mayor of the City of Aspen (or a duly authorized official in his
absence) following a Motion or Resolution of the Council of the City of Aspen authorizing the
Mayor (or a duly authorized official in his absence) to execute the same.
16. Ille¢al Aliens -CRS 8-17.5-101 & 24-76.5-101.
PS1-971.doc Page 5
a. Purpose, During the 2006 Colorado legislative session, the Legislature passed
House Bills 06-1343 (subsequently amended by HB 07-1073) and 06-1023 that added
new statutes relating to the employment of and contracting with illegal aliens. These new
laws prohibit all state agencies and political subdivisions, including the City of Aspen,
from knowingly hiring an illegal alien to perform work under a contract, or to knowingly
contract with a subcontractor who knowingly hires with an illegal alien to perform work
under the contract. The new laws also require that all contracts for services include
certain specific language as set forth in the statutes. The following terms and conditions
have been designed to comply with the requirements of this new law.
b. Definitions. The following terms aze defined in the new law and by this reference
aze incorporated herein and in any contract for services entered into with the City of
Aspen.
"Basic Pilot Program" means the basic pilot employment verification program
created in Public Law 208, 104th Congress, as amended, and expanded in Public Law
156, 108th Congress, as amended, that is administered by the United States bepartment
of Homeland Security.
"Public Contract for Services" means this Agreement.
"Services" means the furnishing of labor, time, or effort by a Contractor or a
subcontractor not involving the delivery of a specific end product other than reports that
aze merely incidental to the required performance.
c. By signing this document, Professional certifies and represents that at this time:
(i) Professional shall confirm the employment eligibility of all employees who aze
newly hired for employment in the United States; and
(ii) Professional has participated or attempted to participate in the Basic Pilot
Program in order to verify that new employees aze not employ illegal aliens.
d. Professional hereby confirms that:
(i) Professional shall not knowingly employ or contract new employees
without confirming the employment eligibility of all such employees hired for
employment in the United States under the Public Contract for Services.
(ii) Professional shall not enter into a contract with a subcontractor that fails to
confirm to the Professional that the subcontractor shall not knowingly hire new
employees without confirming their employment eligibility for employment in the
United States under the Public Contract for Services.
PS1-971.doc Page 6
(iii) Professional has verified or has attempted to verify through participation
in the Federal Basic Pilot Program that Professional does not employ any new
employees who are not eligible for employment in the United States; and if
Professional has not been accepted into the Federal Basic Pilot Program prior to
entering into the Public Contract for Services, Professional shall forthwith apply
to participate in the Federal Basic Pilot Program and shall in writing verify such
application within five (5) days of the date of the Public Contract. Professional
shall continue to apply to participate in the Federal Basic Pilot Progtam and shall
in writing verify same every three (3) calendar months thereafter, until
Professional is accepted or the public contract for services has been completed,
whichever is eazlier. The requirements of this section shall not be required or
effective if the Federal Basic Pilot Program is discontinued.
(iv) Professional shall not use the Basic Pilot Program procedures to undertake
pre-employment screening of job applicants while the Public Contract for
Services is being performed.
(v) If Professional obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing
work under the Public Contract for Services knowingly employs or contracts with
a new employee who is an illegal alien, Professional shall:
(1) Notify such subcontractor and the City of Aspen within
three days that Professional has actual knowledge that the subcontractor
has newly employed or contracted with an illegal alien; and
(2) Terminate the subcontract with the subcontractor if within
three days of receiving the notice required pursuant to this section the
subcontractor does not cease employing or contracting with the new
employee who is an illegal alien; except that Professional shall not
terminate the Public Contract for Services with the subcontractor if during
such three days the subcontractor provides information to establish that the
subcontractor has not knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal
alien.
(vi) Professional shall comply with any reasonable request by the Colorado
Department of Labor and Employment made in the course of an investigation that
the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment undertakes or is undertaking
pursuant to the authority established in Subsection 8-17.5-102 (5), C.R.S.
(vii) If Professional violates any provision of the Public Contract for Services
pertaining to the duties imposed by Subsection 8-17.5-102, C.R.S. the City of
Aspen may terminate the Public Contract for Services. If the Public Contract for
Services is so terminated, Contractor shall be liable for actual and consequential
PS1-971.doc Page 7
damages to the City of Aspen azising out of Professional's violation of Subsection
8-17.5-102, C.R.S.
(ix) If Professional operates as a sole proprietor, Professional hereby sweazs or
affirms under penalty of perjury that the Professional (1) is a citizen of the United
States or otherwise lawfully present in the United States pursuant to federal
law,(2) shall comply with the provisions of CRS 24-76.5-101 et seq., and (3) shall
produce one of the forms of identification required by CRS 24-76.5-103 prior to
the effective date of this Agreement.
17. General Terms.
(a) It is agreed that neither this agreement nor any of its terms, provisions,
conditions, representations or covenants can be modified, changed, terminated or amended, waived,
superseded or extended except by appropriate written instrument fully executed by the parties.
(b) If any of the provisions of this agreement shall be held invalid, illegal or
unenforceable it shall not affect or impair the validity, legality or enforceability of any other
provision.
(c) The parties acknowledge and understand that there aze no conditions or
limitations to this understanding except those as contained herein at the time of the execution
hereof and that after execution no alteration, change or modification shall be made except upon a
writing signed by the parties.
(d) This agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado as
from time to time in effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed, or caused to be executed by their duly
authorized officials, this Agreement in three copies each of which shall be deemed an original on
the date hereinafter written.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
PS1-971.doc Page 8
ATTESTED BY: CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
By:
Title:
Date:
PROFESSIONAL:
WITNESSED BY:
- ' ~~ .
T/,h /%eo~ic/1~cGlS~frmS Cd
By:
Title: V~ C,c,~u/t~~v Ope/~.~a.~ S
Date: ! /~ ~G
PS 1-971.doc Page 9
BY AND BETWEEN
Tolin Mechanical Systems Company Aspen Ice Garden
12005 East 45th Avenue 233 West Hyman
Denver, Colorado 80239 Aspen, Colorado 81611
(Hereinafter'Tolin") (Hereinafter "Customer")
PROJECT LOCATION: 233 WEST HYMAN, ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: REBUILD OF ONE YORK 8 CYL COMPRESSOR
We are pleased to offer our proposal to rebuild one of your York compressors with parts
that may come from York or other suppliers. You should allow a full 2 weeks of downtime
for this compressor while the work is being done.
OUR PROPOSAL INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING:
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
New suction and discharge valves.
New cylinder liners.
New pistons, rods, and rings.
New main and rod bearings.
New shaft seal and gaskets.
New crankshaft.
Labor and travel time.
Per diem.
Freight costs.
This proposal is subject to the terms and conditions on the reverse side of this page.
OUR PROPOSAL EXCLUDES THE FOLLOWING:
1. Providing labor after our normal business hours, 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
2. Providing the labor, materials, and equipment, for work not detailed to be done in
this project's scope of work.
3. Machine shop work if needed.
Note: Mike is planning to complete this work in one week, in order to honor the time frame
and price Mike will require help from your staff for the removal and replacement of
the crankshaft.
OUR PRICE FOR THIS SCOPE OF WORK IS ....................................................... $52,920.00
Tolin Mechanical Systems Company
Dave Schley
Service Manager
Title
August 23.2007
Date
DS:abs
cc:file
Aspen Ice Garden
Title
Date
This proposal is subiect to the terms and conditions on the reverse side of page one.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. Tolin warrants that the workmanship hereunder shall be free from defects for thirty (30) days from date of installa-
ticn. If any replacement part or item of equipment proves defective, Tolin will extend to Customer the benefits of any
warranty Tolin has received from the manufacturer. Removal and reinstallation of any equipment or materials
repaired or replaced under a manufacturer's warranty will be at customer's expense and at the rates then in effect.
2. Customer shall permit Tolin free and timely access to areas and equipment, and allow Tolin to start and stop the
equipment as necessary to perform required service. All planned work under this Agreement will be performed dur-
ing Tolin's normal working hours.
3. Customer will promptly pay invoices within ten (10) days of receipt. Should a payment become thirty (30) days or
more delinquent, Tolin may stop all work under:this Agreement without notice and/or cancel this Agreement, and the
entire Agreement amount shall become due and payable immediately upon demand.
4. Customer shall be responsible for all tax@s applicable.to the services and/or materials hereunder.
5. Any alteration to, or deviation from, this Agreement ihvolving extra work, cost of material or Iaborwlll become an
extra charge (fixed-price amount to be negotiated or on atime-and-material basis atTolin's rates then in effect) over
the sum stated in this Agreement.
6. In the event Tolin must commence legal actiori m' order to recover any amount payable undef this Agreement,
Customer shall pay Tolin all court costs and attorney's fees incurred by Tolin.
7. Any legal action relating to this Agreement, or the breach thereof, shall be commenced within one'(1) year from the
date of the work.
.._~. ,... r;:~,
8. Tolin shall not be liable for any delay, loss, damage or detention caused by unayailability,of machinery, equipment
or materials, delay of carriers, strikes, including those by Tolin's employees, lockouts, civil or
military authority, priority regulations, insurrection or riot, action of the elements, forces of nature, or by
any cause beyond its control
9. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Customer shall indemnify and hold harmless Tolin, its agents and employees
from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses, including but not limited to
attorney's fees, arising out of or resulting from the pertormance of work hereunder, provided that such claim, dam-
- age, loss or expense is caused in whole or in part by any active or passive act or omission of Customer, anyone
directly or indirectly employed by Customer, or anyone for whose acts Customer may be liable, regardless of
whether lt Is caused in part by the negligence of Tolin.
10. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES, WHETHER ARISING IN CONTRACT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE),
EQUITY OR OTHERWISE, WILL TOLiN BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOSS OF USE, LOSS OF PROFIT, INCREASED
OPERATING OR MAINTENANCE EXPENSES, CLAIMS OF CUSTOMER'S TENANTS OR CLIENTS, OR ANY
SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES.
vua.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council
FROM: Sara Adams, Preservation Planner
,n
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director t`/~~ i/lnl
DATE OF MEMO: November 2, 2007
MEETING DATE: November 12, 2007
RE: 536 West North Street aka. Christ Episcopal Church, Growth
Management Review for an Essential Public Facility, First
Reading of Ordinance #~ Series of 2007 (Parce12735-121-11-
808)
Second Reading is scheduled for December 10, 2007.
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: 536 West North Street requests Growth Management Review for
an Essential Public Facility.
Revised 11/5/2007
G:\city\Saraa\christ episcopal church\churchfirstreading.doc
Page 1 of 4
• Lot history
The Episcopalian congregation has a long established history in Aspen beginning in 1881
during the Mining Era. The azchitecture of Christ Episcopal Church represents Modern
philosophy prevalent during the "revival" of Aspen in the 1950s and 1960s lead by
prominent Modern architects and theorists Walter Paepcke, Herbert Bayer, and Fritz
Benedict. 536 West North Street, the Christ Episcopal Church, is attributed to azchitect
Francis Stanton of the Chicago firm Stanton and Rockwell. Completed in 1963, the
Church's Modern form and small scale design contributes to Aspen's West End
neighborhood.
The lot area is 15,599 squaze feet, and was assigned an allowable floor area of 7,118
square feet for the modest addition to the church through the Conditional Use Review
process in 1976. In 1980, a rectory was built on the site to provide an employee housing
unit; concurrently, the Church was granted a reduction in required off-site parking from
14 spaces to 12 spaces, 4 of which were required to be provided on-site with the
remaining 8 spaces held in abeyance for future implementation should there be
complaints. The Church cunently has four spaces, two of which aze in a tandem
configuration.
• Previous actions
On August 28, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved an amendment to
the existing Conditional Use approval to allow the increase of allowable floor area from
7,118 square feet to 9,000 square feet; re-established parking requirements through the
Special Review process; and granted reaz yazd setback and site coverage variances for the
proposed addition.z The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority
for Dimensional Variances, Special Review for parking, and Conditional Use review;
however, Growth Management review is under the purview of City Council, based on a
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, which overlaps some of
these issues (i.e. parking). The Planning and Zoning Commission voted four to one (4 -
1)recommending City Council approve the Growth Management request.
DISCUSSION:
Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility3
City Council is asked to grant Growth Management review, which focuses on the
development's role as an essential public facility serving the general public and needs of
the community. The Community Development Director has determined that the Christ
~ During the August 19, 1980 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, a resolution was not adopted; however a
motion was adopted and the minutes serve as record. See Exhibit D.
z On August 28, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commission adopted Resolution #23, Series of 2007 by a vote of 4 -
l. Minutes from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting held on August 21, 2007 and August 28, 2007 are
attached as Exhibit C.
;Section 26.104.100 of the Land Use Code defines Essential Public Facility as " a facility which serves an essential
public purpose, is available for use by, or benefit of, the general public and serves the needs of the community"
Revised 11/5/2007
G:\city\Sazaa\christ episcopal church\churchfirstreading.doc
Page 2 of 4
Episcopal Church is an Essential Public Facility4 because it serves both members and
non-members by offering religious services to AA meetings to La Leche meetings. The
Church requests approval to extend the existing barrel-vaulted structure to the rear and
demolish and replace the addition to the east. Staff finds that the proposed design is
sensitive to the Modern azchitecture of the existing church, and despite not having local
landmark status; the addition generally meets the Historic Preservation guidelines.s A
key component of the development is to make the entire Church ADA accessible and
Building Code compliant. The Church building has not been updated since the ] 970s.
Affordable Housins: The Land Use Code establishes this as a separate review process
lazgely because Essential Public Facilities are unique. A more typical growth
management review focuses on employees generated from commercial and free market
residential component that result in a high level of services; whereas, this application
seeks to improve the efficiency, safety, accessibility and function of the physical building
and does not propose to increase programs. No affordable housing is proposed in this
application because the development is not intended to increase the existing Church
functions. Despite actually retaining 2 full time employees, the Church provides
employee housing for 3.5 employees on the site in the adjacent rectory building. Staff
finds that the existing affordable housing is sufficient.
Parkins: Among the criteria for Growth Management Review as an Essential Public
Facility is compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP)6, which
incorporates transportation and parking goals of the community. Part of the development
includes an additional parking space bringing the total onsite parking spaces to 5 with 2
spaces in tandem, which was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission under
the Special Review process. Staff strongly believes that increasing the amount of onsite
parking to more than that proposed would negatively impact the site planning, open
space, and the ability of the Church to visually blend into the West End neighborhood.
Public transportation and alternate methods will continue to be promoted by the Church.
Staff finds that the proposal meets the goals of the AACP and the criteria for Growth
Management Review as an Essential Public Facility.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: "In reviewing the proposal, Staff finds that the project meets the
applicable review criteria for Growth Management for Essential Public Facilities. The proposal
is consistent with the goals of the AACP by preserving the form of an existing Modern building,
designing an addition that is sensitive to the residential context of the neighborhood, and
updating the building so that it is Code compliant, energy efficient and ADA accessible. Staff
recommends approval of the Growth Management request."
There is a precedent in Aspen for religious organizations to be reviewed as essential public facilities. The most
recent example is the Jewish Community Center development at 435 West Main Street, which received growth
Management approval in 2006 as an essential public facility.
5 The Church application was submitted prior to the adoption of Ordinance #30, Series of 2007. 536 West North
Street is identified on the "list of potential historic resources", aka Exhibit A to Ordinance #48, Series of 2007.
e Exhibit A compares the proposal with the goals in the AACP.
Revised 11/5/2007
G:\city\Sazaa\christ episcopal church\churchfirstreading.doc
Page 3 of 4
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance # "! 9 Series of 2007 upon First
Reading, and schedule Second Reading for December 10, 2007."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
A -Growth Management Review Criteria for an Essential Public Facility .
B -Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution #23, Series of 2007.
C -Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes, August 7, 2007 and August 28, 2007
D -Planning and Zoning parking review, August 19, 1980 minutes
E -Application
Revised 11/5/2007
G:\city\Saraa\christ episcopal church\churchfirstreading.doc
Page 4 of 4
ORDINANCE N0. ~~
(SERIES OF 2007)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING
WITH CONDITIONS, GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR AN
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY FOR 536 W. NORTH STREET, LOTS 11, 12,
13, 14 AND 15, BLOCK 99, HALLAM'S ADDITION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF
ASPEN, CO, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
PARCEL N0.2735-121-11-808.
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Christ Episcopal Church, requesting the approval of Growth Management
allotments for an Essential Public Facility; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Christ Episcopal Church qualifies as a Conditional
Use, pursuant to Section 26.104.100 "arts, cultural, and civic use", in the R-6 Medium
Residential Zone District; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Christ Episcopal Church, serves an essential public
purpose by serving the needs of the general public and Aspen community, and therefore
is categorized as an Essential Public Facility, pursuant to Section 26.104.100; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned R-6 Medium Residential; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed land use requests do not intend to increase Church
programs, employment, or membership; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards,
the Community Development Department recommended approval with conditions, of the
proposed land use requests; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public heazing on August 7, 2007, continued to
August 21, 2007, continued to a Special Meeting on August 28, 2007, the Planning and
Zoning Commission approved Resolution No.23, Series of 2007, by a (4 -1) vote, an
increase in floor area from 7,118 square feet to 9,000 square feet through the Conditional
Use process, established a new off-street parking requirement through Special Review,
approved certain Dimensional Variances, and a recommendation to City Council for the
approval of Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility located on the
property at 536 W. North Street, Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 Block 99, Hallam's
Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO; and,
WHEREAS, on November 12, 2007 the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance
No. ~ Series 2007, on First Reading by a to _ ~-~ vote, approving with
conditions Growth Management Review as an Essential Public Facility for the property at
536 W. North Street, Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 Block 99, Hallam's Addition, 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 recormendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the
Ordinance No. ,Series 2007
Revised 11/5/2007
G:\city\Saraa\christ episcopal church\churchOrdinance.doc
Page 1 of 5
Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and
considered public comment at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds
all applicable development standazds 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 welfaze.
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 with conditions a Growth
Management Review as an Essential Public Facility in order to demolish and replace an
existing addition and extend the existing main Church building on the property located at
536 W. North Street, Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 Block 99, Hallam's Addition, City and
Townsite of Aspen, CO.
Section 2: Buildine Permit Application
The Applicant may not submit a Building Pennit 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 of the final City Council Ordinance and P&Z Resolution.
b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set.
c. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering
Department.
d. Improvements to the right of way shall include new grass, irrigation, and possibly
the replacement of street trees, and shall be approved prior to building permit
submittal.
e. 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
construction management plan 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. No stabilization will be permitted in the City right of way. Storm
run off must be addressed.
f. A complete geotechnical report and geotechnical design need to be part of the
permit submittal plan.
g. Accessibility requirements shall meet adopted Building Code requirements.
h. An approved Landscape Plan.
Ordinance No. ,Series 2007
Revised 11/5/2007
G:\city\Saraa\christ episcopal church\churchOrdinance.doc
Page 2 of 5
Section 3: Dimensional Requirements
The redevelopment of the site is limited to the Conditional Use amendment and
Dimensional Variances granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission under
Resolution 23, Series of 2007.
Section 4: Parkin¢ Requirements
The redevelopment of the site is limited to the parking requirements established by the
Planning and Zoning Commission under Resolution 23, Series of 2007.
Section 5: Affordable Housine
The presented redevelopment is not intended to increase Church services or programs
and; therefore does not require employee mitigation.
Section 6: Trash/Utility Service Area
The trash containers shall be wildlife proof and meet the Certificate of Appropriateness
regulations pertaining to size and security.
Section 7: 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
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.
Section 9: 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) aze not connected to the
sanitary sewer system.
b. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD.
Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping
may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district.
d. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.
e. The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit the discharge
of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitazy sewer system. The glycol
storage azeas must have approved containment facilities.
f Soil Nails aze not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines.
Ordinance No. ,Series 2007
Revised 11/5/2007
G:\city\Saraa\christ episcopal church\churchOrdinance.doc
Page 3 of 5
g. Applicant's civil engineer will be required to submit existing and proposed flow
calculations.
Section 10: Exterior Lighting ,
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 11: Landscaping
a. Vertical excavation will be required and over-digging is prohibited in this zone. This
note must be represented on the building permit set. Utility connection will need to
be designed and shown on the plan in a manner that does not encroach into the tree
protection zones.
b. Prior to the issuance of any demolition or building permits, tree removal will be
approved by the Parks Department. Mitigation for removals will be paid through
cash-in-lieu or on site with street trees.
c. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the
building permit set.
d. Root trenching will be required azound 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 12: Stormwater Development Fee
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 25.18.020, Stormwater System Development Fee, the
Applicant shall be assessed a Stormwater Fee prior to building permit issuance. The fee
shall be calculated as outlined in Section 25.18 of the Municipal Code.
Section 13: Vested Rights
The development approvals granted pursuant to Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution Number xx, Series of 2007 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
boundazies 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:
536 W. North Street, Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 Block 99, Hallam's Addition,
City and Townsite of Aspen, CO, by Ordinance No._ Series of 2007, of the
Aspen City Council.
Ordinance No. ,Series 2007
Revised 11/5/2007
G:\city\Saraa\christ episcopal church\churchOrdinance.doc
Page 4 of 5
Section 14:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awazded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, aze
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 15:
This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 16:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a sepazate, distinct and independent provision and shal- not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 17:
A public hearing on the ordinance was held on the l Os' day of December, 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 12th day of November, 2007.
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _ of , 2007.
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
John Worcester, City Attorney
Ordinance No. ,Series 2007
Revised 11/5/2007
G:\city\Saraa\christ episcopal church\churchOrdinance.doc
Page 5 of 5
The development of an Essential Public Facility, upon a recommendation from the
Planning and Zoning Commission, shall be approved, approved with conditions, or
denied by the City Council based on the following criteria:
A. The Community Development Director has determined the primary use and /or
structure to be an Essential Public Facility. Accessory uses may also be part of an
Essential Public Facility project.
Staff Response: Pursuant to Section 26.104.100, Essential Public Facility is defined as
"a facility which serves an essential public purpose, is available for use by, or benefit of,
the general public and serves the needs of the community." Since 1881, the Christ
Episcopal Church serves both members and non-members of the public from religious
services to AA meetings. Staff finds that this criterion is met.
B. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the uses,
pursuant to Section 26.470.030. C, Development Ceiling Levels and Section
26.470.030. D, Annual Development Allotments.
Staff Response: The project does not expect to increase programs and capacity with the
proposed addition; therefore affordable housing mitigation is not required. Based on the
use of the proposal, no Growth Management allotments are required for the proposed
changes to the Essential Public Facility. Staff finds that this criterion is met.
C. The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
Staff Response: The Christ Episcopal Church serves the Aspen community through both
spiritual guidance and as anon-member facility for AA meetings and Aspen Music
Festival and School performances. The proposal perpetuates the Church's current role in
"nurturing intellectual and spiritual growth that enriches our lives while challenging our
imaginations" listed in the AACP. The design proposal retains an important Modern
building in Aspen, and replaces an addition with a sensitive design that is compatible
with the Modern architecture and the residential neighborhood, which meets the AACP
policy on design quality and historic preservation.
Transportation and housing goals of the AACP are met with the proposed development as
the current congregation and number of employees will not be increased. The Church is
situated in Aspen's West End neighborhood with adequate public transportation services.
~ The application was submitted prior to the adoption of Ordinance 14, Series of 2007 and is subject to the
regulations in place at the time of submittal.
Exhibit A
GMQS Review for an Essential Public Facility
G:\city\Saraa\christ episcopal church\GMQSExhibitACityCouncil.doc
Page 1 of 3
Under the current Code, there is no definitive pazking requirement for a Church in the R-
6zone district. The previous parking requirement, adopted by the Planning and Zoning
Commission in 1980, required four spaces (two of which aze stacked) onsite, with eight
spaces in abeyance with the condition that the City could require the implementation of
these spaces based on complaints. The applicant is proposing one additional parking
space, which will bring the total onsite parking to five spaces, so that although one space
of the five is obstructed due to the tandem configuration, four spaces aze unobstructed.
The Planning and Zoning Commission established new pazking requirements for the
Church- in essence approving the five ~arking spaces proposed in this application-
through Resolution #23, Series of 2007. Staff finds that this is sufficient given the
proximity to public transportation, and that the design proposal does not increase the
programmatic goals of the Church. Increasing the amount of onsite parking would
negatively impact the site planning, open space, and the ability of the Church to visually
blend into the West End neighborhood.
Staff finds that the goals of the AACP are met.
D. A sufficient percentage of the employees expected to be generated by the project are
mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash-in-lieu thereof in a manner
acceptable to the City Council. The Employee Generation Rates may be used as a
guideline but each operation shall be analyzed for its unique employee needs. The City
Council may waive, or partially waive, affordable housing mitigation requirements as is
deemed appropriate and warranted for the purpose of promoting civic uses and in
consideration of broader community goals.
Staff Response: The proposed development will not increase the Church's program and
therefore is not expected to increase the number of employees. The Church currently
mitigates for 3.5 employees with a four bedroom rectory located onsite, which will
remain unchanged. There are two full-time employees and two part-time employees on
staff; the two full-time employees aze housed in the rectory. Staff finds that criterion d is
not applicable, as no new employees ate generated with this proposal.
E. Free market residential floor area on the parcel is accompanied with affordable
housing units or mitigation pursuant to 26.470.040.0.6, unless otherwise restricted in the
zone district. The City Council may waive, partially waive, or establish a different
limitation as is deemed appropriate and warranted for the purpose of promoting civic
uses and in consideration of broader community goals.
Staff Response: The proposal does not include a free market residential component.
F. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such
additional demand is mitigated through improvements propose das part of the project.
Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment,
2 Exhibit B.
Exhibit A
GMQS Review for an Essential Public Facility
G:\city\Sazaa\christ episcopal church\GMQSExhibitACityCouncil.doc
Page 2 of 3
energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid
waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services.
Staff Response: One of the primary reasons for this proposal is to increase energy
efficiency and update the building to comply with current building code and accessibility
requirements. The applicant proposes to update systems and components that will
minimize, and in some cases reduce, impacts on the public infrastructure. Because the
Church does not intent to increase programs, staff projects that there will be a minimal
impact on parking in the West End neighborhood. The applicant intends to promote
public transportation and is providing bicycle storage as part of the proposed site plan.
Staff finds that criterion f is met.
Exhibit A
GMQS Review for an Essential Public Facility
G:\city\Saraa\christ episcopal church\GMQSExhibitACityCouncil.doc
Page 3 of 3
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS AN AMENDMENT TO THE
CONDITIONAL USE TO INCREASE FAR ONSITE, SPECIAL REVIEW TO
ESTABLISH OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS, DIMENSIONAL
VARIANCES, AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE WITH
CONDITIONS GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR AN ESSENTIAL
PUBLIC FACILITY FOR 536 W. NORTH STREET, LOTS 11, 12, 13,14 AND 15,
BLOCK 99, HALLAM'S ADDITION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, CO,
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
PARCEL N0.2735-121-11-808.
RESOLUTION N0.23, SERIES OF 2007
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Christ Episcopal Church, requesting approval of an increase in floor area from
7,118 square feet to 9,000 square feet through the Conditional Use process, to establish
new off street parking requirements through Special Review, Dimensional Vaziances, and
a recommendation to City Council for the approval of Growth Management allotments
for an Essential Public Facility; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Christ Episcopal Church qualifies as a Conditional
Use, pursuant to Section 26.104.100 "arts, cultural, and civic use", in the R-6 Medium
Residential Zone District; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Christ Episcopal Church, serves an essential public
purpose by serving the needs of the general public and Aspen community, and therefore
is categorized as an Essential Public Facility, pursuant to Section 26.104.100; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned R-6 Medium Residential; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed land use requests do not intend to increase Church
programs, employment, or membership; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards,
the Community Development Department recommended approval with conditions, of the
proposed land use requests; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on August 7, 2007, continued to
August 21, 2007, continued to a Special Meeting on August 28, 2007, the Planning and
Zoning Commission approved Resolution No.23, Series of 2007, by a (4 -1) vote, an
increase in floor azea from 7,118 squaze feet to 9,000 squaze feet through the Conditional
Use process, established a new off-street parking requirement through Special Review,
approved certain Dimensional Variances, and a recommendation to City Council for the
approval of Grow[h Management Review for an Essential Public Facility located on the
property at 536 W. North Street, Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 Block 99, Hallam's
Addition, 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,
Exhibit B
P& Z Resolution #23, Series of 2007
Page 1 of 5
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the
development proposal meets all applicable development standazds 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 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission fmds that this resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS:
Section I: Dimensional Standards
Pursuant to the procedures and standazds set forth in Title 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal
Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves with conditions an increase
in floor area from 7,118 squaze feet to 9,000 square feet through the Conditional Use
process, the establishment of new off street pazking requirements through Special
Review, certain dimensional Variances as identified in Table 1, and a recommendation to
City Council for the approval of Growth Management Review for an Essential Public
Facility for the property located at Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, Block 99, Hallam's
Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO. The approved dimensional standards, floor
area, and off-street pazking are indicated in the chart below under the heading, "proposed
development":
Table 1: The following dimensional variances are approved solely for the
proposed redevelopment.
Section 2: Conditional Use Amendment:
The subject property is approved for a total of 9,000 square feet of floor area for the
design presented at the August 28, 2007 Planning Zoning meeting. Elevations of the
approved design, site plan and landscape plan shall be recorded with the Pitkin County
Clerk and Recorder prior to submitting for a Building Permit.
Section 3: Building Permit Application
The building permit application shall include the following:
a. A copy of the final City Council Ordinance and P&Z Resolution.
b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set.
a A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering
Department.
Exhibit B
P& Z Resolution #23, Series of 2007
Page 2 of 5
d. Improvements to the right of way shall include new grass, irrigation, and possibly
the replacement of street trees, and shall be approved prior to building permit
submittal.
e. 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 pazking plan for review and
approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent. The
construction management plan 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. No stabilization will be permitted in the City right of way. Storm
run off must be addressed.
f. A complete geotechnical report and geotechnical design need to be part of the
permit submittal plan.
g. Accessibility requirements shall meet adopted Building Code requirements.
h. An approved Landscape Plan.
Section 4: Special Review: Parkins Requirements
The subject property is approved to have four (4) parking spaces and one (1) stacked
pazking space onsite. This approval amends that adopted by Planning and Zoning
Commission on August 19, 1980 through the Special Review Process. A site plan shall
be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder indicating the number of
approved parking spaces prior to submitting for Building Permit. The applicant shall
provide onsite bicycle storage.
Section 5: Trash/Utility Service Area
The trash containers shall be wildlife proof and meet the Certificate of Appropriateness
regulations pertaining to size and security.
Section 6: Sidewalks, Curb, and Gutter
The sidewalks shall be upgraded to meet the City Engineer's standards and ADA
requirements, 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.
Section 7: Water Deaartment 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.
Section 8: Sanitation District Requirements
a. Service is contingent upon compliance with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District's (ACSD) rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the
District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that cleaz
water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the
sanitazy sewer system.
Exhibit B
P& Z Resolution #23, Series of 2007
Page 3 of 5
b. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD.
o, Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hazd landscaping
may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district.
d. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.
e. The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit the dischazge
of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol
storage azeas must have approved containment facilities.
£ Soil Nails aze not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines.
g. Applicant's civil engineer will be required to submit existing and proposed flow
calculations.
Section 9: Exterior Lighting
All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code
pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting.
Section 10: Landscaping
a. Vertical excavation will be required and over-digging is prohibited in this zone. This
note must be represented on the building permit set. Utility connection will need to
be designed and shown on the plan in a manner that does not encroach into the tree
protection zones.
b. Prior to the issuance of any demolition or building permits, tree removal will be
approved by the Parks Department. Mitigation for removals will be paid through
cash-in-lieu or on site with street trees.
c. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the
building permit set.
d. Root trenching will be required azound 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 11:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awazded, 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 12:
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 13:
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
Exhibit B
P& Z Resolution #23, Series of 2007
Page 4 of 5
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 28a'
day of August, 2007.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
James R. True, Special Counsel
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
John Rowland, Chairman
Exhibit B
P& Z Resolution #23, Series of 2007
Page 5 of 5
Asaen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -August 7, 2007
would generate. Vann responded there would clearly be an increase in the level of
activity that currently was being done in this area; there were proposals to transport
individuals from Ruby Park and other hotels along Dean Avenue and Durant via
the trolley system. Vann said the street section was designed to handle the level of
traffic.
Guthrie asked when the time was to ask about the large hotel vehicles driving one
person two blocks and how that could be dealt with; this was like a private limo
service. Phelan stated that this was a public right-of--way, which was a much
broader scope than just this application. Guthrie said that he could not put the
community issues on this one project.
MOTION: David Guthrie moved to approve Resolution #22, series of 2007
incorporating Exhibit D, the language including APCHA pay for the Deep Powder
cabins as affordable housing and consider funding options for their rehabilitation ,
the volleyball courts timing, concern for the location of the Ski Museum; seconded
by Brian Speck. Roll call vote: Rowland, yes; Speck, yes; Guthrie, yes; Erspamer,
no. APPROVED 3-1.
LJ Erspamer explained that the application does not promote the efficient use of
land with the change of conservation zone to lodge. Erspamer said he would like
to see this project become pedestrian friendly; there was too much traffic and
parking was a problem. Erspamer thanked the applicants.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH GMQS AND OTHER LAND USE
APPROVALS
John Rowland opened the public hearing for Christ Episcopal Church. Sara
Adams stated that the reviews before P&Z were Growth Management for an
essential public facility recommendation to City Council; a Conditional Use to
increase the floor area from 7,118 [0 9,500; Special Review to establish parking
requirements; and Dimensional Variances.
Adams explained that Planning & Zoning in 1980 approved 12 parking spaces with
4 on site and 8 spaces abeyance for future implementation. The development
requires a 5 foot rear yard setback, where 10 feet is required; a variance for site
coverage was also required. Adams stated that overall this project balances the
Exhibit C
P&Z Meeting Minutes August 7, 20076
Aspen Plannin¢ & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 7.2007
needs of the church; it was in context with the neighborhood and the addition was
sensitive and brings the building into accessibility requirements by the code.
Commission questions were regarding the site coverage amount requested. Adams
said the maximum was 27% and the applicant was requesting 40%; the building
was one story, well below the height limit and fit into the neighborhood. The
rectory was 4 bedrooms and currently housed the 2 full time employees.
Jim DeFrancia said that he was chairman of the building committee; the objective
was to make more efficient use of the facility for the present uses. DeFrancia said
that they were not planning an expansion of the congregation; they were
redesigning the spaces to be more efficient. Some other current uses for the church
included AA, the Aspen Music Festival, Aspen Youth Experience, La Leche, AIA,
and holiday baskets; it was clearly a community facility. DeFrancia stated they
wanted to bring the facility into compliance with the code.
Gilbert Sanchez, architect, said the intent was to provide appropriate worship
fellowship support spaces for the current congregation and the community; code
compliance; sustainability and accessibility were primary goals. Sanchez said to
comply with the current plumbing codes they were adding additional plumbing
fixtures. There would be new heating, ventilation and lighting improving energy
consumption and proper building insulation. Sanchez said they were adding fire
suppression systems providing a line of safety that doesn't exist now.
Sanchez said they wanted to maintain the shape and form of this church and add an
element similaz in mass, which was a little bit smaller, and connect the two
separate modules with a glass circulation space but keep the residential rhythm for
this neighborhood. The new addition drops down to 18 feet 6 inches in the back.
Sanchez stated they were increasing the off-street parking spaces to 5 but taking
out the stacked spaces comes to 4. To accommodate the 1980 approval of parking
spaces they would not be able to utilize this development plan; there would be loss
of open space by providing the parking on site.
Sanchez said the setback was the minimum that they could ask for and the setback
only touched at 2 places.
DeFrancia said that they communicated with the neighbors sending letters to about
50 neighbors twice and held a meeting on August 1 ~` with 2 neighbors attending.
The architectural harmony will be kept throughout the building even in the back. It
was not their intent to expand any uses of the church.
Exhibit C
P&Z Meeting Minutes August 7, 2007
7
Aspen Planning & Zonin¢ Commission Meetin¢ Minutes -August 7, 2007
LJ Erspamer asked if the building was a designated landmark. Sara Adams replied
that it was not. Erspamer asked what the single family house was; did it have one
kitchen. DeFrancia replied that it was the rector's house and his wife that were
employed by the church and lived there in the single family detached house, which
had 4 bedrooms, a kitchen and living/dining room. Erspamer asked when this was
approved does this eliminate the abeyance for parking. Adams responded yes that
it would establish new parking requirements.
Public Comments:
1. Claude Salter said that parking was a problem in the neighborhood with the
uses in the church and the music going on in the tent. Salter said the distance
between the buildings was not consistently 10 feet apart; she disagrees with the
rear yard setback given the massing that they were adding. Salter said the code
allowed the choir to be kept and section 1024.5 of the IBC was the accessibility
issue.
2. Ann Burrows said that she lived to the south of the church and voiced
concern was for traffic and increased traffic.
3. Warren Klug said that he was a member of the church and the church was a
public facility that provides services for lots of community residents and a
community gathering place. Klug said that the development of this building was to
make it better and more usable; he noted houses in the neighborhood had master
bedroom suites that were bigger than this additional square footage. The variances
make the building work better; the building remains appropriate to the character of
the neighborhood. Klug said the basement is currently not accessible to
handicapped and the renovation plan was very modest.
4. Steve Fallendar said that he lived across the street and the additional square
footage was considerable; he said the basement increase in space was also
significant. Fallendar asked that the resolution include that there will not be a
school at this location. Fallendar said that he was nervous about metal used as the
material; he questioned the landscape.
5. Colleen Collins letter was placed into the record. Collins said you could get
the same number of seats without increasing the square footage.
6. Bob Blaich said that everything that is done in this community affects
someone; this project has a high level of merit and it will benefit the community.
Jim DeFrancia commented that the extension of the church by 12 feet was a
function of design; the extension will have a construction area so the landscait c
P&Z Meeting Minutes August 7, 2002
Asuen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -August 7, 2007
will come down but they will be sensitive to the finish design of the back side of
the church as well as replacing the landscaping. DeFrancia said that they cannot
convert to a school; they would have to go back through the process with a whole
different set of requirements. DeFrancia said they have made a representation into
the public record of their intensions of lack of expanded uses. DeFrancia said that
they do not anticipate a metal roof, currently they were looking at a slate roof.
Erspamer asked for explanations on special events and parking issues for the next
meeting. DeFrancia said that there have not been any parking problems from the
church. Erspamer asked for a site visit. Phelan said that she would set up a site
visit.
Adams said there was a survey in the packet dated December 2006, which shows
the alley is 20 feet.
Rowland said that it was a great piece of architecture and was respectful to the
neighborhood; he said the setbacks concerned him. Rowland asked that a shuttle
or other form of transportation be considered for big special events.
MOTION: LJ Erspamer moved to continue the Christ Episcopal Church hearing
to August 21 S`; David Guthrie seconded. All in favor, APPROVED.
MOTION.• LJ Erspamer moved to adjourn; seconded by David Guthrie; all in
favor.
Transcribed by:
~ ~u~
ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
Exhibit C
P&Z Meeting Minutes August 7, 20079
AAAAAAAAA~en Plannine & Zoning MeetinE Minutes - Aueust 28 2007
COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2
MINUTES ................................................................................................................. 2
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................................... 2
CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH GMQ5 and OTHER LAND USE APPROVALS
................................................................................................................................... 2
Exhibit C
P&Z Meeting Mlnules
August 28, 2007
I
Aspen Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes - August 2$ 2007
John Rowland opened the special meeting at 4:30 p.m, in Sister Cities Meeting
Room. Commissioners present were Brian Speck, Dylan Johns, LJ Erspamer,
David Guthrie and John Rowland. Staff: Jim True, Special Counsel; Sara Adams,
Jennifer Phelan, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
COMMENTS
Jennifer Phelan distributed copies of the final edits of the Commercial and Lodging
Design Standards.
Jackie Lothian said City Council was conducting interviewing for P&Z members
tonight and on September 11"'.
MINUTES
MOTION.• LJ Erspamer moved to apps rave the minutes from August 7`~ and
clarified that the minutes from July 17` were to include the Lift One tax district
was a property tax district and the North of Nell building doesn't meet the
pedestrian amenity and the building is existing and there was nothing that can be
done to meet the pedestrian amenity; seconded by Brian Speck. Approved 3-0 (2
abstained).
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
None stated.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (08/07/07):
CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH GMQS and OTHER LAND USE
APPROVALS
John Rowland opened the continued public hearing. Sara Adams said there was a
growth management review; recommendation to city council for an essential
public facility; a conditional use amendment for the increase in floor area
(currently 7,118 square feet to 9500 squaze feet); special review for parking (the
applicant requested new parking requirements); 2 dimensional variances (reaz yard
setback of 5 feet and site coverage for 40%).
Adams provided resolutions with changes to the parking with the addition of onsite
bicycle storage.
Saza Adams introduced 3 letters into the public record from Lisa Mazkalunas,
Anne Burrows and Janice & Charles Collins.
Exhibit C
P8Z Meeting Minutes
August 28, 2007 2
Aspen Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes -August 28 2007
Jim True commented there were legal implications involved in this application; the
religious land use and institutionalized persons act of 2000, which is a federal law,
may come into play in the consideration of the application however one important
aspect of this law (IZLUIPA), there was no discrimination by the government. The
government can not treat the religious organization on a less than equal basis than
any other applicant; the staff analysis was consistent this aspect of 12LUIPA in that
it was treated as any other applicant. L7 Erspamer asked if this act changed the
fact that approval of one project doesn't set precedent to approve another religious
project. True responded that from a general context that you do what you have to
do with any religious entity was to apply the terms of the act to the specifics of that
case and treat any application with no less than an equal position. Erspamer asked
if you set a precedent with one religious institution do you have to treat the other
one the same. True replied that you can not treat any religious organization with a
less than equal basis or any other religious organization or any non religious
organization.
Bob Blaich represented the applicant and gave an overview of the last presentation
and addressed the issues with the removal and replacing of the landscape on the
alley of the rear of the church; the alleyright-of--way for public and emergency
access was not affected by the addition to the rear of the church; the 1980 parking
approval to provide 8 off-site parking, there have been no complaints to the Aspen
Police Department with regard to parking against the church; the redevelopment of
the facility was not predicated on expanded uses but to better serve the
congregation and those organizations that utilize the church facility for public
permitted use and if in the future there was a need to seek new uses it would go
through the public process with P&Z and City Council and the expansion of the
worship space was to more efficiently utilize this space and the new hospitability
space replaces that in the basement; both spaces are being brought up to code.
Blaich said the existing basement space (undercroft) will be utilized for meetings,
church school and church offices. The addition of the elevator will provide
handicap access to both levels. Blaich said that the main church roof will be slate
colored metal.
Sanchez utilized the program space in original arched volume chart for the existing
and proposed square footages for the foyer (existing & proposed 298.00 SF), nave
(existing 988.22 SF and proposed 1,202.12 SF), chancel (462.26 SF and proposed
604.75 SF) and balcony (existing 228 SF and no balcony proposed).
Gilbert Sanchez noted the property line was at an angle so the setback variance
needed only occur at 2 points; the mass of the building was peaking up with thPExhibB c
barrel Shape, P8Z Meeting Minutes
Augusl 28, 2007
Aspen Planning & Zonine Meeting Minutes - Aueust 28.2007
Sanchez distributed and spoke about the new site plans, which included the alley,
view analysis, solar analysis, West End map, parking analysis, site history and a
color computer generated drawing from the alley.
Sanchez said the cross town shuttle goes right by the church and bike racks would
be provided.
Blaich said the Collins' letter requested the church activities be limited that were
non-religious programs and noted the pazking problems were from the Music
festival, Physics and Aspen Institute. Blaich listed the current activities as AA
meets 3-5 times a week with 20-25 people; the Aspen Music Festival meets 5-6
weeks per summer Monday thru Saturday with 10-20 students; Aspen Youth
Experience meets 2 weeks in the winter with about 40 kids and their leaders; La
Leche Le meets 1 day a week year round with 7 moms and their kids; Youth with a
Mission meets one long weekend during the X-Games with about 25 students and
teachers spending the night; Music Together meets 1 day a week year round with
about 40 moms, infants and toddlers for music appreciation; AIA Holiday Baskets
for 3 weeks daily in November/December with a few people in the church that put
the baskets together and someone picks them up; Music in the West End with 3
performances in January, February and March.
Dylan Johns inquired if there was a daycare. Blaich replied there was no daycare.
LJ Erspamer asked the lot size. Adams replied 15,599 square feet. Erspamer
asked the average setback in the back. Sanchez replied that it averaged between 5
and 7 feet. Erspamer asked how far back the new extension was going. Sanchez
responded 12 feet. Erspamer said if some corners were eliminated it might help
with the setback issues. Sanchez said the only new addition in terms of permanent
space was the undercroft, which wouid be used as a hospitality hall. Sanchez said
the toilets were being brought up to code and enlarged for ADA accessible.
Sanchez said that the uniqueness of this building was that there were windows in
the basement 4 feet below the first floor so the square footage was counted into the
FAR.
Public Comments:
1. Janice Collins said their complaint was the size and the variance; she said
that they lived directly across the alley from the church. Collins said they were
most impacted by this proposed variance (as stated in her letter); she stated that she
did not want an expansion of the programs. Collins asked for the proposed seating.
Sanchez replied that it was flexible seating, a modular pew chair. Blaich said that
there have not been any final decisions made by the sub-committeePgCMeli 9 M~a®ked
Augusl 28, 2007 4
Aspen Planuine & Zonine Meetins Minutes - Aueust 28.2007
if this additional space was necessary and did not feel the same with the addition
on the back. Collins voiced concern for the lack of landscaping in the alley.
2. Diana Ramsey said that she has been a member of this church for almost 40
years and stated that there were also funerals, weddings and other church
functions, Ramsey said there were now 2 dishwashers; the added space of the
church was necessary because the plumbing, roof and insulation all needed
replacement. Ramsey said that the inside and the outside of this project would be
attractive.
3. Father Bruce McNab, the pastor of Christ Church, said he records the
attendance for every church event; the average number of people in the 1980's and
1990's was 50 or more people attending than this last decade. The cunent average
was 112 attending on Sundays. Father McNab said the reason for the
improvements was to allow for wider isles and not to allow for more seating; it was
a safety issue.
4. Lisa Markalunas said that a seating plan was required to the neighbors. The
parking was a huge impact from Sunday services, large weddings and funerals as
well as the Music Festival and Hams Hall. Markalunas suggested approaching the
City to request the cross-town shuttle service be increased.
5. Ann Burrows ran numbers regarding the attendance for the Music tent and
Hams Hall that was 83,700 people.
6. Mary Janz suggested moving the organ so that the organ player can see what
was going on.
7. Colleen Burrows asked for a re-configuration and a current site plan.
Bun•ows attended a concert last winter and it was stated that they wanted to have
more concerts in the future. Burrows said that there was a double standard because
this was a church and it was being treated differently; she requested the church
follow the same rules. Burrows said the West End was not second homeowners
the people that live in this neighborhood were raising their families.
8. Claude Salter stated that they were held to the same changes if there was a
remodel or this massive addition; the building still has to be brought up to fire code
and accessibility. Salter said that this was about the massing. Salter requested a
seating plan. Salter said that alleys were a treasure.
Exhibit C
P&Z Meeting Minutes
August 28, 2007
Aspen Planning & Zoning Meetine Minutes - Au¢ust 28, 2007
9. Steve Falender stated that he lived across the street at 603 West Gillespie
and since the last meeting the church has not contacted him. Falender said that the
7 closest people to the church were all raising families here and they were part of
the community. Falender said if the church ageed not to have an increased
concert schedule that would go a tremendous way and they have neglected to put
anything in writing. Falender said that by putting the number of concerts in
writing would go a long way to satisfy the neighbors. Falender said P&Z must
decide whether it was consistent with the policies to enforce setback requirements
in the West End. Falender said that in the documents there was a way to
appropriately evaluate what was an appropriate variance; he requested P&Z reread
those sections to determine why the church can't add significantly without going
into the rear yazd setback. Falender said they have not opposed the increase in
FAR or the extensive increase in lot coverage. Falender asked P&Z to request the
church meet the rear yazd setback and agree to the number of concerts but grant the
increased FAR. Falender requested that Community Development review the
metal roof for design standards review.
10. Susan Horsey said that she liked having the church in the neighborhood.
Horsey said the Christ Church mission was to share the love; playing music from
the great composers. Horsey said the church has open doors.
11. Warren Klug said that he was a member of Christ Church and lived just a
few blocks away; all over the country churches were located in residential areas
and it works. Klug said the business of Christ Church was to take care of people in
the community in respectful and positive ways because it was a place of worship,
ministry and renewal. The concerts were small and intimate. The goals were to
make the building and the work of the church function better, safer for everybody
and a better fellowship area on the main level. Klug said the increase was not that
big, it was 128 square feet.
12. Keith Gardner said that the term concert was of major concern for some
people; the concerts taking place at the church were maybe a piano or an organ
plus a violin; he doubted that they were audible outside the church.
13. David Wiedinmyer from Grassroots Aspen Youth Experience who made
their home in the basement of this church in this beautiful neighborhood as a guest;
they were moving their program because there was not enough space in the church.
14. Lisa Mazkalunas asked for clarification on the addition of square footage.
Sanchez replied that they were going from the existing 7,118 square feet to 9,000
square feet. Sanchez said the reason that they were not moving the church fio:~nard
P8Z Meeting Minutes
August za, zoos 6
Aspen Plannine & Zonine Meeting Minutes -August 28 2007
was because there was an existing tree that they were not allowed to move so they
adjusted the plan and took away 500 square feet.
15. Joan Macney said that she was a deacon at this church and said that there
should be an element of trust for the good of the community.
Sanchez said the church sent out letters and packets to all of the neighbors.
David Guthrie asked if the metal was slate colored. Sanchez replied that it was
zinc, which was a velvety textured metal with almost no reflectivity and absorbs
light. Blaich stated that this roof replaces asbestos shingles.
LJ Erspamer read the definition of essential public facility (page 10 of the memo)
and asked staff to elaborate on that. Sara Adams replied that essential public
facility was what they have used in the past to review churches. Erspamer asked if
a change in use occurred they would have to come back before P&Z. Jennifer
Phelan responded that this was a conditional use so if there was a major
amendment to their plan they would have to come back to the Planning & Zoning
Commission.
The commissioners were all good with the GMQS, Conditional Use, Special
Review criteria.
Erspamer asked what the percentage of site coverage was with the lowered FAR to
9,000 squaze feet. Sanchez replied that it was probably 36 or 37%.
The alley variance discussion included Guthrie commented that they alley that he
lived on had setbacks everywhere; all of the alleys had encroachments whether it
was a garbage dumpster enclosure or a building, which was part of the messy
vitality that used to be desirable here. Brian Speck and Dylan Johns said that there
was not a hazdship for the setback variance. Johns said that a garage was one
nature for an alley variance but a building that was 18 feet tall was another; he said
that it was partly a scale matter.
Erspamer said dropping the square footage made a difference for him.
Adams said that to grant a variance was generally consistent with the purposes
goals, objectives and policies of the AACP. Adams said that she demonstrated in
other exhibits that they do fmd that expanding the church for the reasons in the
application that meet the AACP, in terms of providing community services.
Exhj4it C
Adams stated to grant a variance there was the minimum variance po~i~adp,,~a~
August 28, 2007
Asaen Plannin¢ & Zoning Meetin¢ Minutes -August 28.2007
reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; based upon the application it
was the minimum variance. Adams noted that the 3'~ criteria was hardship and
because the applicant was not doing a scrape and replace but working with the
existing and difficult form; they were trying to keep the scale down and the shape
of the parcel was unique, which was another constraint. There were certain corners
that were in the setback and not the entire structure.
John Rowland said that this was a minor infraction on the alleys and there was a
balancing act. Sanchez utilized the model to show the element that was low scale
and the impact was minimal for the benefits that this space will produce for the
church, congregation and the community.
Erspamer said that listening to what Jennifer and Sara had to say there was a limit
on the church activities. Jim True noted that expanded use was not a part of the
application.
Johns said that functionally speaking there was an argument to take the main
portion of the current church and grant that the extension that they were requesting.
Johns said that he was having issues with the additional part of the building sharing
that same variance, which goes along with the fact that they were having to work
with an atypical design space and may need a little more to make full use of the
space for their purposes.
MOTION.' Brian Speck moved to approve Resolution #23, series 2007, approving
with conditions, an increase indoor area from 7,118 square feet to approximately
9,000 square feet though Conditional Use process, an establishment of off-street
parking requirements through the Special Review process to require four (4) onsite
spaces and one (I) stacked space, the required dimensional variances as indicated
in Staff's memorandum and recommending City Council approve with conditions,
Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility. Seconded by David
Guthrie. Roll cal vote: Erspamer, yes; Johns, no; Guthrie, yes; Speck, yes;
Rowland, yes. APPROVED 4-1.
John Rowland supported staff in the research and code interpretation.
Adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
Exhibit C
P&Z Meeting Minutes
August 28, 2002
Regular Meeting Aspen Planning 6 Zoning Commission August 19, 1960
Hunt asked if the staff were going to do something about
the 90 day limit for subdivision exceptions. Runt suggested
an automatic 45 day extension which would save time. Ms.
Smith said the people working on revising the Code will
look at this.
Hedstrom said the Christ Episcopal Church public hearing
would be held later.
Employee Units
in Lodges Karen Smith, planning director, told the Board the staff
Resolution had misread the Board's wishes on this resolution. The
Board had wanted to be more liberal in the single Family
zone district and review an unlimited amount of expansion
by special review.
Anderson moved to approve and adopt Resolution 80-09 and to
strike the word "or" in the second line of the first para-
graph; seconded by Ms. Klar. All in favor, with the
exception of Hunt. Motion carried.
Christ Episcopal
Church Condition Karen Smith said this was discussed at a previous P & Z
Use meeting; she is ready to answer questions and to bring to
the Board a compromise worked out by staff, the Church and
neighbors. Me. Smith said there was a question whether
this required conditional use; it does because it is the
location of parking on the lot of a conditional use in the
R-6 zone. The Church is a conditional use and any expansion
or modification requires approval. P & Z is being asked to
approved a reduction of parking and to approve the config-
uration of that parking.
Ms. Smith recommended as a compromise that the parking be
reduced from 19 to 12 with 9 implemented right now and S
spaces held in abeyance to demo parking on the streets.
Me. Smith presented a revised site plan; the 4 spaces to
be implemented now are to be behind the Rectory with an
access driveway off the alley. The conditions of this
approval should be with the understanding that the Rectory
is not on a separate parcel; the five lots comprise one
undivided parcel. Any division in interest would require
subdivision or exception. Separating the lots would dimin-
ish the ability to service the Church with parking.
Another condition is to reserve the right, if parking is
insufficient, for any party to be able to seek review of
the parking with increase to 19, or the reconfiguration of
parking through a condition use hearing. The soonest this
should be reconsidered is in one year. It has been aug-
guested a landscaping plan should be given to the planning
office; there has been no agreement on this.
Jay Hammond, engineering department, said he is not
inclined., from an engineering standpoint, to recommend a
reduction to 4 spaces. Hammond had recommended there be
10 spaces. The configuration is a special consideration in
view of the neighborhood; however, Hammond said he was not
that comfortable with 4 spaces. Ms. Smith said two of the
spaces will be used for the Rectory. The parking is
accessed off the alley and people will probably tend to use
the street. The neighborhood feels that the sporadic park-
ing is tolerable. Hedstrom agreed the planning office and
P & Z should accede to compromise dictated by the wishes
of the neighbors and the need of the Church.
Hedstrom opened the public hearing.
Nick McGrath, representing Charles Collins who resides
directly across the alley from the Church. McGrath stated
.- -~. Exhibit D
.~ Planning and Zoning Commission Minutac~August 19, 1980
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
Regular Meeting Aspen Planning s Zoning Commission August 19 1980
generally supports the reduction in parking and realizes
no matter how much parking ie behind the Church pill not
fulfill the needs of the Church. A problem with putting
too much parking behind the Rectory is the alley itself.
The alley entrance is very narrow and in the winter it is
difficult to use. McGrath said hie client would prefer
parking, if any, to the front of the Church with a curb
cut, which would improve traffic flow. McGrath suppozted
asking the Church to file a landscaping plan with the
planning office.
Charles Shepard, the Church, said they supported the reduc-
tion. They originally thought a large amount of parking
was required. Shepard said they do intend to landscape;
however, he would prefer not to be tied down to a specific
plan. Hut if the P s Z directs they have a plan, they will.
Hunt asked if the parking were to be increased to 12 or 19,
would the parking lot be paved. Otherwise there would be
a terrible dust problem. Ms. Smith said that was discussed
but was not part of the recommendation but it could be
included with the review criteria.
Hedstrom asked about the parking in the front and the idea
that it may be preferable. Ms. Smith said it was discussed
and the engineering department expressed reservation at
the time. Ms. Smith said this is mainly an engineering
matter. Ms. Smith said she felt the visual impact on the
front would be even greater. The Church is neutral on this
question. Hedstrom said the parking in the front of the
Church was probably continue until the city enforces a
curb and gutter in that area. Anderson said with the Codes
the parking could not be done in front. Ma. Klar agreed
the impact seemed to be landscaping over parking, and that
is the direction they should head. George Stark supported
McGrath's view point. Pam Heck questioned parking in the
alley and having the snow plowed. It may be impossible
to park there at all.
Hedstrom closed the public hearing.
Hunt moved to recommend the reduction in parking from 14 to
12; approving the parking configuration of 4 spaces now as
proposed with 8 held in abeyance and conditioned upon (1)
five lots constituting one undivided development and (2)
right is reserved to review numbers and configuation of
parking including requirement to pave spaces and alley on
an annual basis in response to complaint of interested
party, and (3) file a landscape plan; Hunt amended his
motion to include in condition number 1 that the five lots
constituting one undivided development and that the entire
parcel is integral to the parking needs of the Church;
seconded by Ander"son. All in favor, motion carried.
Anderson moved to adjourn at 7:15 p.m.; seconded by Ms.
Klar. All in favor, mo*ion carried.
fj ~
Kathryn Koc~ty Cle~
Exhibit D
Planning and Zoning Commission Minu[es, August 19, 1980
Aspen Planning & Zoning_Commission Meetine Minutes -August 7, 2007
would generate. Vann responded there would clearly be an increase in the level of
activity that currently was being done in this area; there were proposals to transport
individuals from Ruby Park and other hotels along Dean Avenue and Durant via
the trolley system. Vann said the street section was designed to handle the level of
traffic.
Guthrie asked when the time was to ask about the large hotel vehicles driving one
person two blocks and how that could be dealt with; this was like a private limo
service. Phelan stated that this was apublicright-of--way, which was a much
broader scope than just this application. Guthrie said that he could not put the
community issues on this one project.
MOTION: David Guthrie moved to approve Resolution #22, series of 2007
incorporating Exhibit D, the language including APCHA pay for the Deep Powder
cabins as affordable housing and consider funding options for their rehabilitation ,
the volleyball courts timing, concern for the location of the Ski Museum; seconded
by Brian Speck. Roll call vote: Rowland, yes; Speck, yes; Guthrie, yes; Erspamer,
no. APPROVED 3-1.
LJ Erspamer explained that the application does not promote the efficient use of
land with the change of conservation zone to lodge. Erspamer said he would like
to see this project become pedestrian friendly; there was too much traffic and
pazking was a problem. Erspamer thanked the applicants.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH GMOS AND OTHER LAND USE
APPROVALS
John Rowland opened the public hearing for Christ Episcopal Church. Sara
Adams stated that the reviews before P&Z were Growth Management for an
essential public facility recommendation to City Council; a Conditional Use to
increase the floor area from 7,118 to 9,500; Special Review to establish parking
requirements; and Dimensional Variances.
Adams explained that Planning & Zoning in 1980 approved 12 parking spaces with
4 on site-and 8 spaces abeyance for future implementation. The development
requires a 5 foot rear yard setback, where 10 feet is required; a variance for site
coverage was also required. Adams stated that overall this project balances the
Exhibit C
P&Z Meeting Minutes August 7, 20076
APPLICANT:
ATTACHMENT 2 -LAND USE APPLICATION
Name: G{~/Sl ~p/S~oPBt- GfLuTu~/ -
Location: s3 b u/ , ~pjliT~ GO75 ~~-~~ {~L1JC/G 9~1 i~Ai'L/./FXi1 r5 At~/J/Ti.2/
Parcel ID #
ATrvE:
(Indicate street address, lot & block number, IeQal des~criotion where aoorooriatel
Name: ~jlL~/LT S~Jc/Gf{,~Z //
Address: ,SO ~ r'~!~ L~ ~~~ ~ . `D~ l}"St"~! Cv to/~i/~
Phone #:
PROJECT:
Name: C~JL~$`T ~[$'Co~.~/'L Glt(l(uF/
Address: S~J /O ~(/ • ~Gi2T~1
Phone#: q~,$ 3~.70
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
Conditional Use ^ Conceptual PUD ^ Conceptual Historic Devt.
Special Review ^ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ^ Final Historic Development
^ Design Review Appeal ^ Conceptual SPA ^ Minor Historic Devt.
GMQS Allotment ^ Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) ^ Historic Demolition
GMQS Exemption ^ Subdivision ^ Historic Designation
^ ESA-8040 Greenline, Stream ^ Subdivision Exemption (includes ^ Small Lodge Conversion/
Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumi~ation) Expansion
Mountain View Plane
^ Lot Split ^ Temporary Use ~
///~~` Other:v~VlQn~,~.~rn
^ Lot Line Ad~ustment ^ Text/Ma Amendment
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (descri tion of existin buildin s, uses, revious a royals, etc.)
Gf1v2eK ~Act~ltl~-5 To,~ APP~v~i ~5 P4~irav5 Ga>~~Tla/.~rL
U5~ T~visw5 Sl~ui~- l~bril.,~v I-o/c_ Pr>`~cicc~
YROPOSAL: (description of ro osed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
,~M.o/~~ ~ d~(GINN't_ G/~/~I B~4/ls l~y~J6k~ ~~I?GoN T`f~
Sv~Po~T SP~gc;~5 ~ f}~JD/ icol~[~- P~cryG- ~sP/fit,~
Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $
Q Pre-Application Conference Summary '
[~ Attachment#I, Signed Fee Agreement
[]' Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form
~' Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standazds
All plans that are larger than 8.5" x 11" must be folded and a floppy disk with an electronic copy of all written
text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application.
PROJECT NARRATIVE
CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH
536 W. NORTH ST.
This application seeks the City of Aspen's approval for development to the Christ Episcopal
Church property at 536 West North Street. The proposed development plans are intended to
enhance the worship and fellowship facilities for the church's congregation and to provide
adequate administrative and support spaces for the church staff. This will permit the church to
continue its significant contributions to our community, to minister to its congregation's spiritual
needs and to maintain its traditional identity in Aspen's West End.
Christ Episcopal Church was established in 1881 during the height of Aspen's early mining days.
The original church building, located at the corner of Second & Bleeker Streets, was later closed
as a result of Aspen's dwindling population during the "Quiet Yeazs." The town's revival afrer
World War II as a resort destination saw the reestablishment of the church in the building that
now houses La Comida restaurant, and later, in its current location. Opened in August of 1962,
the existing distinctive arched church, designed by Chicago architect and part-time Aspen
resident Francis Stanton, has been an integral component of the West End neighborhood
for almost 45 years. The contemporary design is reflective of the modernist design philosophy
fostered by Walter Paepke, Herbert Bayer and others influential in the post-war renaissance of
Aspen. Modest expansions to the south of the original building were completed in 1973 and in
1976 as approved by City of Aspen Special Review. In 1981, the adjacent rectory was built to
provide employee housing on-site.
The proposed scope of work described in this application will allow for church facilities that
respond to current accessibility requirements, comply with all life/safety codes, and provide
the necessary program spaces for the fulTillment of the church's mission. The original arched
church structure will be extended an additional 12' to the north and current deficiencies, such as
roof leaks, poor lighting, ventilation and acoustics will be corrected. New construction will
replace the existing support spaces added to the church in the 70's. This low-scaled element
accommodates kitchen & fellowship spaces, adequately-sized toilet rooms and much-needed
storage areas for the church. The building floor area will increase from 7,118 SF to 9,000 SF.
Overall, significant improvements in the church's energy efficiency and sustainability are
expected to be realized.
The proposed development plan requires the following approvals from the City of Aspen's
Planning & Zoning Commission and the City Council:
• GMQS Review for Essential Public Facilities
• Conditional Use Review
• Special Review for Parking
• Variances from Dimensional Standards in R-6 Zone District
Responses to the relevant review criteria aze outlined below.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM
This proposal responds to Section 26.470.040.D.3 Essential Public Facilities as follows:
a) The Community Development Director has determined the primary use and/or structure
to be an Essential Public Facility. (See definition.) Accessory uses may also be part of
an Essential Public Facility.
Response: An essential Public Facility is defined by the City of Aspen Land Use
Code as "a facility which serves an essential public purpose, is available for use
by, or for benefit of, the general public and serves the needs of the community."
The Aspen community has long embraced the significant role of our local religious
institutions as important contributors to the quality of our daily lives. Christ
Episcopal Church has enhanced our community's ability to achieve the Aspen
Idea -the cultivation of the mind, body & spirit -for almost 45 years.
b) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the uses,
pursuant to Section 26.470.030.0. Development Ceiling Levels and Section
26.470.030.D, Annual Development Allotments.
Response: Dedicated Annual Development Allotments do not exist for churches
or other religious facilities. The City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
and the Aspen City Council may, at their discretion, grant such allotments based
on the merits of each application.
c) The proposed development is consistent with Aspen Area Community Plan.
Response: The Aspen Area Community Plan states "The genuine character of our
community should be measured by the quality of our human interactions, and not
by the physical look of our man-made artifacts or the magnificent beauties of the
nature surrounding us." The Christ Episcopal Church core values and vision
statement include the following:
o Christian love for one another and for others, expressed through hospitality,
community-building, and friendship.
o Christian love for one another and for others, expressed through
compassion, service and giving of ourselves.
o United by faith in Christ, we will honor the uniqueness of every person,
caring with compassion for the spiritual and physical needs of our brothers
and sisters.
The church reaches out beyond its own congregation to foster "quality human
interactions" among the broader Aspen community. Programs and facilities for
diverse activities from AA meetings to concerts by Aspen Music Festival and
School musicians serve to enhance daily life for the citizens of our town. The
proposed development will permit the church to continue this important
community role.
d) A sufficient percentage of the employees expected to be generated by the project are
mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash-in-lieu thereof in a
manner acceptable to City Council. The Employee Generation Rates may be used as a
guideline but each operation shall be analyzed for its unique employee needs. The City
Council may waive, or partially waive, affordable housing mitigation requirements as
is deemed appropriate and warranted for the purpose of promoting civic uses and in
consideration of broader community goals.
Response: The proposed Christ Episcopal Church development plans do not
anticipate any increases in the current number of church employees. The existing
2,897 SF rectory, built on-site in 1981, houses the rector and deacon. Two other
employees, the administrative assistant and the music director, fill part-time
positions at the church.
e) Free-Market residential floor area on the parcel is accompanied by affordable housing
units or mitigation pursuant to 26.470.040.0.6, unless otherwise restricted in the zone
district. The City Council may waive, partially waive, or establish a different limitation
as deemed appropriate and warranted for the purpose of promoting civic uses and in
consideration of broader community goals.
Response: The proposed Christ Episcopal Church development plans do not
include free-market residential floor area.
t) The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such
additional demand is mitigated through improvements proposed as part of the project.
Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment,
energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid
waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services.
Response: The proposed Christ Episcopal Church development plau is intended
to provide appropriate worship, fellowship and support spaces for its current
congregation and the Aspen community. Code compliance, energy efficiency,
sustainability, and accessibility are primary goals of this work. Expanded
membership and additional programming are not.
As a result of satisfying current plumbing codes, additional plumbing fixtures will
be required. However, the use of current technologies like low-flow water closets
will minimize the potential impacts on water & sewage treatment systems.
Similarly, efficiencies in other new building systems &components will have
mitigating effects that increase the current facility's performance and reduces its
impact on public infrastructure. New heating/ventilation and lighting systems will
improve energy consumption. Appropriate building insulation in the existing
arched church and properly designed building enclosures in the new construction
will achieve exceptional thermal performance. Fire suppression systems will
provide a measure of safety that does not now exist for the church and its adjacent
neighbors.
Parking is addressed in more detail later in this application.
CONDITIONAL USE AMENDMENT
This proposal responds to Section 26.425.040 Standards Applicable to All Conditional Uses as
follows:
A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of
the Aspen Area Community Plan, with the intent of the zone district in which it is
proposed to be located, and complies with all other applicable requirements of this title.
Response: The conditional use of this property by the Christ Episcopal Church is
consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan as outlined in the Growth
Management Quota System, Item c) above.
Paragraph 26.710.040.0.1 lists "Arts, Cultural, and Civic Uses" as permitted
conditional uses for the Medium-Density (R-6) zone district.
B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate
vicinity of the parcel for the development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the
mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel
proposed for development.
Response: The conditional use of this property by Christ Episcopal Church is a
tradition that dates back to the existing church's construction on the site in 1962.
Similar uses are evident throughout the Medium-Density (R-6) zoning district that
comprises this West End neighborhood. These include: The Aspen Community
Church at 200 E. Bleeker, the First Baptist Church at 726 West Francis, and the
Christian Science Society at 734 West Main. These organizations, like Christ
Episcopal Church, are familiar, integral, and traditional components of their
surrounding neighborhood.
C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use
minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and
vehicular circulation, parking ,trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on
the surrounding properties.
Respouse: The Christ Episcopal Church has operated at this location for almost
45 years. The proposed development plan is intended to allow the church to
continue its traditional role in serving its congregation and the Aspen community
with facilities that minimize adverse effects on the neighboring properties.
Since the original arched church building has only been modestly expanded (most
recently 31 years ago in 1976), the existing building provides inadequately sized
and inefTicient spaces for the church's current needs. This application seeks the
City of Aspen's approval to increase the building area from 7,118 SF to 9,000 SF -
an additiona12,382 SF. Dimensional requirements for the R-6 zone district permit
up to 4,050 SF by right on the parcel. The attached drawings illustrate design
concepts that minimize the impacts of this additional area. These include:
o Separate buildings reduce the mass and scale of the proposed building
area on the site. The existing rectory remains a separate, independent
structure of 2,897 SF. It will continue to provide dedicated employee
housing for the church, and it is not included in the scope of work of the
proposed development plans.
o Distinct modules reduce the mass and scale of the proposed building area
on the site. The 6,603 SF intended for worship, fellowship & support
spaces is divided among two distinct modules: the original arched church
building and an adjacent sloped-roof support structure. These elements
are joined by a glazed circulation spine.
o The scale and rhythm of the adjacent neighborhood is reinforced. The
distinct building components -original church, addition and rectory -
reflect the traditional rhythm of the typica130' wide lots identified in
Aspen's historic town plan.
o The lower level building area is partially below grade. Approximately'/e
of the volume of this level is below grade reducing the overall visual
impact of this floor area. This was a design feature of the original arched
church and is being incorporated in the new addition as well.
o The sloped- roof of the new addition reduces the building height. The roof
slopes from front to back resulting in a lower scale along the alley to
minimize impacts on views & light for the neighbors.
D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including
but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection,
emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems and
schools.
Response: New efficiencies of the proposed development plans outlined in the
Growth Management Quota System, Item fj above will minimize impacts on
available public utilities and services. Existing public facilities are adequate for
the conditional use.
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for
increased employees generated by the conditional use.
Response: The proposed Christ Episcopal Church development plans do not
anticipate any increases in the current number of church employees. The existing
2,897 SF rectory, built on-site in 1981, houses the rector and deacon. Two other
employees, the administrative assistant and the music director, fill part-time
positions at the church.
SPECIAL REVIEW FOR OFF-STREET PARKING
This proposal responds to Section 26.515.040 Special Review Standards as follows:
A. A Special Review for establishing, varying, or waiving off-street parking requirements
may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on conformance with the
following criteria:
The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests, and employees of the
project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the
projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities,
expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts onto the street
parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the
downtown area, and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents,
guests and employees.
Response: Currently, 4 on-site parking spaces are provided in a stacked
configuration behind the rectory. These are accessed from the alley. The church
congregation and members of the community that use the existing facility park on
the street, walk within the West End neighborhood or take advantage of the
RFTA cross-town shuttle that serves the neighborhood.
The design proposal increases the on-site parking to 5 spaces. (Only 2 of these
spaces will be stacked parking.) Access will remain from the alley. The
traditional use of street parking and transit routes will continue to be used by the
church's members and the general public. Since the proposed development plans
do not anticipate expansions in church membership or programming, parking
demands are not expected to increase beyond the current usage.
2. An on-site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or
results in an undesirable development scenario.
Response: In 1980, the City of Aspen approved a Special Review for Parking for
the Christ Episcopal Church property that permitted 10 on-site parking spaces.
This plan was never implemented. The requirement to satisfy the 1980 Special
Review for Parking at this time would have the following undesirable results:
o It would prevent the realization of the development plans outlined in
this application; thereby reducing the viability of the church, its
mission, and its contributions to our community.
o It would result in the loss of open space on-site.
o Increased building mass on North Street would be likely.
The 1980 Special Review did not anticipate the current spatial needs of the Christ
Episcopal Church.
Existing or planned on-site or off-site parking facilities adequately serve the
needs of the development, including the availability of street parking.
Response: Existing off-site parking on adjacent streets has proven to be
satisfactory for the 45 years Christ Episcopal Church has been in this West End
location. No additional demands are expected. Similar uses by the Aspen
Community Church, the First Baptist Church and the Christian Science Society
are evidence that street parking is compatible with the neighborhood.
A2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable
use of the parcel, building or structure.
Response: The requested variance is the minimum variance that would permit
the plans outlined in this application to be realized, thus insuring the viability of
the church, its mission, and its contributions to our community. The project
would improve the availability of on-site parking with the addition of 1 space for a
total of 5 spaces.
A3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would
deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone
district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In
determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider
whether either of the following conditions apply:
a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel,
building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or
buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the
applicant; or
b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege
denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other
parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district.
Response: The Aspen Area Community Plan considers the role and contributions
of Christ Episcopal Church to be desirable in sustaining a vibrant community.
The West End neighborhood R-6 Zone District supports many similar uses. The
Aspen Community Church, the First Baptist Church and the Christian Science
Society all enjoy relief from parking requirements of this area.
VARIANCE FROM DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS OF THE R-6 ZONE DISTRICT
This proposal responds to Section 26.314.040 Standards Applicable to Variances as follows:
A1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives,
and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title.
Response: The grant of variance will permit the implementation of the
development plans outlined in this application. This will allow the Christ
Episcopal Church to continue its. traditional role in the Aspen community, to
maintain its West End identity, and to successfully minister to its congregation. It
has been demonstrated above that the church's contributions are supported by
the Aspen Area Community Plan.
A2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable
use of the parcel, building or structure.
Response: The grant of the requested variances to allow reduced setbacks at the
west sideyard, the rear property line and increased site coverage will permit the
Christ Episcopal Church to continue its traditional role in the Aspen community
with improved, accessible, code-complying and energy efTicient facilities. The
variances allow the church to retain and enhance the signature 45 year old arched
structure. The original siting of this building and subsequent development on the
site has resulted in several dimensional non-conformities. These include west, east
and combined sideyard setbacks as well as site coverage.
The site is uniquely shaped. It is a trapezoid that results from the transition of the
Aspen town grid to the neighboring Aspen Institute property. The skewed angle
of the north alley property line minimizes the impact of the requested variance on
the adjacent property. Only the northeast corners of the expanded original
church building and the new support facilities will be 5' back from the property
line. The rear facades recede up to 8'10" from the property line due to the angle
of the lot lines.
The impact of this variance is further mitigated by the relatively low scale of the
building components. The arched expansion peaks at 28' above grade but drops
quickly to reduce the building profile. The parapet of the new addition is 18'6"
above grade and it reflects an appropriate residential scale at the alley property
line.
The existing non-conforming sideyard setbacks are a result of the original arched
church building and the rectory built in 1981. Since these buildings are being
retained in their current locations, this situation will remain unchanged.
The grant of variance for site coverage is the minimum variance that will permit
the church to realize appropriately sized facilities as proposed in this application.
The careful control of mass, scale, building form and height results in sufficient
open area to relate comfortably to the adjacent residential neighborhood.
A3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would
deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone
district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hazdship or practical difficulty. In
determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board shall consider
whether either of the following conditions apply:
c. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel,
building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or
buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the
applicant; or
d. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege
denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other
parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district.
Response: The original arched church has been on this site since 1962. The
rectory is the most recent addition to the site built 26 years ago. These existing
site conditions and the evolution of the dimensional requirements for the R-6 Zone
District have created unique restrictions for this conditional use. The Aspen Area
Community Plan supports the continued role and contributions of the Christ
Episcopal Church. The granted variance would permit the church to maintain its
traditional West End identity in appropriate, accessible, code-complying and
energy efficient facilities into the future.
m
THE CITY OF ASPEN
Memorandum
To:
From:
Date:
Meeting Date:
Cc:
Re:
Aspen Mayor and City Council
Paul Menter, Director of Finance and
11 /1 /2007
11/12/2007
Steve Barwick, City Manager
2007 Property Tax Mil Lery and Assessment
v~~
Summary: This memorandum recommends adoption of a resolution setting the
property tax levy rate for 2008 collections at $5.41 per $1,000 of assessed value of
all real property located in the City of Aspen. This property tax rate, which was
approved by Aspen voters in November of 2005 for a period of five years, provides
for collection of $6,657,924 in property taxes in 2008 to be used as discussed in
budget development work sessions during October, and summarized as follows:
• General Government Operations: $2,340,666
• Asset Management Fund Projects: $2,340,665
• TABOR Excess Approved Projects: $1,976,593
Background: In November of 2005, Aspen voters approved fixing the City's property
tax rate at 5.41 mils ($5.41 per $1,000 of assessed value) for the five collection
years of 2006 through 2010. The voters also approved using any proceeds from
this tax source in excess of constitutional revenue collection limits for a set of
specific projects. Attachment A provides the certification of values from the
Assessors office on which this resolution is based.
2008 represents the third of those five collection years approved by Aspen voters.
Attachment B summarizes audited collection and expenditure activity that occurred
in 2006, the adopted budget for use of excess property tax revenues for 2007 and
the planned use of those proceeds for 2008-2010.
r Analysis: The 2007 property assessment completed by the County Assessor's
office provided for the largest single year increase in taxable value in recent
`" memory for the City of Aspen. This result prompted City Council to consider options
November 1, 2007
for addressing as a policy issue the resulting 45% increase in property tax revenues
to be received by the City of Aspen in 2008.
After much consideration, City Council directed staff to prepare a resolution
adopting the voter approved mil levy rate of 5.41 for collection year 2008. Council
also directed that this issue of excess property tax collections be placed on the
agenda of the soon to be formed citizen budget and finance committee for its
review and recommendation over the coming months leading up to the 2009 budget
development process, which begins for staff next July.
Council's rationale for recommending that the mil levy rate be adopted at the voter
approved maximum, even though it will result in the collection of approximately $1.2
million in additional 2008 excess property tax revenue over what was originally
anticipated at the time of voter approval was two fold.
First, at the end of 2008, total excess collections for the current five year
period (2006-2010) will still be, in total, lower than the $3.1 million estimate
that companioned the ballot measure approved by voters in November of
2005, and
Second, in November of 2006, City Council directed staff to "front load" over
$1 million in sidewalk and Americans with Disabilities Act related
improvements to street crossings as part of the 2007 budget. These projects
have been designed and bid and will be completed in 2008. Collection of the
additional $1.2 million noted above allows the City to cash fund these
improvements and avoid borrowing funds internally for their completion
during 2008. ~ ^"
Therefore, delaying consideration of a change in the mil levy rate to the 2009
budget process does not create a situation where the City of Aspen collects in
excess of the estimated $3.1 million in 2006-2010 TABOR excess property tax
dollars forecasted in 2005 and provided on an informational basis to voters in
advance of the November 2005 election, and it provides resources to complete
voter approved projects sooner rather than later in that five year period.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this resolution as presented.
Citv Manager Comments:
.rw
2
RESOLUTON NO. ~~
(SERIES OF 2007)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO SETTING THE 2007 MUNICIPAL MILL LEVY AND
CERTIFYING SAME TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR
PITHIN COUNTY.
WHEREAS, the City Manager, designated by Charter to prepaze the budget, has
prepazed and submitted to the Mayor and City Council the Annual Budget for the City of
Aspen, Colorado for the fiscal yeaz beginning January 1, 2008 and ending December 31,
2008; and
WHEREAS, the assessed valuation of the taxable property for the year 2007 in
the City of Aspen returned by the County Assessor of Pitkin County on August 25a',
2007, is the sum of $1,230,669,800; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proper mill levy of 5.410
upon each dollaz of the assessed valuation on all taxable property within the city shall be
that determined by the County Assessor sufficient to produce as valorem tax proceeds in
the amount of $6,657,924; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that $2,340,665 of the total
$6,657,924 is to be specifically restricted for general asset management plan capital
projects; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that $2,340,666 of the total
$6,657,924 is to be specifically retained for use in the General Fund; and
WHEREAS, THE CITIZENS OF ASPEN in November; 2005, authorized the
City of Aspen to collect, retain, and expend any property tax that is in excess of the limits.
of Article X, Section 20, of the Colorado Constitution, for the purpose of purchasing
alternative fuel (e.g. hybrid) bus or busses for use within the City's RFTA routes;
Improving the quality of storm water runoff entering the Roaring Fork River through
constrnction of the Jenny Adair Wetlands Project, and associated improvements to the
City's storm water runoff retention and sediment removal systems; Design and
construction of a new outdoor swimming pool at the Aspen Recreation Center; and,
Constmction of improvements to key elements of the City's sidewalk and trail system
including Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements; and the amount of such
excess revenue available for these purposes for 2008 is calculated as $1,976,593.
WHEREAS, the Mill Levy will be set at 5.410 mills upon each dollar of total
assessed valuation of all taxable property within the City of Aspen.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
SECTION 1
That for the purpose of defraying the expenses of the City of Aspen, Colorado during the
fiscal yeaz beginning January 1, 2008 and ending December 31, 2008, there is hereby
levied a tax on said dollaz of the assessed valuation of the taxable property in the City of
Aspen, Colorado for the purpose of raising the sum of $6.657.924 which together with
the Fund Balance and revenue from all other revenue sources, is estimated to meet budget
expenditure requirements and provide a reasonable closing Fund Balance for said fiscal
year.
SECTION 2
The City Clerk is hereby directed to certify and deliver this Resolution to the Board of
County Commissioners for Pitkin County on or before December 15, 2008.
ADOPTED THIS 26`s day of November 2007.
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
,~+
I, KATHRYN KOCH, duly appointed and acting City Clerk of the City of Aspen, .~,
Colorado, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Resolution .,,~-
adopted by the City Council at its meeting held on November , 2007, which
Resolution was adopted subsequent to public hearings on the City of Aspen's 2008
Proposed Municipal Budget and prior to the fmal day established by law for the
certification of the tax lery to Pitkin County, all was required by the Sections 9.8 and 9.9
of the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
..~-
-~ael~(~,e~k ~.
CERTIFICATION OF VALUES
Name of Jurisdiction: CITY OF ASPEN V 011337 New District: N
USE FOR STATUTORY PROPERTY TAX REVENUE LIMIT CALCULATIONS (5.5% LIMIT) ONLY
accordance with 39-5-121(2)(a) and 39-5-128(1), C.R.S., The total Assessed Valuations for taxable year
'°Y007 In PITKIN COUNTY On AUGUST 25, 2007 Are: ~
Previous Year's Net Total Assessed Valuation: $ 847,410,688
Current Year's Gross Total Assessed Value $ : $ 1,230,669,800
(-) Less TIF district increment, if any: $ 0
Current year's net total assessed valuation: $ .1,230,669,800
New Construction ": $ 34,031,000
Increased production of producing mine "": $ 0
Annexations/inclusions: $ 1,326,050
Previously exempt federal property "": $ 0
New primary Oil or Gas production from any $ 0
oil and gas leasehold or land (29-1-301(1)(6) C.R.S.) """:
Taxes collected last year on omitted property $ 0.00
as of AUGUST 1 (29-1-301(1)(a) C.R.S.):
Taxes abated and refunded as of AUGUST 1 $ 12,652.17
(29-1-301 (1)(a) and 39-10-114(1)(a)(I)(B) C.R.S.):
$ Tliis value reflects personal property exemptions IF enacted by the jurisdiction as authorized by Art. x, Sec. 20(8)(6), Colo. Constitution
" New Construction is defined as: Taxable real property structures and the personal property connected with the structure.
"" Jurisdiction must submit a certification [o the Division of Local Government in order for a value to be accrued. (DLG52 & 52A)
* Jurisdiction must submit an application to the Division of Local Government in order for a value [o be accrued. (DLG 52B)
USE FOR'TABOR' LOCAL GROWTH CALCULATIONS ONLY
In Accordance with the Art.X, Sec20, Colorado Constitution and 39-5-121(2)(b),C.R.S. The Actual Valuations for the Taxable Year
2007 In PITKIN COUNTY On AUGUST 25, 2007 Are:
Current Year's l'otal Actual Value of All Real Property *: $ 11,038,594,300
ADDITIONS TO TAXABLE REAL PROPERTY: $ 397,367,530
Construction of taxable real property improvements **:
Annexations/Inclusions: $ 4,572,600
Increased mining production "**: $ 0
Previously exempt property: $ 6,831,700
Oil or Gas production from a new well: $ 0
Taxable real property omitted from the prevous year's tax $ 0
warrant.(Only the most current year value can be repJrted)
DELETIONS FROM TAXABLE REAL PROPERTY: $ 7,841,620
Destruction of taxable real property improvements:
Disconnection/Exclusion: $ 0
Previously taxable property: $ 14,842,800
'- This includes fire actual value of all taxable real property plus the actual value of reliyious, private schools, and charitable real property.
Construction is defined as newly constructed taxable real property structures.
'...-' Includes production from a new mine and Increase in production of a producing mine.
NOTE: All levies must be certified to fire Board of County Commissioners no later than December 15, 2007.
m
C
t
U
Q
m eo ol o o o~ 0 0 o m m o
~n n fn o » o EFr en n in ~
M M O O M M
~ ~
O
NI ~I CI
N O
~ 10
~ O r
N ,
Nom! w ~
aD O~ :L ~
~ 60 to 1 yj~I ~ O
E9 ~
~ O
U) O
GH
r ,~
r j 0
fR ~
I .
I j 1 r r i
~ j
~ M M
l I
I
' i ~ a I
o ~ r
o
I
I I
i
N
-i
N
N N
i i
I I
I i
' .' I
I
I
K
W
a+
y
M M 'i_.._,, L.-O,O'O.,N~ NI
O) Of ! to
fA W r . __
O O
O EA
j
O'
V/
N
n
l0:
(D
'O ~ O, I O~ 1D
I
O O~, O~ O~
'~i ' ~
lp,
~ O
er ~
~
, I O
mo'
m tO bI
n n.
O T' C~' !M~ p N)
~ ao
K~ O)
1
I
r
r
N I
j , i H9
~
~~ O
'.N I
~I
I
'~~_ _ ~ f I
0 o
-~ I n,ol' o;'o n
'
I _I~-_
~ n' o ..~
o
r
v
1 _
~_
~n
,
~ ly I
N N N i EH
O W r
N N ! M~ OM
n j O V
j W R] IR N
r 0~
~
al ive i
~ III '
~ O~ O O ~ II I MI
I t
I
MiM I M, i~,N O W N MI O)
'i 0 N ', NE? Il n 'I I ~ i ' O I M 00
I
° I Ntl~ ~ iI N n
W IQ ' !e»i w
o
I i ~ i w va
I n I II IN II
F I
' O
,N I I
I
I
I i
ZI
W W
~
~ I I,
~
I ~,
rnjm II M o,o ml r
aolco
t»r»
n
rn n ~
i
j ~
o 0
u> <»
o
u
I I
r
nl
N
N a i
.
'
'
I r rI
01 I i O
W t0
W 1 0 M
y n;n j Mj GO NI N lf)
~ a ~ ~!~~ I tO'! ~~ r fMN9 I p EONS
Oj H
a 7
a
i i o
I
N
I N I I I I I
U W~
I I II ~ I
~ I I
I I
O ~
' l '
'
!I
Z
' O
MI p)
, O O,O
,O
M O'O Oi0 , O
O ~I
I N O Ni Oi
~j n. IMI O
to
M M OO'~,O O I
Oi M 4]' ~. M~
LL
J OI
CO O'. o O!O O
t0 I Ji ~ O'O IO
l ~I O
', O I ~
N,
I V O O
N. rI O
p ~ rn o
n
°'- FI ~~il
I l o
M Meal ~ v>I (°'
M
~ CO ,
10
w ~
F»!
!
O''
l
wl i
I 10 I
w, E9
a'
I ll
~
,
i
I
~
,
i
I !
I
I
I
i I
i
I i I '.. h
ii
I I ~ i '',
j
I ~' ''~
li I '' ~I ~
!Z I
II
i j I ! ! ~
'p I O'
' O
N n '
SIC i
I
'.
~
I 10
I F ,.
I m F-
i I C'.
'C O ~
7 C N.y
~
' i
!a
!. O
dI
N `I, w
I ,N l i
.1
~ y l
~.
!, 'I~ ' .
~ ', I, O ~ I
I i
m,p
' ,
a`
o I
N
'a ~,
y
~
J O
LL'
I I
! ~ o v
N
I
'
'~
IN m ,~
~
O E;
J
~
I
~ da
a '
l ~
I
~
j
°
m
I
~
! ~N'v
o! ~,
I
y
Q
~ L,
' w I ~
0 g ', I
c
~
I '
°
,
E ~ I `
°
W
! i
i
O v
I > m,
F
H y , ~~ I ~ ~,
I ~~y y
" _
d
~
~ ~ ~
~
Q' IC
I I , ..e .w O
O
'
N
V I~ U
O
d C
c
Q .
'IQ I
IF ! ,
~!IQI
= C
N d `IC W l
Y O ~
i
~' z ¢ Ellm' ~I°o 2` ¢~!ia 4 31a Oi
~°-~ mIP ~ a ~
> m'I~ m ~ ~ of
l~ o x ,
~ m ~ a ~ .__ o ~, ~ ~ .__ ~'I
Q ~ W ~ c= QQ ~ ~ c E ~ K
H r w,N;M ~ O a f ~ O,
aLL W i
a.
m
THE CITY OF ASPEN
Memorandum
To: City of Aspen Mayor and City Council
Thru: Steve Barwick., City Manager
Vlllb
From: Paul Menter, Director of Finance and Administrative Services
Cc: Agency Heads
Date: November 5, 2007
Meeting Date: November 12, 2007
Re: 2008 Recommended Operating and Capital Budget
Attached please find the recommended 2008 operating and capital budget resolution for
Council consideration. This budget represents recommended appropriations based upon City
Council review of the City Manager's proposed budget at seven sepazate budget development
work sessions. All proposed budgets aze balanced, and all funds have sufficient resources to
meet operating and capital needs through the coming yeaz. This memorandum summarizes
recommended appropriations and provides a detailed listing of specific changes from the
originally proposed budget that have been authorized by Council.
Overview: In summary the proposed budget breaks down as follows:
City of Aspen - 2008 Recommended Budget
v. 2007 Initial Adopted Budget
Description
Operating Budget
Capital Budget
Debt Service Budget
Total Appropriations
1 I Interfund Transfers $19,315,292 $20,358,760 1 043 468
Grand Total
Appropriations
2008
20071nitial Recommended
Budget Budget Variance Chan e
$42,324,078 $47,389,360 $5,065,282 12.0%
$19,737,200 $31,316,480 $11,579,280 58.7%
9 801 307 5 680 310 -$4,120,997 -42.0%
$71,862,585 $84,386,150 $12,523,555 17.4%
177
910 $13
5.4%
14.9%
November 5, 2007
Including interfund transfers of $20,358,760, the attached budget resolution proposes total
appropriations of $104,744,910 (See Attachment A).
This total budget amount represents a decrease of $846,620 from the originally proposed
2008 budget of $105,591,514, presented to Council on October 1st. Changes from the
originally proposed budget leading to this reduction aze detailed by fund as follows:
City of Aspen -Changes to 2008 Proposed Budget
Amount of
Fund/Department Chance Description
Appropriations for new City Employee
Housing Development and Maintenance
Employee Housing Fund: 1,043,890 fund.
Budget for Car Share Program -offset by
Parking and user revenue. Supplemental for Utilities
Transportation: 78,800 and Towing cost increases.
Properly accounting for retired employee
General Fund: -61,280 contribution:
Early Childhood Initiative Properly accounting for Early Child
Fund: -20,903 Initiative overhead payment to Kids First.
Reduction for error in calculating base
Wheeler Fund: -4,900 operating budget.
Reduction in Estimated Cost from original
Employee Health budget due to updated actuarial
Insurance Fund: -10,300 information.
Reduction -Reallocation of planned
capital projects among AMP Plan years
Parks and Open Space: -300,000 resulting in net -a300k reduction in 2008.
Reduction -Roof Replacement Deferred
due to potential renovation and
Yellow Brick/Kids First: -398,000 expansion plans for workforce housing.
Elimination of Use Tax Transfer -Deposit
Directly to Parking and Transportation
Fund. New Transfer to Employee
Housing Fund. Reduction -Parks Capital
Projects. General Fund -Accounting
Change Retired Employee Contribution.
Net Change in Interfund Early Child Care Fund -Properly account
Transfers: -1,173,927 for overhead
TOTAL CHANGE: -846
~,:
.~
~.._
2
November 5, 2007
Council Policy Direction: The October 26, 2008 memorandum entitled "Executive Summary
Recapping Counci12008 Budget Work Sessions to Date" provides a summary of Council
policy direction for 2008. The Council is scheduled to complete a final review of this
memorandum at its Work session scheduled for November Sa'. Upon completion of this
review, staff will update this memorandum and include final policy direction from Council
into the presentation of the 2008 Recommended Budget at the Public Hearing scheduled for
the Regular Council meeting of November 12a', 2007.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the 2008 budget as presented.
City Managers Comments:
RESOLUTION NO.
(SERIES OF 2007)
,,,~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO ADOPTING THE 2008 MUNICIPAL BUDGET AND
AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS PURSUANT THERE TO
WHEREAS, the City Manager, designated by Charter to prepaze the budget, has
prepazed and submitted to the Mayor and City-Council the Annual Budget for the City of
Aspen, Colorado for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2008 and ending December 31,
2008; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 9.8 of the Home Rule Charter, the
Council shall adopt the budget by Resolution on or before the final day established by
law as December 15a' for certification of the ensuing yeaz's tax levy to the county; and
WHEREAS, Article 9 of the Aspen Home Rule Charter requires the adoption of
an annual budget with the opportunity for the public to participate at a public hearing at
least 15 days prior to the statutory deadline for certification of the ensuing yeaz's tax levy
to the county, it is the intent of the Council by adoption of this budget to follow the
requirements of City Charter; and
WHEREAS, the budget as submitted in Exhibit A sets forth the estimated fiscal
data of appropriated expenditures and estimated revenues for the calendaz year of 2008.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
SECTION 1
That the budget for the City of Aspen, Colorado for the fiscal yeaz 2008 as submitted in
attachment hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, be and is
hereby adopted, which option all constituted appropriations of the amounts specified
therein as expenditures amounting to $104,744,910, and the estimated budget revenue
requirements of $105,918,800, both in Exhibit A, is hereby declazed to be the amount of
revenue necessary to be raised by the tax levy and income from all other sources not
inclusive of fund balance at the beginning of the yeaz of $37,176,105, for total revenues
of $143,094,905, to pay the expenses and certain indebtedness, and provide a reasonable
fund balance at the close of the fiscal yeaz beginning January 1, 2008 and ending
December 31, 2008.
SECTION 2
That the City Council hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager to enter into such
contracts and execute such documents on behalf of the City as may be necessary and
customary to expend the funds appropriated for all capital acquisitions within its budget,
and that Council further directs the City Manager to inform it of such contracts and
documents promptly at its regulazly scheduled Council meetings.
,..
Adopted this 26th day of November 2007.
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
I, KATHRYN KOCH, duly appointed and acting City Clerk of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of the
Resolution adopted by the City Council at its meeting held on the 27`~ day of December,
2008 which resolution was adopted subsequent to and publication of public meetings on
such proposed budget held on November _, 2007.
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
...,
~~
EXHIBIT A
Total City of Aspen 3008 Recommended Appropriations by Fund
Fund #
Fund Name
Beginning Fund
Balance Total Current
Revenue &
Transfers In Total
Expenditures &
Transfers Out
2009 Ending
Balance
General Government Funds
000 Asset Management Plan $231,547 $5,630,030 $5,390,630 $470,946
001 General Fund $8.530.652 $25 185 870 $25 458 750 $8 257.772
Subtotal General Gov't Funds: $8,762,199 $30,815,900 $30,849,380 $8,728,718
Soecial Revenue Funds
100 ?arks and Open Space 51,913,249 $9,354,230 59,524,200 $1,743,278
12C bVheeler Opera House 51,570,556 $5,538,480 $3,388,560 $3,720,476
130 Lodging Tax Fund $0 $1,330,360 $1,330,360 $0
_
140 Parking Improvement Fund 5618,780 $1,877,860 $1,528,640 $968,000
15G Housing Development $591,699 $12,244,600 512,307,810 $528,488
i
151 Earty Childhood Educ. Initiative -
AVCF
$25,499
5353,090
5347,950
$30,639
152 Klds First /Yellow Brick $3 983.235 $1 976.290 $1.780.940 54.178.585
Subtotal, Special Rev. Funds: $8,703,018 $32,674,910 $30,208,460 $11,169,467
ebt Service un s
250 Debt Service Fund ~ $4 119 480 $4,119,480
Subtotal, Debt Service Funds: $0 $4,119,480 $4,119,480 $0
340 Parks Capital Improvement Fund $0 $2,854,380 $2,854,380 $0
Enterprise un s
421 Water Utility $9,023,256 56,465.400 510,065,220 $5,423,436
431 Electric Utility $3,381,367 $6,660,220 $7,418,850 $2,622,737
444 Hydroelectric Facility $620,523 $7,086.13C 34,131,56G $3,575,093
450 Transportation Fund 52,815,066 $5,241,960 1, 55,106,260 $2,950.765
471 Municipal Golf Course 560,082 $1,258,100 51,241,320 $76,862
491 Truscott Housing $372,544 $1,771,420 $1,723,820 $420,143
492 Marolt Housing 31.330.010 31 266.180 51.166.480 31 429 709
Subtotal, Enterprise Funds: $17,602,848 $29,749,410 $30,853,510 $16,498,747
501 Healthlnsurance Fund $900,000 $3,662,430 $3,662,430 $900,000
505 City Employee Housing Fund $0 $1,043,890 $1,043,890 $0
Trust & Agency Funds
620 620 Housing Authority $912,807 $933,000 $1,076,700 $769,107
622 622 Smuggler Mountain Fund 29$ 5.234 6$ 5 400 7$ 6.680 3283.954
Subtotal, Trust & Agency Funds: $1,208,041 $998,400 $1,153,380 $1,053,060
I I
ALL FUNDS: $37,176,1051 $105,918,8001 $104,744,910 $38,349,995
I I i
!
iLess Interfund Transfers $20,358,760
$20,358,760
EQUALS NET ALL FUNDS
APPROPRIATIONS:
$37,176,105
$85,560,040 ~ $84,386,150
$38,349,995
EXHIBIT B
:~ •, •'~
~1•~N .~
~'r
1 • `-
~_ *~=ti
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor & City Council
THRU: Paul Menter, Finance Director
FROM: Don Pergande, Budget Manager
DATE: October 26, 2008
Executive Summary Recapping Council 2008 Budget work sessions
to date.
The following is a summary of the direction and tentative funding decisions provided by City
Council at 2008 budget work sessions held to date. Attached please find a revised new funding
summary (Att. A) reflecting changes. After the completion of all the work sessions the Finance
Department will bring back to the City Council a revised budget resolution for the 2008 budget;
with all of the changes per City Council's direction.
The summary is organized by Funds with action items or open issues that were a result of the
budget development work sessions.
Asset Management Plan Fund:
• The policy issue is related to the TABOR funds. Staff estimates at the end of 2010 at
the current mil levy, $6.96 million in TABOR funds will be collected. The estimated
amount of TABOR collections in the ballot question was $3.1 million. The policy
question is to leave the mil levy at the current rate or lower it. Staff recommendation is
to leave the mil levy at the current rate. At the current mil levy rate, the $3.1 million
approved collection will not be reached in 2008. In addition, this will allow the General
Fund to be paid back in 2008 for the accelerated TABOR sidewalk improvements
funded from General Fund cash reserves in 2007. Staff recommends the Citizens
Budget Committee review and makes recommendations during 2008.
Options to consider: refund the TABOR funds, recalculate the mil levy, leave the mil
levy at the current rate and expend excess on the approved projects, go back to the
voters and expand the purposes for the excess funding.
1. Council requested staff analyze the refunding amount to property owners if
°~~ the option to lower the mil levy rate was chosen. The result of the analysis is
,,.,, a mil levy rate of 4.45. This lower mil levy rate would return $75.84 on each
million dollar of market value to residential property owners and $278.40 to all
other property owners annually. (see attachment B for more details)
• Fire Station Data Center Project: per attachment C, the estimated project cost has
increased 63% from the initial estimate. The Tech Team recommends leaving the """`
current budgeted amount of $588,000 and attempt to arrive at a solution with the Fire
Department with the available funding or look for other alternative data. center locations
in City or County owner facilities.
• There are no other outstanding issues or questions for the General Fund AMP.
General Fund:
• City Council has reviewed and agreed with the 2008 Recreation Department subsidy,
with the exception of the request for additional information outlined below in the General
Fund new funding requests. City Council also gave direction that Recreation's subsidy
may increase at an inflationary amount in 2009 and all out years if necessary.
General Fund -New Funding Requests:
1. Council requested from the Recreation staff a breakdown of the $142,980 new
supplemental request for the 2008 operating budget. Recreation staff would like
to reiterate that this funding request has been identified in the 2008 proposed
budget, meets Council directed goals of the Recreation Division subsidy level,
and will be offset by revenues. The details can be found in attachment D.
2. Council also requested a brief analysis of the benefits to the general public for
the New Year's Eve Celebration at Wagner Park and the Aspen Recreation
Center sites. This event was funded in 2006 and 2007 as a supplemental '"*
request. This request is intended to make this funding a part of the base budget ~--
in 2008 and all out years. The joint memo from Special Events and the Police
Department in response to Council request is attachment E.
3. The Ski Company has requested an additional $50,000 for the Winter X-Games
in 2008, 2009, 2010. Council discussed leaving the contribution at the current
level of $100,000 and revisiting the request for additional funding if the X-Games
contract is extended in 2011 and 2012. At this point in the 3 year contract with
ACRA, marketing funds are not contractually available for use to fund this
request. The contributions memo dated October 25, 2007 that was distributed at
the same time as this memo indicates that $100,000 is in the 2008 General
Fund's contributions budget for the Winter X-Games.
4. Council has given direction to fund the Rocky Mountain Rail Authority's request
of $5,000 for 2008. Council has directed RMRA to go thru the grant process for
all future funding requests.
Parks Capital Fund;
• Council has requested a work session to discuss open budget issues, including the
following capital projects: Maroon Creek Trail from the round-a-bout to ARC trail,
Francis Whitaker Park, Anderson Park planning money, Triangle Park, East of Aspen
Trail, Castle Creek, and Event Flooring or possible additional fields and/or synthetic turf ~'"~!+
in lieu of flooring. Council requested the special events committee be invited for the <..~
discussion of the Event Flooring storage, management, and operational budget impact.
This discussion is scheduled for the work session of the 30t" of October, with a follow up
work session to be scheduled if necessary.
Golf Fund:
• Council confirmed the $75,000 Golf subsidy from the Parks and Open Space Fund
through the planning period.
Kids First:
• Council gave direction to staff to think about childcare facilities in the same way staff
thinks about affordable housing. These two areas are related; growth in one will create
growth in the other. Therefore, when opportunities arise act on them.
• Council gave direction to staff to plan for the renewal of the 1 % sales tax and the RETT
simultaneously. These two taxes are related.
• Due to the consideration of affordable housing on top of the Yellow Brick Building, the
$398,000 for the roof replacement will be programmed in one of the out years.
Parking Garage (140) Fund and the Parking and Transportation (450) Fund:
• Proper accounting of the Use Tax requires that the Use Tax that was shown for
presentation purposes to Council received in the Parking Garage Fund be shifted to the
Parking and Transportation Fund. The accounting for the Use Tax will now be a direct
deposit into the 450 Fund. This is consistent with the ballot measure language.
• 2 FTE's are built into the pro forma for the administration of the Use Tax. A technical
adjustment in the first supplemental ordinance of 2008 will be needed to adjust for the
accounting of these positions in the General Fund; specifically Community Development
and the Finance Departments.
If the ballot measure does not pass this November, staff will be bringing a revised
Parking and Transportation budget back to Council with significant transit reductions.
• Staff had originally requested a $30,000 ongoing increase to the base budget of Parking
and Transportation (450) budget in 2008. After further review staff has revised this
request to $20,000. This funding is needed due to the addition of the bus lanes and
more snow tows. This request is 90% offset by tow fees.
Joinf work session:
• Staff received direction to evaluate options for a program of random review of affordable
housing compliance. Staff plans to develop options for the Council and the BOCC
consideration after Housing Board review.
Staff received direction to review the leasing policy related to corporate leasing for the
seasonal units at Marolt and BHI. Staff plans to develop leasing policy options thru the
Housing Board.
...,,
Truscott Phase 1 and 11 ,~,.
• Staff received direction to complete an analysis of the deed restricted rental properties
of similar category and size vs. rental rates. Comparing properties such as Truscott
Phase I, Truscott Phase II, Centennial, and Castle Ridge. This analysis is to be brought
back to Council for discussion.
• Staff received direction to complete an analysis of property uses to determine if there is
an erosion of free market rental units in the City of Aspen for workforce housing. This
analysis is to be brought back to Council for discussion.
Housing Development Fund:
• Council gave staff direction to move forward combining Phase II and Phase III of
Burlingame as quickly as possible, with no redesign. This is Council's number one
housing priority.
• Council wants staff to explore factory built housing as a potential to save money.
Plans remain for the City development of 33 single family "turn key" homes, in lieu of
duplexes or triplexes construction, if feasible. These homes will go into the City's lottery
system for sale.
• Council gave direction to staff to develop a strategic plan for affordable housing
development the first half of 2008 for discussion. .•~.
City Owned Affordable Housing:
• The 2008 budget resolution will include a City Affordable Housing Capital Development
and Management Fund per Council direction. This Housing Fund will be funded by
annual contributions from all of the City Funds to build sufficient housing units to meet
45% of City employee housing needs over a 30 year horizon, given current assumption.
• Monday, October 29`", 2007: Review 2007 Wheeler Fund, arts and non profit grants.
• Tuesday, October 30th, 2007: Parks capital projects, final budget review and policy
direction for 2008 budget.
• Monday, November 12th: Public Hearing on 2007 budget resolution.
• Monday, November 26th: Adoption of 2007 budget resolution.
Thank you for your review of this information. Please feel free to contact me if you have any
questions regarding this information.
.~•~„
2008 Supplemental
Requests -Detail
Attachment A
Deoartment/Fund Total One Time Onaoina Justification
City Council
Travellfrainin
$7,500 $3000 per council member- $15k. This council is
travelin more and attendin more conferences.
Print Publishin
$1,500 Increased cost to cover the costs of the annual
re ort
Materials/Su lies O 1 2201 Increasin line item to reflect 2007 throw h Jul .
Subtotal $0 $10,220
Total Supplemental $10,220
City Manager none none none
~ ~ ~
Human Resources/ Risk
emp Hel /Auxilia Staff
10 000 Several opportunities arise throughout the year for
competing tasks mare economically with use of
temp staff as opposed to professional staff.
Examples include fling projects, purge projects,
assistance with to istics.
orkers Compensation
Safe Audit
9,100 Occu-Med services to conduct position audits and
job analysis to insure we are appropriately and
legally using pre-employment standards. The last
audit was completed in 1997, since which we have
added additional positions and revised positions
than in h sisal abili re uirements.
ob
Classifcation/Wellness
Audit
'
000
~ The City of Aspen has never hired a classification
specialist to review our job descriptions vis a vis our
compensation plan to assure that comparable work
is being paid with comparable pay. Many potential
inequalities have come to the attention of the FiR
de artment.
Subtotal $24,100 $0
Total Supplemental $24,100 '.
City Clerk none none none
City Attorney none none none
i i I I
2008 Supplemental
Requests -Detail I Attachment A
Department/Fund Total One Time Onaoina Justification
Finance
' ~ 'i
i
Finance received a $50,000 supplemental for temp
~ labor in 2007. Finance still requires external
i accounting services. This service will be
responsible for training and guidance in CAFR
development, conducting special projects, including
External Accounting internal controls. Service will be scheduled one
Services $20,000' week er month to handle above referenced duties.
~ ~~ New Position requested based on budgetary
:responsibilities and projects assigned to Finance.
.The growth of the organization, and requests for
I 'additional reports and assistance requires more
~ ~I staff to handle workload. Currently only one staff
member is responsible for the entire budget
I ~ process, with assistance from the margins. The total
amount includes wage and all operating expenses
BudgeVAccountant ~ (travel training, materials and supplies). And one
Anal st 8 00 94 900 time requests for Landline, PC and workstations.
Subtotal $28,000 $94,900'
Total Supplemental $122,900 '
ComDev /Planning
I ' We are asking for $30,000 to have the City
Community Development Department (as a group)
participate in "Best Year Yet" training. We
'i participated in this program in 2007 and it was
i helpful in directing our efforts and focusing on the
'
City
s growth and development challenges.
I
Best Year Yet $30,OOO
'~ ~Requestedin'07also
Staff would like to again partner with the Aspen Art
I Museum to hold four lectures by notable architects
~ j 'in 2008. The Department participated in 2007.
I These are free events, open to the public, and have
'been well attended (75-100 people on average).
I This achieves a greater understanding of how
(
architecture and the built environment directly
Architecture Lecture j impacts our daily lives is a benefit to the entire
Series $5,OOOi 'communit .
I
i The department is requesting a "place-holder" figure
in the 2008 budget for the time being. City Council
requested a scoping session to discuss whether
(they want to update the AACP and to discuss
options. The scoping session will clarify costs and
I ~ consultant needs. The'98-2000 update cost the
' City approximately $225,000. In the last go-around,
Aspen Area Community (the City paid 2/3 and the County paid 1/3 of the total
Plan AACP I $150 OOO costs.
~^1
.rw;
~"~
..~'
2008 Supplemental
Requests -Detail Attachment A
Department/Fund Total One Time Onpoinp Justification
ComDev /Planning
We are asking for $40,000 for consultant services
to assist with building the 3-D graphic model of the
City and $5,000 for ArciCAD software that will
- integrate with the sketch-up project. Staff has
worked on this Sketch-Up model since May 2007
and has modeled most of downtown and Main
Street. For 2008 budget, staff would like to expand
the model to all areas of the City. 'Funds are also
requested for the ongoing upkeep of the model
3-D Modeling ! ArciCAD which averages $10,000 every two years based on
software $45,000 $5,000 GIS fl overs.
The ComDev Department currently has an
Executive Assistant. The responsibilities of this
position have grown in the past few years. Staff is
in the process of assessing the demands and
resources of al of the administrative functions of
both divisions. This would be a new position.
The funds requested Includes a one time
New Position -Planning appropriation for a computer and phone and yearly
Administrative Assistant $2,500 $64,950 costs for trainin and sup lies.
The ComDev The demands on the Planning division
have exceeded the Department's current capacity.
A Planning Tech position could handle the majority
of day-to-day public requests for information,
administer zoning review for simple projects, and
assist with current and long-range planning tasks.
The efficiency of existing caseload planners would
be improved with these tasks being handled by a
Planner Tech. This would be a new position. The
~ ~I funds requested Includes a one time appropriation
New Position -Planning , for a computer and phone and yearly costs for
Technician $2,500' $81,620' trainin and su lies.
i Updating the AACP will require a significant staff
effort. The Department is requesting afull-time
( dedicated staff planner to assist existing long-range
and special project staff. The department is
requesting a "place-holder position for a Planner
Tech. This position depends on the scoping
session (referenced in the AACP Update line). This
New Temp Position - would be a new, temporary (12 to 18 months)
Planning Technician position. Included are funds for a computer, phone
AACP $80,620 and sup lies.
The Planning Dept. is increasing the sales of IRC
and IBC code books, more funds are necessary to
supply the demand. 50% of the costs incurred are
Items for Resale $6 000 s lit with Pitkin Count .
2008 Supplemental
Requests -Detail Attachment A
Deoartment/Fund ~, Total OneTime Onaoina li Justification
ComDev /Planning
By adding new systems and process to the planning
department, additional funds are needed to print
new forms, flyers, stamps, and etc. 50% of the
Print 8 Publishin 0 5 OOO~costs incurred ar
e s lit with Pitkin Coun
Subtotal $315,620 _
1 $162,570
Total Supplemental $478,190 i
Engineering
i
'i 517 E Hopkins office space . Staff is requesting an
ongoing request for the 1/4 of the yearly lease
517 EHopkins -Office ! payment, 1/4 of the utilities and 114 of the cleaning
~
Space 7 0 0
1 services for the office space at 517 E Hopkins.
Subtotal $57,0001
Total Supplemental I $57,000 ,
ComDev/Building
Inspections
The marriage of the Energy and Efficient Building
) ~ I (Codes brings us in line with current software and
I ',nationally published codes. This is new to the
I :design and engineering communities and staff and
public training will help ensure a smooth transition.
Training -New Energy Training for all building staff ad public contractors.
Code $25,000 This will be rant funded.
I The Western AlA Chapter approached us about
~bringinc a LEEDS training to town. This is new to
'
the LUC and as momentum builds in the green
Co-Sponsor Leeds I 'building movement. The more local Accredited
Trainin - AIA $5,0001 LEEDS professionals in town the better.
(The software program warrants our use of its
' capabilities. Staff members will need additional
training to make better use of the program and
I continually improve the system and processes.
I
~This can be achieved with proper training
Eden Trainin & Setu $12,000 0 ortunities.
Energy Code Analysis 8 '(This request is to complete the Commercial REMP
Consultant $25 000 I and test the pro ram.
I i
~ Additional employees were added in 2007 and they
~ will require training. A training budget has been
I , included for the three permanent staff members.
Travel &Trainin ~ $9 OOO Trainin 3 em to ees $3.000/ea = $9 000
!~-,
.,.w-
2008 Supplemental
Requests -Detail
Attachment A
Deoartment/Fund Total One Time Onooina Justification
ComDev/Building
Inspections
aterials & Su lies i
~
~ $5,400
The Addition of employees in 2007 will require
additional various materials and supplies.
Materials 3 em to ees $1,800/ea = $5 400.
Utilities and Cleanin I
$15 600 Utilities and Cleaning 517 E Hopkins for 50% of
S ace
Rent for 517 E Ho kins
~ 0! 9$ 6.000 Rent to cover 50% of the lease for 517 E Hopkins,
the location for the new Building department annex.
5 ear lease throw h 2012
Subtotal ' $55,000! $138,000
Total Supplemental $193,000! j
Environmental Health
Electronic Waste
Collection Da
$3,600 EH would like to continue the Electronic Waste
Collection Da as an on oin annual ro ram
Expand Construction&
Demolition Recycling and
Reuse
I ~
~ $4,0001
Expand Construction& Demolition Recycling and
Reuse
Materials and Su plies
$5,000 EH is requesting a plastic bag banftax ordinance.
Re nests move for reusable ba s.
reen Pro ram I~
~
$3,000 Zgreen Program. Community action program for
environmental stewardship. Funding used for tool
kit, similar to CFL program by the Utilities
Department and community meetings to measure
ro ress.
S ecial Events Re clin !
~ 000
0 Recycling at Special Events. Funding will be used
for the urchase of rec clin bins.
Subtotal I 513.000 $3,600
Total Supplemental $16,6001
I
Police
!
ermanent Staff I I
!
I
~~ $30,420
Implementation of stand by policy for the Police
Department PD has a need for 24 hour detective
and sergeant coverage. Funding does not exist in
the base budget, nor has it ever. This funding would
allow for 24 hour on call service.
nsurance I
~
I ~ 4 000
Increase to cover same amount as last year's death
and disability insurance overage. Expect same level
movin forward.
Subtotal $0 $34,420
Total Supplemental $34,4201
Records none none none
i
Streets none none none
GIS none none none
2008 Supplemental i
Requests -Detail Attachment A
Department/Fund Total One Time Onaoina Justification
IS none none none
-
~
Special Events
i, On going request to fund New Years Eve
' I celebration at both Wagner Park and Aspen
Recreation Center Sites. This has been funded in
2006 and 2007 as supplemental. This event is
New Years Eve I driven by the PD in an effort to disperse the crowds
Celebration ! I 8 00 that other around the Paradise Bake corner.
Subtotal $38,000
Total Supplemental $38,0001
Recreation/ARC/Ice
Garden
~ Recreation is requesting increased wages for the
I 2008 budget to be offset by increased revenue, for
' the purpose of meeting existing payroll needs,
changes in operations, and to complete with
increasing wages in the valley. This is an on going
supplemental request. See attached memo for
Increase to Base Bud et 142 980! further'ustification.
Subtotal
I $142,980' __
Total Supplemental $142,980;
All General Fund $1,117,410 $435,720 $681,590
Parks none none none
Housing Department none none none
Water Global Warmino Reouests
I
II
In implementing the Carbon offset program, this
I position would handle tracking/accounting GHG
emissions for city departments as well as for events
', in Aspen, report to CCX, generate required reports
i for compliance with state and local carbon offset
projects, work with third party verifers and perform
general administrative tasks as assigned by the
Permanent Staff -Global I Global Warming Project Manager. Funded by
warmin Project Staff $81 434 CORE / REMP show contribution comin in.
A
.~
~.
..r'
2008 Supplemental
Requests -Detail Attachment A
Department/Fund
Total
One Time I
Onaoinp j Justification
Water Global Wanninp Requests
As demand for Canary services/projects grows, CI
,needs to solidify its staff. This position would
!(facilitate carbon offset projects, provide input on city
~ council proposals regarding carbon impacts,
Permanent Staff -Data perform research, assist in implementing the
Analyst -Carbon Neutral ~ jCanary Action Plan, event planning and public and
Auditor ! $40,71Tschool based-education pro rams.
i
Office Furniture $1,000, 1 For new data anal st position
I
(Environmental Ideas Forum in March 2008 with
',Aspen Institute and National Geographic 8i-annual
Global Warming (commitment to GW Conference, leveraging City's
Conference $25,0001 ~resources.IntownatAs enlnstitute.
12008 membership fee of $5400 is waived for all
!CCX members that were phase 1 members. The
$1257 represents the amount of carbon offsets the
city was required to purchase in 2006 for not
meeting the targets. Staff is pursuing the idea of
.buying any necessary carbon offsets through our
down Canary Tags program so this amount will likely
Chicago Climate !be zero. Benefits of membership in CCX outweigh
Exchan a $1,257 I~the otential cost of carbon offsets.
A fundamental component of the Canary Initiative,
~ !,this bi-annual report is essential for tracking city
!igovernment and community progress on reducing
!i ',GHG emissions. Without it, the Canary Initiative
!cannot produce quantifiable results. Baseline
'.inventory was done in 2004 with no update since.
Emissions Inventory ! Will have some carryover from 2007 budget to
1
U date .cover most of fundin .
52,500
I !
I Initial capital costs of establishing local Carbon
~~offset program (Canary green tags) will be borne by
~ ! Electric Efficiency. For 2008, there will be
! I ioperational costs including some web updates,
Carbon Offset i (costs of merchant/bank account and marketing the
O erational Costs ii $0' $2,500! ro ram to local events, businesses and residents.
'to get the Canary Initiative action message out to
'individuals and companies with high carbon
iimpads, we need to broaden our marketing efforts
~ !,through print ads in Jazz Aspen Snowmass
!,program, Ideas Fest program, Wheeler Programs,
Targeted Canary Initiative '~ II PSAs on radio and television and increased Canary
Marketin 0 7000!brandin
Subtotal $29,757 $131,651',
Total Supplemental $161,408
2008 Supplemental i
Requests -Detail i
Attachment A
Department/Fund Total One Time Onaoina Justificafion
I ~
Electric none none none
I
Storm Water none none none
Hydroelectric none
- none none
i
Transportation
Towin Towing activities have increased with new parking
restrictions in place and will only increase with new
$20,000 scenarios.
Utilities
O
12 000 With new parking location we have taken on
additional utilities costs.
Subtotal $0 ' $32 000
Total Supplemental $32,000 I
Golf
em Labor
~
0 Labor has been frozen for the past few years
because the revenues have been so tight. Due to a
higher revenue forecast Golf can afford this temp
'labor staff needed to maintain the Golf course at a
$20,0001 hi her level of rooming-
I I $0 $20,OOOi
Total Supplemental I $20,000
Truscott none none none
Marolt none none none
Housing Authority none none none
Smuggler none none none
Asset Management none none none
I
Total Supplemental -All
Funds ~
$1,330,818 i
One Time
$46,477 i
Ongoing
$865,341
''wp
ATTACHMENT B
° m
n m m ~.
~ ! ~ m ~
n ~ ~ N ~ O
~ ~ - ~ Q ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ <
D `< ,..f
m
o
~
~ ~,
~ -+
~ n ~ ~
m
. o v
N "' 7 Z
3
~ ~ .CT
i
z, ~ X ~
~ ~, x
Nm~
-
r ~
v
x ~
m ~ I ~N ~. ~, Z7 m m ~
m ~ I to ~
~ ~ (7 ~
a! ~~
(.. 0 ~
~
r f7
o
!~ v
o ~ ~ `D~ ~I mv
.o~i ~A
cn A
~ cD
~ .. ".
O ~
O
m ~ << O~
Z7 w (~ aJ
"D N
~ ~
f71
W
A ~ N
~ C ~'~ ' "~
j ~ I N v mi o
~
A N I V X (7 ~ ~I
I O
~ D
t `~
~ m m
i y ~
! ~ TI
p
o ~ ; ~
i D
~ ~ N
pp ~ ~
O
~ c
N ~ ~
nay,,.
ATTACHMENT C
Update on the Fire Station Data Center
On Monday(10/22), Nancy P and I met with Daryl Grob and the Development
team to discuss COAPC costs associated with implementing a Data Center in the
basement of the to-be-constructed downtown Fire Station. The current estimate
for our 1,100 squaze foot share of this facility aze:
Construction Costs
Soft Costs (overall
Project overhead)
Contingency
IS Costs (not covered in
Construction estimates)
$704,783
$100,000
$ 32,250
$122,000
$959,033 (detail on page two)
Notes:
1. At current estimates this is $871.85/sq ft.
2. This sum exceeds our previous budget estimate of $588,000 by $371,033
or 63.1%.
• Options
1. Proceed with original plan and request additional funding.
2. There is a small chance that the Fire District may not be able to afford all of the
above ground construction originally planned. If we constructed a data center
above ground at the Fire Station we would potentially save all of the excavation,
concrete, drainage, and elevator extension costs. Based upon current construction
estimates this would be approximately 5300,000.
3. Politely decline opportunity at Fire Station and improve current network closets
while looking for other opportunities in existing or proposed COAPC facilities.
To improve current facilities to approximate proposed data center specs we would
have to add redundant cooling, generator connectivity, and fire suppression.
Approxima*.e costs would be:
Ci Hall
Generator project under way
Fire Suppression $ 7,500
HVAC $12,000
$ 19,500
• Moving Forward
Courthouse
$ 10,000(attach to Jail)
$ 7,500
$100,000
5 117,500
1. Discuss with Tech-Team for feedback and direction
-•~ 2. Meet with Daryl to discuss outcomes of Tech Team direction
3. Update Decision-Makers
~r..-
ATTACHMENT C
Fire Station Costs -Detail
General Conditions Supervision $20,000
$22,750 Cleanup $2,000
Blue Prints $750
Sitework Earthwork $129,063 ~""*
$174,038 Soil Stabilization $38,500
Asphalt Paving $6,475 assumes vault work in alley
Concrete Subcontractor $85,000
$90,250 Underslab Insulation $4,D25
Vapor Barrier $1,225
Steel Raised Floor System $16,000
$31,199 Metal Framing $15,199
Wood & Plastics Rough Framing $2,500
$5,200 Framing Materials $1,500
Interior Door Install $1,200
Thermal-Moist Foundation
Protection Waterproofing $18,647
$25,147 Insulation Sub $6,500
Doors 8 Windows Wood Doors $4,200
$5,050 Hardware Allowance $850
Finishes Gypsum Wallboard $4,500
$12,000 IT Room Floor & Tile $3,500
Suspended Ceiling $2,500
Painting $1,500
Elevator Extend to Basement $25,000
$25,000
Mechanical Plumbing Labor & Mat. $8,500
$138,000 HVAC $110,000 Includes 2 Liebert Systems
In Floor Heat $12,000 Probably not required A.
Fire Protection $7,500
w~
Electrical Labor & Materials $75,000 Does this include UPS{2)?
$79,500 Low Voltage Wiring $3,000
Fire Alarm $1,500
Allowances Temp Heat $2,000
$34,730 Liability Insurance $32,730
Usetax $33
Taxes & Insurance on Labor $9,680
Profit $52,206
TOTAL $704,783 hard costs
$100,000 soffcosts
$32,250 contingency
Construction TOTAL $837,033
Costs not Covered
Fiber Relocate $27,000
Equipment Racks $10,000
Power Conditioning $15,000
Equipment Relocation $20,000
Reconfiguration $15,000
Fiber Reinstall $10,000
Miscellaneous $5,000
IS Staff Time $20,000 $100/hour
.~++,
GRAND TOTAL $959,033
ATTACHMENT D
MEMORANDUM
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
JEFF WOODS, MANAGER OF PARKS & RECREATION
PAUL MENTER, MANAGER OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES
TIM ANDERSON, RECREATION DIRECTOR
OCTOBER 16, 2007
BREAKDOWN OF 2008 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET
REQUEST
Council requested from the Recreation Staff a breakdown of the $142,980 supplemental
request for the 2008 operating budget. Staff would like to reiterate that this funding
request has been identified in the 2008 proposed budget, meets Council directed goals of
maintaining the Recreation Division subsidy level, and will be offset by revenues.
While this request may seem substantial at first glance, staff feels that it is important for
Council to realize that in 2006 for example the Recreation Division exceeded revenue
projections by $200,000 due to growrth in both program and facility use. These trends aze
continuing and the 2008 supplemental request is in essence needed to maintain the
current operational levels.
The Breakdown of the 2008 supplemental request is as follows
• Increased employee benefit cost $ 4,900
• Cost of shazed employees $26,500
• Increase to guest services hours $14,500
• Additional Fitness Programming $15,000
• Increased pay to current IT position per compensation plan $17,980
• Increased hours for cleaning of ARC $19,000
• Increased pay to lifeguazds, guest service employees, additional
Part time employees for programs due to growrth, and to stay
Competitive with Snowmass Village wages $45.100
Total
$192,980
Explanation of each cost increase:
ATTACHMENT D
Increased employee beneft cost: While the departments were permitted a 5% increase in "*~_
labor for 2008, the Recreation Division operations needed an additional $4,900 to cover
benefits for current employee levels.
Increased cost for shared employees: The Pazks & Recreation Department currently
shares 6 employees during the yeaz. In other words, for retention and consistency in
operations, the department has 6 employees which go to the Pazlcs and/or golf division for
6 months and then to the ice facilities for 6 months. This allows us to maintain good
employees in the department, consistency in operations and it is estimated that the
organization saves $12,000 per employee per yeaz in not having to recruit and train new
employees each season. This cost is the difference in staffing these employees during the
shoulder seasons, but a worth while investment and savings in the long run.
Increase to guest services hours: Due to increase usage at the ARC the number of hours
worked by current part time employees needed to be increased to better serve the
customer. This amount breaks down to 2 extra hours of staffing per day during the busy
hours of operations.
Additional Fitness Programming: staff has identified and constructed in house 650
squaze feet of additional fitness area for programming due to requests from the public.
This $15,000 is to cover the cost of instructors providing classes in this space.
Increased pay to IT position: Due to the large use of IT components in the Pazks & A.
Recreation Department, a full time computer applications administrator was hired in .,.,~
2007. This position takes care of softwaze systems used by parks and recreation and not
supported by the IS department such as our WebSite, Electronic Tee Times (which
increased revenue at the golf course in 2007), RecTrac (program registration module),
and will be implementing in 2008 our WebTrac web based program registration which is
expected to increase program registrations in 2008 and increase revenue. This position
was directed to be paid $17;980 more annually for a fair compensation by the IT
committee than had been previously budgeted.
Increased cleaning at the ARC: Due to increased numbers of usage at the ARC, and due
to the fact that we must push back the hours of our personnel cleaning locker rooms so as
to now inconvenience the patrons, we were required by HR to place one additional
cleaning person on staff after hours for safety and liability concerns. This amounted to
$19,000 in additional hotus necessary to maintain the cleaning services and not impact or
shut down locker rooms for cleaning.
Increases in pay to staff This increase is due to several pay increases within the
department to current staff and for the need to retain good employees. Part time
employees such as guest services employees, lifeguards, and cleaning personnel were
leaving due to the ability to earn higher wages with other employers in town. We
increased pay by $1.00/hr. for each of our part time employees in order to maintain good
employees and retain a well trained staff. ...,
ATTACHMENT E
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Nancy Lesley, Director of Special Events and Marketing
Loren Ryerson, Aspen Police Chief
THRU: Jeff Woods, Manager, Parks and Recreation
Steve Barwick, City Manager
DATE: January 23, 2007
RE: New Year's Eve
To fo!Icw-up our memorandum dated December 14, 2006, regarding New Year's Eve safety
enhancements, Staff created and implemented some New Year's Eve activities in Wagner Park to
mitiga~e issues on the corner of Cooper Avenue and Galena Street. Staff feels this was an extremely
successful event. The number of arrests by police officers was down by more than half (from 36 to
15). The most obvious success was on the corner of Cooper and Galena itself, as security staff were
the only ones congregating on that corner.
By having activities in Wagner Park (bonfire, deejay, and ground fireworks), the crowd was dispersed
in such a way that the security and police officers could move into the crowd freely and at will. This
`~~' enabled positive interaction between the crowd and the police. In the past, the crowd at Cooper and
Galena was so tightly packed that the officers could only walk along the periphery of the gathering.
Working closely with RFTA and dispersing the busses all along Durant, providing signage that was
taller than the crowd, utilizing security and bullhorns, all contributed to enabling the members of the
crowd to reach their correct bus in a manner more efficient and friendlier than previous years.
The hiring of security staff contributed greatly to the success of that night. Each security member, as
well as the APD, wore brightly-colored vests that were easily identifiable in the crowd. This created a
sense that both Wagner Park and the Mall were very safe places to enjoy the evening.
In addition to the events downtown, the ARC sponsored a successful program as well.
The ARC provided drop-off child care and a variety of activities for 130 people.
Recreation staff would like to expand this programming, as well as provide even more fun activities
scheduled at times favorable to families and children.
Staff recommends that City Council direct staff to build on these New Year's Eve successes, both
downtown and at the ARC, and to plan for an expanded program for next year. Providing fun, safe
and alcohol-free alternatives for families, underage guests, and other members of our community
would be the goal of this effort.
,,,
'~' Budgeting for next year is expected to be completed in time for Review during the 2007
Supplemental processes.
V111~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council ~~,/~~
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director (~V/rY-
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: Code Amendment, Municipal Code Section 26.415, Development
Involving The Aspen Inventory Of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures
or Development In An "H," Historic Overlay District.
Second Reading of Ordinance No.48, Series of 2007, Public Hearing
DATE: November 12, 2007
BACKGROUND:
On September 10, 2007, City Council directed Community Development Staff to bring
forward amendments to Ordinance No. 30, Series of 2007. Ordinance No. 30 was
adopted in July and addresses the identification and protection of potential historic
resources.
On October 9, 2007, Ordinance No. 45 was adopted by City Council upon first reading.
Staff indicated that numerous changes would likely occur to the ordinance in response to
Council direction and in response to suggestions made by citizens. Staff indicated that
the amendments would be reviewed with Council at second reading. Upon consideration
of the changes, the City Attorney determined that they were significant enough in scope
to require "starting over" with first reading and publishing of the proposed ordinance.
Staff therefore withdrew Ordinance No. 45; replaced by Ordinance No. 48, Series of
2007. Said Ordinance was approved on First Reading and is now before Council for
adoption.
°`OPTIONS:"
The proposed ordinance contains alternatives that Council will need to discuss. Staff
received direction from Council in some azeas at First Reading, and incorporated those
decisions into the attached document. The most significant areas options that are
unresolved relate to the determination of economic impact, and the extent to which City
Council will pay the costs of representation for an owner who objects to the processing of
a designation application on their property.
SUMMARY:
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
LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 1
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.
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 asuper-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. This Ordinance
establishes a process by which HPC will have the opportunity to review, and possibly
reduce, the list of properties affected by proposed new preservation regulations. 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. This is
reflected in the Ordinance.
P&Z also supported the code amendments, with similar concerns about the importance of
incentives and a clear and fair process.
The code amendments have moved forward as quickly as is reasonable. HPC discussed
this matter on September 26`h and P&Z on October 2nd. Staff is seeking Council's
support for the proposed code amendments.
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 26.310.040 and are addressed by Staff in Exhibit A to this memo.
LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 2
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS:
Following is a summary of the proposed amendments, organized by code section. The
attached ordinance contains the actual text being proposed.
Section 26.415.020, Definitions
Staff comment: This section has been amended to clarify un-defined terms used
in the Ordinance.
26.415.025 Identi£cation of Potential Historic Resources
Staff comment: This section has been given a new number in order to locate it in
amore logical position within the historic preservation ordinance. The preservation
ordinance was intended to read in a manner that progresses through a discussion of the
City's goals, criteria for the designation of historic properties, effects of designation,
benefits, and penalties for unapproved work.
A. Purpose
Staff comment: This section describes the intent of the Identification of Potential
Historic Resources Section.
B. List of Potential Historic Resources.
Staff comment: This section defines the term List of Potential Historic Resources
which has been referred to as the "List." In previous incarnations of the regulations,
"Exhibit A" was used to identify the List.
C. Amendments to the List of Potential Historic Resources.
Staff comment: This section has been re-written to state that no properties will be
added to the List of Potential Historic Resources for ] 0 years, unless the owner of a
property which has not been included volunteers for designation. The list will be updated
from time to time as properties are removed either because they are determined to lack
historic significance, are destroyed by an Act of God, or are designated.
D. Applicability and Exemptions:
Staff comment: This section has been amended to be more flexible about the type
of work that can be undertaken on a listed property without delaying building permits or
triggering designation review. Furthermore, it has been clarified that emergency repairs
consistent with the International Building Code will be allowed to proceed.
E. Procedure to Remove a Property from the List of Potential Historic
Resources or to Pursue Designation.
LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 3
Staff comment: This section states that the City will not take action to initiate
designation of any property on the List of Potential Historic Resources until the owner
asks to "call the question." They may do so at any time, regardless of whether or not any
development is planned. The review begins with an in-depth evaluation by the
Community Development Director, as was the case with Ordinance #30, Series of 2007.
At Council's request, staff has removed the previously existing language which stated
that a building would be assumed to be at least 30 years old if no documentation to the
contrary could be located. Please note that at the end of the Ordinance, a new section has
been added; Section 7, which raises the possibility that HPC would be empowered to
make the determination as to whether or not any properties should be removed from the
List of Potential Historic Resources in the short term. This topic will be discussed later in
the memo.
1. Staff comment: This section is amended in order to be more clear and use
language consistent with the rest of the preservation ordinance, It addresses the process
by which the Community Development Director will make an initial determination as to
whether or not a property should remain on the List of Potential Historic Resources. In
addition it clazifies that, if the Community Development Director determines a property is
not significant, HPC and Council will be afforded an opportunity to object and keep the
site on the List. The decision to drop the property will be valid for 10 years, rather than 5
years, as written in Ordinance #30.
2. Staff comment: If the Community Development Director determines that a
property should be reviewed for designation, this section does not require the process
move directly into a designation heazing. This is a significant change from Ordinance 30
which required the Community Development Director to pursue designation immediately
upon a finding that the property appeared to be significant. The new language in this
section gives the property owner control over the timeframe for when designation review
will proceed. A designation application will not be initiated until the owner provides a
written request to do so.
F. Procedure to Confirm a Property is not Included on the List of Potential
Historic Resources.
Staff comment: This section provides a process for properly owners who are not
on the "List" to confirm such with a letter from the Community Development
Department.
G. Procedure to Pursue Designation
Staff comment: This section describes the process by which a property owner
who is on the "List" can request initiation of the designation process. Significant in this
section is the required "authorization" from the property owner.
LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 4
H. Penalties.
Staff comment: New language is added in this section to clarify that not only are
there penalties for unapproved work on properties on the List of Potential Historic
Resources, but the property owner is also prohibited from undertaking "Demolition by
Neglect." There are certain kinds of work that will be allowed to proceed on these
properties (see Section 26.415.025.A) and, so long as the work is completed in
conformance with approvals, the penalties mentioned in this section will not be applied.
26.415.030 Designation of historic properties.
Staff comment: No amendments are proposed here.
A. Establishment of the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and
Structures.
Staff comment: No amendments are proposed here.
B. Criteria.
Staff comment: No amendments are proposed here.
1. Staff comment: No amendments are proposed here.
2. Staff comment: It is proposed that a property that is associated with the
20`h century must meet two, rather than one of the three existing designation criteria.
This is intended to raise the standards for designation of younger buildings.
3. Staff comment: This section is amended to make the resolution of
economic impacts a designation criteria, in those cases when the property owner requests
Council address the issue. This is done to clarify that, while in some cases Council may
find that a property has historic significance, if the economic impacts cannot be
satisfactorily mitigated, the property will not be designated. This is an Option for
Council to consider
4. Staff comment: No amendments are proposed here.
5. Staff comment: At Council's request, staff has removed the previously
existing language which stated that a building would be assumed w be at least 30 years
old if no documentation to the contrary could be located. In addition to the records of the
Building Department, other records, such as Assessor's Office information or bona fide
documents submitted by the property owner will be used in determining the age of a
property.
LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 5
6. Staff comment: In the past, HPC has developed and adopted the context
papers, scoring sheets, and other designation tools. City Council has been asked to
informally endorse the documents. This section is amended to require Council review
this information at a public hearing. At a future date, Community Development intends
to amend Council's "Powers and Duties," to state that Council, as well as HPC, must
formally adopt all documents used in the process of making designation decisions.
C. Authority
Staff comment: This is a new section which describes "who can do what." Most
sections of the Land Use Code include an authority section. Notable is the lack of
authority for Council or HPC to initiate designation. This is a substantial change from the
previous code. Community Development may only initiate designation if the property
owner has provided "authorization."
D. Application.
Staff comment: No amendments aze proposed here.
1. Staff comment: An application for designation must now include a letter
from the property owner indicating authorization to proceed and indicating
their consent to or objection to the designation.
2. Staff comment: No amendments are proposed here.
3. Staff comment: No amendments are proposed here.
4. Staff comment: No amendments aze proposed here.
5. Staff comment: No amendments aze proposed here.
6. Staff comment: This section is references the Economic Impact Section.
The decision on which option to pursue for economic impacts may effect
this section.
E. Review, public hearings and notice.
Staff comment: Previous language about a broad database of construction dates
for all properties in the City has been struck. This is unnecessary since this ordinance
limits the matter of Potential Historic Resources to a defined list.
1. Staff comment: New language is added emphasizing that Community
Development will work with the needs of the property owner in scheduling all
designation hearings.
LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 6
2. Staff comment: This section now includes a mailing of the complete
application to the property owner if the designation application is developed by the City.
3. Staff comment: Ordinance #30 proposed that the City provide the
affected property owner notice of designation heazings 30 days, rather than the standard
15 days before heazings. This has been struck in order to be consistent with the other
land use review processes. In addition, the code is being substantially re-written to allow
the property owner to participate in the scheduling of all hearings, making lengthier
notice periods unnecessary.
4. Staff comment: This new section now describes the process for
staff making a recommendation. The language has been in the code, but not as a stand
alone section.
5. Staff comment: This section states that, in order to recommend approval
of a designation application, a majority, plus one of the members present at the HPC
hearing must vote "yes." This is the "super-majority concept." Any less "yes" votes shall
be considered a recommendation of denial. Historically HPC's recommendation has been
forwazded to City Council. Council directed that a recommendation of no from HPC,
when designation is without owner's consent, will terminate the landmark review.
6. Staff comment: When a property proceeds to City Council for landmark
review, this section is amended to clarify that public comment is not limited to testimony
as to whether or not the property meets the designation criteria.
7. Staff comment: If City Council fails to designate a property, it cannot be
reconsidered for a period of 10 yeazs, rather than 5 years, or until the List of Potential
Historic Resources is revised, whichever comes later.
8. Staff comment: This section has been developed to create a process for
review of Economic Impact. The three Options in this azea provide for a range of
considering "Economic Hardship" or "Economic Impact."
Option 1 requires Council to consider if a "taking" will occur upon designation. The
standard relies on the interpretation of the Courts for "takings." Options 2 and 3
represent two options for considering any impact short of a taking. Under Option 2,
Council is required to take the impacts into account and provide mitigation that they
deem to be reasonable. Under Option 3, Council must offset the full value of the
documented economic impact.
In all options, it is up to the property owner to choose whether or not to present economic
information. Option 2 and 3 rely upon the formation, powers and duties of an Economic
Impact Review Panel. Council may choose whether or not to compensate the members of
this panel. Staff has concerns over the viability of finding volunteers to take on this time
consuming role.
LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 7
Options 2 and 3 also suggest an agreement between the City and the property owner be
developed that addresses the potential failure to achieve certain entitlements assumed in
the economic impact determination. In any case, the property owner could stall the
designation proceedings to pursue and secure benefits.
An issue raised by Citizen's Group is the notion that Council should reimburse a property
owner for the costs of an Economic Impact Review application, whether or not the
property is designated. There is an option included in Section 8 of the Ordinance. Staff
seeks Council direction on this idea.
Sections 5-10 of Ordinance No. 48. Series of 2007
Staff has added several sections that propose additional commitments related to the
operation of the proposed Ordinance. Many of these are highlighted as Options for
Council to consider.
5. All property owners on the List of Potential Historic Resources will be sent a
copy of the Ordinance by registered mail, within 10 days of adoption.
6. Certificates of "No Historic Significance" issued through Ordinance #30, Series
of 2007 will still be valid but may be "updated" to the 10-year certificates
contemplated in this ordinance.
7. The Citizen's Group has suggested that HPC review the List of Potential
Historic Resources and be allowed to remove properties. The City Attorney's
Office has proposed additional language in this section.
8. The Citizen's Group has suggested the costs to a property owner going through
the designation process should be reimbursed by the City. In addition, the City
may have to bear some of the costs of research prepared for the Economic
Impact Panel. Policy language is proposed. Council may want to discuss any
limitations on expenses.
9. This section contemplates the establishment of a policy task force to make
further improvements to the historic preservation program.
10. This section addresses the availability of various documents and commits to
including these documents on the web as soon as practical.
Amendments to the List of Potential Historic Resources
Staff previously identified two errors on the List of Potential Historic Resources. Within
the legal description of the individual lots that comprise the Aspen Alps, staff
inadvertently included an adjacent condominium; Ajax Condos. The parcel has been
removed from the list attached to this Ordinance. In addition, the street address for the
Yellow Brick school was listed as 215 S. Garmisch instead of 215 N. Garmisch. The
correction has been made. This is a City owned property.
LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 8
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 adopt Ordinance No.48, Series of 2007.
Attachments:
Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2007
Exhibit A: Amendments to the Land Use Code -Staff Findings
Exhibit B: October 16, 2007, letter from David Myler regarding the Holland House.
Exhibit C: October 15, 2007, letter from Wan•en Klug regarding Aspen Square.
Exhibit D: October 16, 2007, letter from Christopher Heaphey regarding the Hotel
Jerome and Cortina Lodge.
LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 9
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.
STAFF FINDING: Does it Comply? YES
Staff is unawaze of any conflicting portions of the Title.
Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area
Community Plan.
STAFF FINDING: Does it Comply? YES
Staff finds that the amendment supports the Historic Preservation element of the
AACP, which includes the goals of making improvements to the historic
preservation process and protecting all buildings of historic significance.
Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land
uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
STAFF FINDING: DOGS It COmply? YES
The code amendments have no direct affect on land uses.
The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
STAFF FINDING: Does it Comply? YES
The code amendments have no effect on traffic generation and road safety.
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: DOGS i3 Comply? 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.
LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 10
STAFF FINDING: DOGS It Comply? YES
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 Comply? 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 chazacter, which is vitally important
to the economy and livability 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 Comply? 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 significance is an on-going 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 Comply? 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 everyone to enjoy.
LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 11
ORDINANCE N0.48
(Series of 200
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 No. 30, Series of 2007, on July 10, 2007. The Ordinance amended Title
26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, specifically Chapter 26.415 Development Involving the
Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures or Development in an "H"
Historic Overlay 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 prepazefurtheramendments tothe historic preservation ordinance, including limit-
ing the protection of potential historic resources to a list of properties which aze at least 30
years old and which, in staff's opinion are associated with architectural styles and historical
trends which represent Aspen's first one hundred years of history, most pazticulazly 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 Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing to con-
siderthe 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 3-1 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.
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:
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 1 of 23
Second Reading Amendments -11.12.07
Section 1: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the City Council hereby de-
letes in its entirety Section 26.415.035, Designation ofHistoric Properties. (Note to codifier
-this Section has been amended and recodified as Section 26.415.025.)
Section 2: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the City Council hereby
amends Chapter 26.415 by amending Section 26.415.020, Definitions, to add the following:
Designation. The act of reviewing properties for inclusion on the the Aspen Inventory of
Historic Landmark Sites and Structures.
Determination of No Historic Significance. A document which verifies that a property
once included on the List of Potential Historic Resources has formally been removed.
Determination of Potential Historic Significance. A document which verifies a property
that is included on the List of Potential Historic Resources has been reviewed in greater de-
tail by the Community Development Department, and has been determined to have suffi-
cient historic value to remain on the List.
Economic Impact Report. The written conclusion reached by a panel established by the
City Council to review the economic impact of designation on a specific property.
Section 3: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the City Council hereby
amends Chapter 26.415 by adding Section 26.415.025, Identification of Potential Historic
Resources, which section describes the process and criteria for the Identification of Potential
Historic Resources to read as follows:
26.415.025 Potential Historic Resources
A. Purpose. The purpose of this Section and identifying a List of Potential Historic Re-
sources (alternatively, the "List") is to prevent 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 detrimental effect of de-
velopment ordemolition ofthese potential resources on the character of the town. Preserving
and protecting historic resources promotes the public welfare by making Aspen a more attrac-
tive and desirable place in which to live, work, or visit.
B. List of Potential Historic Resources. There is hereby identified a List of Potential His-
toric Resources. The properties identified in Exhibit A of Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2007,
shall constitute this List. This List maybe amended from time to time as described in Section
26.415.025.0, Amendments to the List of Potential Historic Resources. The List shall be the
comprehensive summazy of all properties identified as having potential historic value to the
City of Aspen. The List shall be maintained and made available to the general public by the
Community Development Department.
C. Amendments to the List of Potential Historic Resources. The List of Potential Re-
sources is not a static document and shall be amended by deletion of properties from time to
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 2 of 23
Second Reading Amendments - 11.12.07
time by the Community Development Director as properties are either approved or denied des-
ignationpursuant to the procedures and limitations of this Chapter. No properties, including
properties removed from the List pursuant to the procedures and limitations of Section
26.415.025.E ,shall be added to the List of Potential Historic Resources by the City of Aspen
for a period of ten (10) yeazs from the date of adoption of Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2007.
Staff of the Community Development Department shall propose additions, if any, to the List
of Potential Historic Resources in advance of the expiration of the ten (10) year anniversary
and, after receiving a recommendation from HPC, City Council may, pursuant to an Ordinance
adopted at a public hearing, adopt revisions to the List with a delayed effective date commen-
surate with the ten (10) year timeframe for the purpose of insuring continuous effect of the
limitations of this Chapter. In no case shall additions to the List become effective prior to the
ten (10) year anniversary of the adoption of Ordinance #48, Series of 2007. Primary struc-
ture(s) onany property identified on the List of Potential Historic Resources which have been
destroyed by an act of God or aze otherwise declared unsafe and ordered demolished by the
Chief Building Official, shall be removed from the List.
D. Applicability and Exemptions. For those properties identified on the List of Potential
Historic Resources, as amended pursuant to Section 26.415.025.0, no alterations, no land use
applications, and no building permit applications shall be undertaken by the property owner or
accepted by the Community Development Department unless removed from the List of Poten-
tial Historic Resources, pursuant to Section 26.415.025.E.
Exempt from this restriction shall be alterations, land use applications, and building permits
limited to interior remodeling, paint color selection, exterior repainting or replastering similaz
to the existing finish or routine maintenance such as caulking, replacement of fasteners, or re-
pair ofwindow glazing. The Community Development Director may exempt other such exte-
rior alterations which are determined by the Community Development Director to be mini-
mallyintrusive orreversible work that does not diminish the historic character ofthe property.
Alterations, land use applications, and building permit applications which exclusively impact
the interior of a building shall be exempt from this Section. Work undertaken in conformance
with the International Building Code provisions for emergency repairs, assuming that the re-
pairmatches the surrounding exterior materials and chazacter to the extent practicable, shall be
exempt from this Section.
E. Procedure to Remove a Property from the List of Potential Historic Resources. Tc
request the removal of a property from the List of Potential Historic Resources, a property
owner shall submit a preliminary determination application to the Community Development
Department. This request may be made by the property owner at any time, even if no devel-
opment iscurrently proposed. The Community Development Director shall review the subject
property and make a preliminary determination as to whether the property should be consid-
ered for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, (the
"Inventory.") 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 application is received from the property owner. The property owner shall be af-
forded an opportunity to review the information being considered by the Community Devel-
opment Director. The application for preliminary determination shall include the property ad-
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 3 of 23
Second Reading Amendments -11.12.07
dress, 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.
1. If, using the designation criteria of Section 26.415.030.B, the Community De-
velopment Director determines that there is insufficient evidence to believe that the
property should be considered for designation 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 Devel-
opment Director shall issue a written Determination ofNo Historic Significance to the
Historic Preservation Commission and the City Council.
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 object. If neither the majority of the members of
HPC, nor the majority of the members of City Council make a written objection, the
Community Development Director's written Determination of No Historic Signifi-
cance shall be issued, recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, and shall
exempt the property from the procedures and limitations of this Chapter for a period of
ten (10) years from the date of issuance.
A copy of the Determination shall be provided to the property owner. The Community
Development Director shall remove the subject property from the List of Potential His-
toric Resources. The Community Development Director, the Historic Preservation
Commission, or City Council may not subsequently add the subject property to the
List of Potential Historic Resources, for the effective period, and may not file an appli-
cation for designation of the subject property or district on the Aspen Inventory of His-
toric Landmark, Sites and Structures during that period.
If a majority of the members of HPC or a majority of the members of City Council do
make a written objection, the property shall remain on the List of Potential Historic
Resources and there shall continue to be a prohibition on any alteration, land use ap-
plication orbuilding permit application affecting the subject property as described in
Section 26.415.025.D. The owner shall be notified of the written objection by regis-
teredmail sent within 5 days. An owner ofthe subject property aggrieved by the His-
toric Preservation Commission's objection may appeal the decision to the City Council
pursuant to Chapter 26.316, Appeals, or pursue designation pursuant to Section
26.415.025.6. An owner of the subj ect property aggrieved by the City Council's ob-
jectionmay appeal the decision to a court with competent jurisdiction or pursue desig-
nation pursuant to Section 26.415.025.6.
2. If, using the designation criteria of Section 26.415.030.B, the Community De-
velopmentDirector determines there is sufficient evidence to believe that the property
should be considered for designation on the Inventory, then the Community Develop-
ment Director shall issue a written Determination of Potential Historic Significance.
The subject property shall remain on the List of Potential Historic Resources and there
shall continue to be a prohibition on any alteration, land use application or building
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 4 of 23
Second Reading Amendments -11.12.07
permit application affecting the subject property as described in Section 26.415.025.D.
An owner of the subject property aggrieved by the Community Development Direc-
tor's determination may appeal the decision to the City Council pursuant to Chapter
26.316, Appeals, or pursue designation pursuant to Section 26.415.025.6. An owner
of the subject property who consents to pursue designation may concurrently submit
any proposed redevelopment plans to be reviewed according to Chapter 26.415.
F. Procedure to Confirm a Property is not Included on the List of Potential Historic
Resources. To request the confirmation that a property is not included on the List of Poten-
tial Historic Resources, a property owner may submit a request to the Community Develop-
ment Department. The request shall include the name and address of the property owner and
any authorized agent acting on behalf of the owner. The confirmation letter shall indicate
whether the subject property is on the List of Potential Historic Resources, shall include a cur-
rent copy of the List of Potential Historic Resources, and shall include a description of the
manner in which the List maybe amended including the next timeframe when properties may
be added to the List. The letter shall be in a recordable format and shall exempt the property
from the procedures and limitations of this Chapter for a period often (10) years or until the
List of Potential Historic resources is eligible for amendment, as described in Section
26.415.025.0, whichever is sooner. Confirmation requests maybe assessed an administrative
review fee. An owner of the subject property aggrieved by the Community Development Di-
rector'sdetermination may appeal the decision to the City Council pursuant to Chapter 26.316,
Appeals.
G. Procedure to Pursue Designation. An owner of a property identified on the List of
Potential Historic Resources may request the Community Development Director initiate an
application for designation pursuant to Section 26.415.030, Designation of Historic Properties.
The owner shall retain the right to object to designation of the property at the time of applica-
tion or at any point during the review. Prior to the Community Development Director being
authorized to initiate an application, the following conditions shall exist:
1. The Director shall have first issued a Determination of Potential Historic Signifi-
cance, as described in Section 26.415.025.E, and any appeals therefrom shall have
concluded.
2. The property owner has submitted a written request to proceed with designation re-
view. Prior to submitting such a letter, the property owner may, but is not required
to, meet with staff of the Community Development Department to review criteria, an-
ticipated timeframes for review (see note), benefits, the procedures and protocol for
an Economic Impact Report, and any other relevant issues. The letter to proceed
shall indicate the property owner's consent to or, objection to designation. Notwith-
standing the above, the property owner shall retain the right to object to designation
at any point during the review.
3. Unless otherwise waived by the property owner, all contents of the designation appli-
cation and the staff memo prepazed for the first meeting with the Historic Preserva-
tion Commission shall be sent to the property owner by registered mail at least thirty
(30) days before the date of the public hearing before the Historic Preservation
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 5 of 23
Second Reading Amendments -11.12.07
Commission. Subsequent memos will also be provided to the property owner in a
timely fashion, no later than they are provided to the HPC or Council.
4. The criteria and procedures for designation shall be pursuant to Section 26.415.030.
Note: The Municipal Code establishes deadlines for City agencies to take action. The
Community Development Department will work with the property owner to establish a
mutually acceptable anticipated schedule, agreed upon in advance in writing, so that the
property owner can predict and control the pace of review as much as practical. However,
there are circumstances that affect schedules that may not be predicted. The City shall
diligently pursue timely scheduling of hearing dates and completion of the review taking
the property owner's convenience, availability, and requests for preparation time into ac-
count.
H. Penalties. Any owner who takes action to alter or demolish a property identified
on the List of Potential Historic Resources, including purposeful removal, change or damage
to any exterior materials, features, portions of a building, or structural members of a building
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.
In addition, properties on the List of Potential Historic Resources are required to receive rea-
sonablecare, maintenance and upkeep as described in Section 26.415.100, Demolition by Ne-
glect.
Repairs or minimally intrusive work permitted under Section 26.415.025.D or completed ac-
cording to a Development Order or Building Permit issued by the Community Development
Department, as may be required, shall not be subject to penalties.
Section 4•
Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the City Council hereby amends
26.415.030, Designation of Historic Properties, which section describes the process and crite-
riathrough which the city designates properties of historical, azchitectural, archaeological, en-
gineering 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 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 provides a means of de-
cidingand 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.
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 6 of 23
Second Reading Amendments -11.12.07
The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmazks 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, azchitec-
ture, azchaeology, 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 ofproperties 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:
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 20`h
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 of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship,
and association; and is related to two 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 his-
tory 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, crafrsman or design philosophy
that is deemed important.
3. For City Council review, the following criterion must be met if the property
owner has requested review of Economic Impact according to Section
26.415.030.E Economic Impact Report:
a. City Council finds that the Economic Impact of designation is mitigated
pursuant to the requirements of Section 26.415.030., Economic Impact.
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 7 of 23
Second Reading Amendments -11.12.07
4. 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 prop-
erty at the time of designation or, when designating a historic district, the major-
ity ofthe contributing resources in the district meet the thirty (30) year age crite-
rion described above.
5. The construction date of a property shall be established by the date of issuance of
the earliest documentation for the subject structure found in the records of the
City of Aspen Community Development Department, Pitkin County Assessor's
Office or bona fide records submitted by the Property Owner.
6. The Historic Preservation Commission shall adopt, maintain, and make available
to the public guidelines, score sheets, and other devices used by the Community
Development Department, HPC, and Council to apply the criteria set forth in this
Chapter to properties potentially eligible for inclusion on the Inventory. City
Council shall review and ratify these documents at a public hearing prior to their
official use.
C. Authority. 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 historic district to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures.
The property owner(s) or the Community Development Director, pursuant to Section
26.415.025.6, may file an application for designation of a property, site, building, structure, or
object which is identified on the List of Potentially Historic Resources to the Aspen Inventory
of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. Properties not identified on the List of Potential
Historic Resources may only be considered for designation if the owner of the subject property
makes the application.
The Community Development Director, in accordance with the procedures, standards, and
limitations ofthis Chapter and ofthis Title, shall recommend approval, approval with condi-
tions, or denial of an application for designation.
The Historic Preservation Commission upon a recommendation from the Community Devel-
opmentDirector, in accordance with the procedures, standards, and limitations of this Chapter
and ofthis Title, shall recommend approval, approval with conditions, recommend denial, or
deny an application for designation.
The City Council upon a recommendation from the Community Development Director and the
Historic Preservation Commission, in accordance with the procedures, standards, and limita-
tions ofthis Chapter and ofthis Title, shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an ap-
plication for designation.
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 8 of 23
Second Reading Amendments -11.12.07
D. Application. The application for the designation of a district, property, site, building,
structure, or object shall include the following:
The applicable information required in section 26.304.030(B)(1),(2),(3)and (4). Ap-
plications submitted by the Community Development Director for a property, site,
building, structure, or object, pursuant to Section 26.415.025.E shall include a letter
from the property owner authorizing such application and indicating the property
owner's consent to or, objection to designation. Notwithstanding the above, the prop-
ertyowner shall retain the right to object to designation at any point during the review.
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 of the character-defining features that distinguish the entity which
should be preserved.
6. Subsequent to completion of the Historic Preservation Commission's review of a des-
ignation or during City Council's review of a designation, a property owner may
choose to supplement the application with an Economic Impact Report as described in
Section 26.415.030.
E. Review, public hearings and notice.
1. Scheduling. The City shall diligently pursue timely scheduling ofheazing dates
and completion of the review taking the property owner's convenience, availability,
and requests for preparation time into account. The Municipal Code establishes dead-
linesfor City agencies to take action. The Community Development Department will
work with the property owner to establish a mutually acceptable anticipated schedule,
agreed upon in advance in writing, and adjusted as needed during the process, so that
the property owner can predict and control the pace of review as much as practical.
However, there are circumstances that affect schedules that may not be predicted.
2. Application Submission Review and Recommendation. An application for des-
ignation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures shall be
submitted to the Community Development Director to determine if the application is
complete. If the application has been prepared by the Community Development De-
partment all contents of the designation application shall be provided to the property
owner by registered mail upon completion of the application.
3. Notice. A date for a public hearing on a complete application shall be scheduled
before the HPC. Notice of the hearing shall be provided according to the provisions of
section 26.304.060.E.3. a, b, and c.
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 9 of 23
Second Reading Amendments - 11.12.07
Unless otherwise waived by the property owner, all contents of the designation appli-
cationand the staff memo prepared for the first meeting with the Historic Preservation
Commission shall be sent to the property owner by registered mail at least thirty (30)
days before the public hearing takes place before the Historic Preservation Commis-
sion. Subsequent memos and any supplemental information or documents will also be
provided to the property owner in a timely fashion, no later than they are provided to
the HPC or Council.
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 ad-
ditional measures be taken to ensure that the property owner is informed and has ade-
quate preparation time.
4. Application Review by the Community Development Director. The Community
Development Director, in accordance with the procedures, standards, and limitations
of this Chapter and of this Title, shall recommend approval, approval with conditions,
or denial of an application for designation.
5. Review by the Historic Preservation Commission. The HPC shall evaluate the
application to determine if a 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 desig-
nation. For historic district designation applications and property designations in which
the property owner consents to designation, the HPC may recommend approval, ap-
proval with conditions, disapproval or may continue the application to request addi-
tional information necessazy to make a decision. The recommendation shall be for-
warded to City Council.
If the owner of the subject property proposed for designation objects to designation at
any point prior to the vote of the Historic Preservation Commission, a recommendation
to approve designation must be supported by a vote of a majority, plus one, of the
regulaz members of the HPC present and voting at the meeting. Any lessthan amajor-
ityplus one in favor of designation shall be considered a denial and no further review
by City Council shall occur. This voting requirement shall apply to individual prop-
erty designations and shall not apply to historic district designation reviews.
6. City Council Review. Upon receipt of a recommendation from the Community
Development Director and the Historic Preservation Commission, and an Economic
Impact Report if one has been prepared, 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 dis-
trict'seligibility for designation or other such information that maybe relevant to the
decision. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, deny, or continue the
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 10 of 23
Second Reading Amendments - 11.12.07
application to request additional information necessary to make a decision. If at any
point prior to a final vote by City Council the property owner decides to pursue an
Economic Impact Report, the City Council shall table action and postpone the hearing
for a sufficient time period as to permit the development of an Economic Impact Re-
port, pursuant to Section 26.415.030.F. If requested by the property owner, the City
Council shall table action and postpone the hearing for a time period not to exceed the
limitations of Section 26.304.070.F, Abandonment of Application.
7. Denied Applications. If an application for designation is denied, the Community
Development Director, HPC or City Council may not file a reapplication for designa-
tion ofthe same Historic Resource, property, or district to the Aspen Inventory of His-
toric Landmark, Sites and Structures or inclusion on the List of Potentially Historic
Resources for ten (10) years from the date of the denial. The Community Develop-
ment Director shall issue a Determination of No Historic Significance, recorded with
the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office, exempting the property from the pro-
cedures and limitation of this Chapter for a period often (10) yeazs from the date of
denial.
8. Economic Hardship of Designation. ****Optionl. It is the policyoftheCity
of Aspen to respect private property rights. The City recognizes that there may be
some particular circumstances in which the operation of this Chapter, in particular des-
ignation,could represent an economic hardship upon a property owner. It is the intent
of this provision to insure no private property is taken without just compensation.
If requested by an owner of a property being considered for designation, the City
Council shall review evidence provided by a property owner with regazd to economic
hardship. The standazd of review for determination of economic hardship shall be
whether designation would result in a violation of the prohibitions of the U.S. and
Colorado Constitutions against taking of private property for public use without just
compensation as those prohibitions may be interpreted by the courts of Colorado and
the United States.
Notwithstanding the above, the property owner shall retain the right to pursue a "tak-
ings" claim with a court of competent jurisdiction.
F. Economic Impact Report **** Options 2 and 3
1. Purpose. It is the policy of the City of Aspen to respect private property rights.
The city recognizes, therefore, that there may be some circumstances in which the op-
eration ofthis Chapter, in particulaz designation, could represent an adverse economic
impact upon the property owner. The intent of this provision is to insure the economic
impact of designation of a property is documented and considered as part of the desig-
nation process if so desired by a property owner.
2. Initiation of Economic Impact Report. The owner of a property, site, building,
structure, or object subject to a designation application may request the development
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 11 of 23
Second Reading Amendments - 11.12.07
of an Economic Impact Report which shall be reviewed as part ofthe designation hear-
ingbefore City Council. When an Economic Impact Report is requested, the Report
shall be provided to City Council concurrent with the recommendations from the
Community Development Director and the Historic Preservation Commission. If an
Economic Impact Report is requested during the City Council designation, but prior to
a final vote on the matter, the City Council shall table action and postpone the hearing
for a sufficient time period as to permit the development of an Economic Impact Re-
port. The City shall continue to work with the property owner to accomplish a timely
completion of the review taking the property owner's convenience, availability, and
requests for preparation time into account.
3. Economic Impact Examination Pane[. The City Council shall establish an Eco-
nomic Impact Examination Panel to determine the economic impact of designation of
properties. The Panel shall be comprised of three (3) persons with professional exper-
tise in local real estate valuation, appraisals, mortgage banking, accounting, develop-
ment, land planning, or similar professional expertise. Members of the panel shall be
volunteers but may be financially compensated by the City as determined necessary by
City Council and as may be amended from time to time. The Panel shall be provided
with clerical or other professional assistance as needed, with such expenses to be borne
by the City.
The Panel's membership shall be determined by City Council for each application and
the members of said panel shall be mutually acceptable to the property owner and to
the staff of the Community Development Department and shall have no substantial
business, financial, or familial relationship to the City, staff ofthe Community Devel-
opment Department, or to the property owner other than as a Panel member such that
an actual or apparent conflict of interest exists according to the City Attorney.
The Panel shall review information provided by the property owner and by the Com-
munity Development Department. Information may include, but not be limited to, a
current (prior to designation) appraisal, zoning and developmental information, local,
State, and Federal financial and technical assistance programs, development benefits
that the property would be eligible for upon designation, an assessment of the devel-
opment orredevelopment potential of the property, including the estimated costs and
time associated therewith, and maps, plats, or pictures of the subject property.
The Panel shall be able to request and be provided with additional information as may
be necessary to make their determination, including site visits and physical inspections
of the subject building(s), appraisals of similarly situated and regulated properties, and
interviews of the property owner, or representatives thereof, staff of the Community
Development Department, or of local professionals with particular expertise in prop-
erty development or valuation. The property owner and staff of the Community De-
velopment Department shall have the opportunity to refute or challenge any piece of
information provided and offer additional information as may be necessary. All mate-
rials, information or written challenges of the property owner's or staff s information
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 12 ot'23
Second Reading Amendments - 11.12.07
shall be provided to the other party who will be allowed adequate time and opportunity
for rebuttal.
4. Economic Impact Report. Upon receipt of all necessary information to render a
determination, the Panel shall have thirty (30) days to render their determination. The
Panel shall provide their determination in the form of a written report documenting the
information provided and the rational basis for the determination. If the Panel cannot
reach a unanimous opinion, the report shall describe the opinions of the individual
Panel members. The report must be signed by all panel members with their concur-
rence that their opinion was properly represented. The report shall describe the eco-
nomicimpact ofdesignation innet present value and may describe the impact in terms
of a value range, depending on what benefits may or may not be approved. The report
shall be addressed to and forwarded to City Council and copies shall be provided to the
property owner and to the Community Development Department. At least one mem-
ber ofthe Panel shall be available to present oral testimony to the City Council as may
be requested by the Council. The property owner and staff of the Community Devel-
opment Department shall retain the right to refute or challenge the Panel's findings
during the public hearing before City Council.
5. City Council Determination of Economic Impact. As part ofthe public hearing
for designation ofthe subject property, City Council shall determine the economic im-
pact ofthe designation by using the Report provided by the Panel, any testimony pro-
vided by members of the Panel, any additional information provided by the property
owner or staff of the Community Development Department, and any other testimony
or evidence provided by the public during the public hearing. The determination made
by City Council shall be the final administrative action on the matter.
Option 2•
6. Ciry Council Mitigation of Economic Impact. The matter of economic impact of
designation of a property shall be reviewed and considered by the City Council during
the public hearing for designation. The City Council shall determine if the economic
impact is a disproportionate or unreasonable burden upon the property value. Upon
such a finding and upon designation of the subject property, the City Council may take
any action deemed necessary to mitigate an unreasonable economic impact upon the
property value including, but not limited to, financial compensation or other mutually
acceptable means of compensation including development benefits and incentives to
the extent City Council has jurisdiction. The property owner and the City may enter
into a mitigation agreement which may include subsequent additional mitigation to the
property owner if certain development or entitlement assumptions of the Economic
Impact Report are found to be unachievable, despite a good faith effort, after a speci-
fiedtime period. The additional mitigation may include removal of the subject prop-
erty from the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. If requested by the property
owner, review of designation may be delayed until a site specific development plan en-
titling the use of available preservation benefits is approved. Approval of said plan
shall be conditioned on the listing of the property on the Aspen Inventory of Historic
Landmark Sites and Structures.
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 13 of 23
Second Reading Amendments -11.12.07
Option 3:
6. City Council Mitigation of Economic Impact The matter of economic impact
of designation of a property shall be reviewed and considered by the City Council dur-
ing the public hearing for designation. Upon designation of the subject property, the
City Council shall provide financial compensation, or other mutually acceptable means
of compensation including development benefits and incentives to the extent City
Council has jurisdiction, to the property owner approximately equal to the determined
economic impact of the designation. The property owner and the City shall enter into a
mitigation agreement which shall include subsequent additional mitigation to the prop-
erty owner if certain development or entitlement assumptions of the Economic Impact
Report aze found to be unachievable after a good faith effort and a time period of no
more than ten (10) years. The additional mitigation may include removal of the sub-
ject property from the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. If requested by the
property owner, review of designation may be delayed until a site specific develop-
mentplan proposing the use of available preservation benefits is reviewed. Approval
of said plan shall be conditioned on the listing of the property on the Aspen Inventory
of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures.
Notwithstanding the above, the property owner shall retain the right to pursue a claim
of a violation of the prohibitions of the U.S. and Colorado Constitutions against taking
of private property for public use without just compensation as those prohibitions may
be interpreted by the courts of Colorado and the United States.
Section 5. Notice to Property Owners.
All owners of properties identified on the List of Potentially Historic Resources, as provided in
Exhibit A to this Ordinance, shall be mailed a copy ofthis Ordinance by registered mail, within 10
days of the final City Council approval ofthis Ordinance. Property owners may submit to the
Community Development Department alternate addresses for this information to be mailed. (As
opposed to or in addition to the address on file with the Pitkin County Assessor's Office.)
Section 6. Effect on Existing Ordinance No. 30 Determinations.
This Ordinance shall not affect any Determination of No Historic Significance approved by the
Community Development Director pursuant to Ordinance No. 30, Series of 2007. These
determinations issued pursuant to Ordinance No. 30 shall continue to be valid for afive-yeaz
period from their issuance date but shall not automatically become valid for a longer period. If
property owners want to "update" their Determination ofNo Historic Significance to be valid for a
ten year period, as permitted pursuant to this Ordinance, the property owner must request a new
certificate, which will be granted without further review of the historic significance of the
property, be issued pursuant to the process identified in this Ordinance. To expedite service,
property owners who wish to update their 5-year certificate to a 10-yeaz certificate should provide
a copy of their 5-yeaz certificate when applying. No fees shall be assessed for processing of these
updated certificates.
Section 7. Historic Preservation Commission Review of List.
The List of Potential Historic Resources (the List), as appended to Ordinance No. 48, Series of
2007, shall be referred to the Historic Preservation Commission (the HPC) for additional analysis
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 14 of 23
Second Reading Amendments - 11.12.07
and consideration. The HPC may direct the Community Development Director to remove
properties from the List, based upon their finding that there is no probably cause to believe that the
criteria for landmark designation are met. If this is the HPC's conclusion, notification will be
provided by mail to the individual property owners. This action by the HPC to direct the
Community Development Director to remove a property from the List shall require adoption of a
resolution by a simple majority. Asaequested by the HPC on any specific property, the HPC shall
heaz and consider any input from the Community Development Department regazding the
potential historic significance of the property, may visit the property and may consider any written
material submitted by a property owner. However this is an administrative review of the
determination of the Community Development Department. Although open to the public, this
review shall not be deemed a public hearing and the HPC shall not take public comment during
this review. The HPC's additional analysis and consideration shall not be considered prejudice
upon any subsequent review of the property for Landmazk Designation or a Site Specific
Development Plan. The HPC shall conclude their further analysis and consideration within ninety
(90) days from the adoption of Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2007, or as otherwise extended by City
Council motion. The HPC may elect not to undertake this review or to discontinue this review at
any point.
Section 8. Policy on Expert Assistance for Property Owners
The City shall retain an expert consultant(s) to assist and/or represent property owners in designa-
tion reviews in which the property owner does not consent to the designation. This service shall
be available to property owners who request such assistance and shall be free of charge. This as-
sistanceshall belimited toperforming reseazch onthe history of the property, performing inspec-
tions of the property and documents associated therewith, preparing written and verbal presenta-
tionsabout the property, and representing the property owner in conversations and/or presentations
with the Community Development Department, the Economic Impact Examination Panel, the His-
toric Preservation Commission, or the City Council. The property owner may decide to forego
this assistance or augment this assistance by contracting with the expert consultant or another con-
sultant of the owner's choosing.
The consultant retained by the City shall have professional expertise in local real estate valua-
tion, appraisals, mortgage banking, accounting, development, land planning, or similar profes-
sional expertise. The consultant shall have no substantial business, financial, or familial rela-
tionship to the City, staff of the Community Development Department, or to the property owner
other than as an expert consultant such that an actual or apparent conflict of interest exists ac-
cording tothe City Attorney. The consultant shall be financially compensated by the City on a
contractual basis at a rate determined appropriate by City Council and as may be amended from
time to time.
The City shall pay for reports and analysis necessary for the Economic Impact Determination,
including but not limited to appraisals of the subject property and other similazly situated prop-
erties, up to a total cost not to exceed $ ,per property.
The City Council may, from time to time, amend this policy or establish limits on the amount of
costs that may be reimbursed or otherwise incurred by the City.
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 15 of 23
Second Reading Amendments -11.12.07
Section 9. Policy Task Force.
A Historic Preservation Policy Task Force shall be established in order to provide guidance on
additional changes to the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Program. Membership of the Task
Force shall be by appointment by City Council. Duties of the Task Force shall be determined by
City Council, but shall include a review of the following as a minimum:
• The criteria upon which designation applications aze judged, including whether additional
or different criteria should apply when the property owner objects to the designation and
for 20s' century properties.
• Changes to the Integrity Scoring System used to evaluate properties, including to the
process by which the Scoring System is adopted.
• Existing and additional benefits for owners of historic properties.
• Strategic policy level review of the historic preservation program objectives and benefits
and congruence with community goals as outlined in the Aspen Area Community Plan.
Unless otherwise requested by the property owner, the City shall not proceed with property desig-
nationswithout owner consent until the Policy Task Force has made their recommendations and
the City Council has considered proposed code changes. Properties identified on the List of Po-
tential Historic Resources shall remain on the List unless removed pursuant to the procedures of
this ordinance.
Section 10. Availability of Documents.
The Community Development Department shall make available to the public all documents
related to the List of Potential Historic Resources, criteria upon which properties shall be
evaluated, reseazch papers, scoring sheets, development and other benefits, and copies of this
ordinance and shall diligently pursue timely inclusion of this information on the City of Aspen
website.
Section 11. Effect on Existing Applications.
This Ordinance shall not affect any active Land Use Application, existing Development Order, or
Building Permit, as such terms are used in the Land Use Code, submitted and determined
complete prior to the effective date of this ordinance
Pre-Application Conferences, Pre-Application Conference Summary reports, or formal or informal
discussions with Community Development staff or review Boazds 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 12. Severability.
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 13. Existing Litigation.
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
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 16 of 23
Second Reading Amendments - 11.12.07
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior
ordinances.
Section 14. Notice
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
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of _, 2007.
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jim True, Special Counsel
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 17 of 23
Second Reading Amendments -11.12.07
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE No. _, SERIES OF 2007
720 S. Aspen St, Holland House: Parcel Id: 2735 1 3 1 1 9001. Legal Description: EAMES
ADDITION SUBDIVISION, BLOCK 9, LOT 1 & 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. Bleeker St: Parcel Id: 273512437010; 273512437009. Legal Description: BLOCK 65,
114 EAST BLEEKER CONDOMINIUMS.
118 E. Bleeker St: Parcel Id: 273512437012; 2735 1 243701 1. Legal Description: BLOCK 65,
HOGUET CONDOMINIUMS.
970 Cemetery Ln: Pazcel Id: 273512208006. Legal Description: SNOWBUNNY
SUBDIVISION, BLOCK 1, LOT 3.
408 E. Cooper Ave: Aspen Sports Pazcel 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:
BLOCK111, 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-]0-84 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 0.517 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 CORDON/CALLAHAN RESUBDIVISION.
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 18 of 23
Second Reading Amendments - 11.12.07
1422-1441 Crystal Lake Rd., Aspen Club Condos: Parcel Id: 273718131001 THROUGH
273718131020; 273718131800; 273718131801, Legal Description: ALL UNITS, ASPEN
CLUB CONDOMINIUMS.
333 E. Durant Ave., Mountain Chalet: Pazcel 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 THE NW4 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 ELY 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
FT TH N 7 DEG19'OS"E 112.35 FT TH S 70 DEG 18'15"E 286.57 FT TH 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
21'00"E 83.49 FT TO THE STHLY LINE OF FRANCIS ST EXTENDED ELY TH N 75
DEG 09'11 "W 288.99 FT TO THE NW COR OF BLK 64 TH N 31 DEG 00'50"W 107.29 FT
TO THE POB.
210 W. Francis Ave: Parcel Id: 273512417005, Legal Description: 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: Pazcel Id: 273718279001 THROUGH 273718279019;
273718279801, Legal Description: ALL UNITS, ALPENBLICK CONDOMINIUMS.
215 N. 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: 273513119002, Legal Description: BLOCK
9, LOTS 5 - LOT 10 AND LOTS 4 & 11 LESS THEW 22' EAMES ADDITION
SUBDIVISION.
700 W. Gillespie St., Aspen Center for Physics: Pazcel Id: 273512129803, Legal Descrip-
tion: LOT 3, ASPEN MEADOWS SUBDIVISION.
110 E. Hallam St., Red Brick: Pazcel 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 PART K,
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 #48, Series 2007
Page 19 of 23
Second Reading Amendments - 11.12.07
129 E. Hopkins Ave: Pazcel Id: 273512458004, Legal Description: BLOCK 68, LOTS G-I.
211 W. Hopkins Ave: Pazcel 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, SKANDIA 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 Ave: Parcel Id: 273512464005, Legal Description: BLOCK 46, LOTS N &
O.
334 W. Hyman Ave., St. Moritz: Pazcel 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 Aver Pazcel 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: 27371 821 1 008 THROUGH
273718211019; 273718211021 THROUGH 273718211031, 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: ELY 20
FT OF LOT M, ALL OF LOTS N & O BLOCK 66 & SLY 10 FT OF VACATED ALLEY
ADJACENT ALSO LOT 2 OF US WEST SUBDIVISION.
200 W. Main St., Tyrolean Lodge: Pazcel Id: 273512440010, Legal Description: BLOCK 51,
LOTS R & S.
220 E. Main St., Cortina Lodge: Parcel Id: 273707320707, Legal Description: BLOCK 73,
LOTS P&Q.
420 E. Main St: Pazcel Id: 273707322801; 273707322014; 273707322015, Legal Description:
BLOCK 86, ALL UNITS, GALENA PLAZA CONDOMINIUMS.
435 East Main St., Gas Station/local's corner: Pazcel 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 #48, Series 2007
Page 20 of 23
Second Reading Amendments - 11.12.07
630 W. Main St., Mountain Rescue: Pazcel Id: 273512444805, Legal Description: BLOCK
24, LOT M.
730 W. Main St., Hickory House: Parcel Id: 273 5 1 2445004, Legal Description: BLOCK 18,
LOTS M - P.
834 W. Main St/107 N. Seventh St., Bavarian Housing: Pazcel Id: 273512380014
THROUGH 273512380021, Legal Description: ALL UNITS, BAVARIAN INN
CONDOMINIUMS.
24 McSkimming Rd: Parcel Id: 273718100054, Legal Description: BLOCK 19, LOT 6 & 7
RIVERSIDE ADDN & A TRACT OF LAND IN SE4 OF NE4 OF SEC 18-10-84 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 1 25' W 886.26 FT TH N 47 50'W 19.88
FT TO THE E R-O-W LINE OF A RD TH NELY ALONG SAID R-O-W FT M/L TH S 60
05'E 122.04 FT TO LINE 2-3 OF THE HIGHLAND PLACER TH S 1 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 1, LOT 3,
SNOBBLE SUBDIVISION.
765 Meadows Rd: Parcel Id: 273512201002, Legal Description: LOT 2, SNOBBLE
SUBDIVISION.
119 S. Mill St., Wells Fargo Bank: Pazcel 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: 273512111808, Legal Description:
BLOCK 99, LOTS 11 - 15 HALLAM ADDITION.
403 Park Ave: Pazcel Id: 273707404010 THROUGH 273707404019, Legal Description:
ALL UNITS, MARTHINSSON-NOSTDAHL CONDOMINIUMS.
404 Park Ave: Parcel Id: 273707404705, Legal Description: LOT 3, SUNNY PARK
SUBDIVISION.
411 Pearl Ct: Parcel Id: 273 5 12 1 1 0002, 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: Parcel Id: 273512126001, Legal Description: LOT 1, MERRIAM
SUBDIVISION.
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 21 of 23
Second Reading Amendments - 11.12.07
54 Shady Ln: Parcel Id: 273707200026, Legal Description: SECT,TWN,RNG:7-10-84,
TRACT OF LAND BEG AT A PT ON THE ELY R-O-W OF THE D&RGW RR (ASPEN
BRANCH) WH THE W4 COR OF SAID SEC 7 BEARS W 602.4FT TH E 214.6 FT TO THE
WLY 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'E 215.SFT TO THE 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 ELY LINE OF SAID RR R-O-W TH S 08 DEG 57'E 90.6 FT ALONG THE ELY LINE
OF SAID RR R-O-W TO THE PT OF BEG LESS A TRACT CONT 0.0924 AC M/L
DEEDED TO PITKIN CO FOR RDWY DRAINAGE EASEMENT BK 554 PGS 159-161
&185 SUBJECT TO US PATENT RESERVATIONS BK 35 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 THEN & ET BK OF THE ROARING FORK RIVER WITH
COURSES WLY & NLY 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, Legal Description: BLOCK 3, LOT A - I.
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 O - S.
407 N. Third St: Parcel Id: 273512413006, Legal Description: BLOCK 34, LOTS P - S.
615 N. Third St: Parcel Id: 273 5 12 1 1 000 1, 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 ]A.
1000 N. Third St., Aspen Institute (area of seminar buildings): Parcel Id: 273512129809,
Legal Description: ASPEN MEADOWS, LOT 1 B.
700 Ute Ave., Aspen Alps: Parcel Id: 273718255001 thru -011; 273718255013 thru -017;
273718272001 thru 016; 273718239001 thru -006; 273718239061; 273718239014;
273718271001thru-009; 273718256002; 273718295001thru-008; 273718262001thru-008;
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 22 of 23
Second Reading Amendments - 11.12.07
273718269001 tluu -013; 273718272999; 273718244001 tluu -008, Legal Description: ALL
UNITS, ASPEN ALPS CONDOMINIUMS, ASPEN ALPS WEST CONDOMINIUMS,
ASPEN ALPS NORTH, MOSES LOT SPLIT, ASPEN ALPS SOUTH.
1280 Ute Ave., Benedict Building: Parcel Id: 273718156001 tluu-003; 273718156005 tluu-
020; 273718156023 thru -034; 273718156036; 273718156129; 273718156131;
273718156804; 273718156821; 273718156822; 273718156835, Legal Description: ALL
UNITS, POWDERHOUSE CONDOMINIUMS.
1005 Waters Ave: Pazcel Id: 273718282001, Legal Description: BLOCK 41, LOTS A-C,
EAST ASPEN ADDITION.
1102 Waters Ave: Pazcel Id: 273718266001, Legal Description: LOT 14, CALDERWOOD
SUBDIVISION.
610 S. West End St., Gant: Parcel Id: 273718267001 tluv -015; 273718267017 tluu -029;
273718267036 tluu -046; 273718267048 tluu -050; 273718267053 tluu -056; 273718267058
tluu -067; 273718267069 tluu -070; 273718267072 thru -078; 273718267080 tluu -097;
273718267100 tluu -107; 273718267109 tlrru -111; 273718267113 tluv -143, Legal Descrip-
tion: ALL UNITS, GANT CONDOMINIUMS.
95 Westview Dr: Pazcel Id: 273718121004, Legal Description: BLOCK 1, LOT 7,
KNOLLWOOD SUBDIVISION.
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 23 of 23
Second Reading Amendments - 11.12.07
~yc(~ i b i-1- ~'j
THE MYLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
A Colorado Professional Corporation
DAVID J. MYLER
RosvNJ. MYLER"'
ADMITTED IN CO'. NY', Cr'
2I I MIDLANDAVENUE
SUITE 201
CONME A. WOOD, LEGAL ASSISTANT BASALT, COLORADO S I62I
RHONDA E. NEFr, tPGAL ASSISTANT
Oct 16, 2007
Via Emai! and US Mai!
Mr. Chris Bandon, Director
Aspen Community Development Department
130 S. Galena Street, 3~ Floor
Aspen, CO 8161
Re: Ordinance 45, Series of 2007
Dear Chris,
TELEPHONE
(970) 9t7-0436
FACSIMILE
(970)937-0371
EMAaS
dm/ler®mrbbwpcwm
mrylm~rybh,ryc.mm
nwod®mybYwpcwm
ixa~n,bYvpcmm
I am writing on behalf of Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge -Aspen, LLC, as the current owner
of the Holland House at 720 South Aspen Street in Aspen. The purpose of this letter is to request
that the Holland House structure be removed from the list of Potential Historic Resources which is
attached as Exhibit A to Ordinance 45, Series of2007, as approved on first reading. We believe that
the Holland House should be removed from the list prior to second reading of Ordinance 45 for the
following reasons:
1. The Holland House is the subject of an active Land Use Application. Pursuant to Section
3 of Ordinance 45, the provisions thereof shall not affect any such Application.
2. The Holland House is the subject of a final determination of no historic significance and
thus exempt from the provisions of Ordinance 45 pursuant to Section 3. On Mazch 24, 2003, the
Aspen City Council unanimously adopted Ordinance 15, Series of2003, which specificallyprovided
that the Holland House does not meet the standards of Historic Landmark Designation (copy
attached). Ordinance 15, Series of 2003, either constitutes a "Determination of No Historic
Significance" certificate, as that term is used in Ordinance 45, or is the equivalent of such a
certificate.
The facts and circumstances relating to the eligibility of the Holland House for historic
designation have not changed since Ordinance I5, Series of 2003 was adopted. Even though a new
council could come to a different conclusion at this time if the Holland House were being considered
for designation, there is no legal basis to ignore the cleaz and unambiguous determination of the City
Council in 2003.
THE MYLER Lnw Ftxm, P.C.
Mr. Chris Bendon
October 16, 2007
Page 2
Very truly yours,
THE MYLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
By:
David J. Myler
DJM/rn
cc: Robert E. Daniel, Jr. (via email)
III~I~IIIII~IIIIIII~~IIIII~IIIIlIII~I~ IIII o nab e5 ie:lla
SILVIN ORVIS PITKIN COUNTY 00 R 36.00 0 0.00
ORDINANCE NO. 15
(Series of 2003)
ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE REQUEST
TO REMOVE 720 S. ASPEN STREET, THE HOLLAND HOUSE LODGE, FROM
THE ASPEN INVENTORY OF HISTORIC LANDMARK SITES AND
STRUCTURES
PARCEL ID#: 2735-131-19-001
WHEREAS, the applicants, John Simmons and Yasmine depagter, owners of the
Holland House, have requested that the historic designation on their property be
rescinded and that the property be removed from the Aspen Inventory of Historic
Landmazk Sites and Structures. The property is located at 720 S. Aspen Street, Lots 1, 2,
13, and 14, Block 9 and a portion of a vacated alley southerly of Lot 1 and 2 Eames
Addition, City of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.050 of the Aspen Municipal Code establishes the
process for i2escinding Designation and states that an application fur the removal of a
property from the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmazk Sites and Structures shall
follow the same submission requirements and review procedures as for designation
except that with respect to Section 26.415.030(0)(4) anexplanation shall he provided
describing why the property no longer meets the criteria for designation .The HPC and
City Council shall determine if sufficient evidence exists that the property no longer
meets the criteria for designation and, if so, shall remove the property from the Inventory;
and
WHEREAS, staff, in a report dated October 9, 2002 performed an analysis of the
application based on the standards, and using the guidelines, score sheets, and other tools
established through Section 26.415.030.8.4 of the Aspen Municipal Code in order to
apply the criteria set forth in this Section to potentially eligible buildings, sites, structures
or objects, or collections thereof and has recommended that the property remain listed on
the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures; and
WHEREAS, at a regulaz meeting held on Uctober 9, 2002, the Historic
Preservation Commission considered the application, found the property to meet the
standards for designation and recommended to City Council that 720 S. Aspen Street
remain on the Aspen inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures by a vote of 4
to 1; and
WHEREAfi, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered [he request for
delisting under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has
reviewed and considered those recommendations made by the Community Development
Department, and the HPC, and ltas taken and considered public comment at a public
hearing; and
IINNININI~IIIIINNIINN~IIIINIIINNNIIII a ~z s 05 ~e:rra
SILVIP ORVIS PITInN BOUNTY CO R 76.00 D 0.00
WHEREAS, A public hearing on the Ordinance was held on the 24'~ day of
Mazch, 2003, at 5:00 o'clock pm in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, 130 S.
Galena St. Prior to such heazing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper
ot'general circulation within the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that 720 S. Aspen Street, the Holland House,
does not meet the standards for designation and has determined that 720 S. Aspen Street
should he removed from the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures
by a vote of 5 to 0; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary
for the public health, safety and weltare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1
Pursuant to the procedures and standazds set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal
code, the Holland House, located at 720 S. Aspen Street, does not meet the standards of
Historic Landmark pesignation and shall be removed from the Aspen Inventory of
Historic Landmazk Sites and Structures.
Section 2
All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to this
application, whether in public hearings or documentation presented before the Historic
Preservation Commission and City Council, aze hereby incorporated in such plan
approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended
by an authorized entity.
Section 3
This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an
abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances
repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded
under such prior ordinances.
Section 4
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this 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 effect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
INTRODUCED, READ, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ON FIRST READING as
provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 24th day of February,
2003.
~II~ IN~I ~K ~~ II~~ I~~ VIII ~ 11111 ~ ~1 4 zaeze05 1o:11G
SILVIR DHV1S PiTKIN COUNTY CO R 16.00 D 0.E0
ATTEST: MAYOR:
Kathryn S. K ~ , Cit Clerk _ elen al KI rnd
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 24''' day of March, 2003.
MAYOR:
Helen Kali ande d
ATTEST:
)~athryn S. K .City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
. o~'~ ~.~,~.City
~~
~J~~
Condominium Hotel
in Downtown Aspen
October 15, 2007
Chris Bendon
Community Development Director
CITY OF ASPEN
130 South Galena
Aspeq Colorado 81611
Deaz Chris,
~--~'Lt l .~J i
~~~
OCT 1 S 207
rivt'G!V
I understand that our Aspen Square building has been included on the designated Aspen
Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. Per condominium owner requests, I am
writing to ask that our buildings be removed from the list. I have reviewed the Criteria
for Designation, and I do not seethe reasons for our designation. Here is how I see it:
1. We are obviously not 100 years old. We are in fact about 38 years old.
2. Aspen Square is a relatively unremarkable building, and certainly has not made a
significant contribution to local, state or regional history.
3. I cannot see that our property is connected with any name that has made a specific
contribution to local, state or national history.
4. The physical design of our buildings is hardly distinctive or of some special
significance. It looks like any number of buildings from the late 60's and 70's.
Ours are very plain buildings not noteworthy in design, nor are they the
significant work of any specific designer.
In short, as I look at the outline of criteria, I do not see Aspen Square in the requirements.
I would add that while we certainly do not see tearing down the building or pursuing any
significant changes or ahemations to our buildings, I do see the potential to change
exterior stucco colors in the future, or we may want to consider new balcony designs.
These would be projects to improve the otherwise very unremarkable exterior of our
buildings, and I would not see these done until many yeazs from now.
My concern is that I can see potential historic site designation getting in the way of
responsible improvements to our building exteriors. There are, after all, people who see
any improvemems to buildings in town as somehow a violation of Aspen's history. That
worries me as I consider the future of Aspen Square! So, I am asking that Aspen Squaze
be removed from the historic invectory list. Thank you!
Very truly yours,
~~ ~ ~~
Wan en E. Klug
General Manager
617 East Cooper Avenue • Aspen, Colorado 81611 .970-925-1000 • FAX 970-925-1017
E-Mail: info@aspensquarehotel.com On the Web: www.aspensquarehotel.com
1-800-TO ASPEN (1-800-862-7736)
HOLLAND & HART ~ Christopher J Heaphey
_l. F' E '- " v`, ° i-' ~ ~'" r= ' ' for Holland ~ Hart
Phone (970) 925-3476
Fax (800) 962-1998
cjheaphey@hollanom
56025.0001
October 16, 2007 ~Cj
I ;: ,
9~jj~A~~~,~ , : ~,
James R. True, Esq. ~/? ,.,,
215 S. Monarch St. Ste 102 '°`~~~~
Aspen, CO 81611-2915
Chris Bendon, Director
Community Development
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Hotel Jerome and Cortina Lodge
Dear Jim and Chris:
This law firm represents LCP -Elysian Aspen Owner, LLC ("Elysian"), the owner of the
Hotel Jerome and Cortina Lodge and successor in interest to the 2007 Hotel Jerome PUD
Agreement executed by the City of Aspen on January 3Q, 2007. It is our understanding that the
Cortina Lodge is currently listed as a potential historic structure on Exhibit A to proposed
Ordinance No. 45, which is scheduled for second reading on October 22, 2007. Elysian
respectfully requests that for the reasons set forth below, the City not designate the Cortina
Lodge an historic structure at this time, and that the Cortina Lodge be removed from Exhibit A.
Elysian's vested rights under the PUD Agreement do not expire until January 14, 2010.
Those rights include, among other things, the ability to renovate the Cortina Lodge pursuant to
the terms of the PUD Agreement. Such renovation may in fact occur prior to historic
designation. Paragraph 3.7 of the PUD Agreement allows Elysian to wait until a building permit
is sought for the renovation of the Hotel Jerome itself before filing an application for historic
designation of the Cortina Lodge. This discretion is part of Elysian's vested rights and should
not be abridged by the City by unilaterally designating the Cortina Lodge historic at this time.
Elysian purchased the Hotel Jerome and the Cortina Lodge just this yeaz, and is currently
in the process of reviewing and analyzing the previously approved renovation plans now that it is
operating both properties. Elysian is developing an updated renovation plan for the properties,
and intends to present the revised plan to the City when it is complete. The updated plan will be
founded in part upon information developed from operating experience.
Elysian submits that it is in the community's interest to consider a comprehensive,
integrated renovation plan for the two properties before placing a historic designation on the
Cortina Lodge. A premature historic designation might significantly impair the planning
Holland a Hart ua
Phone [970] 925-3476 Fax [970] 925-9367 www.hollandharuom
600 East Main Street Suite 104 Aspen, CO 81611
Azpen Billings Boise Boulder Cheyenne Colorado Springs Denver Denver Tech Center Jackson Hole Sak lake Ciry Santa Fe Washington, D.C. ~..
process, and there is really nothing to be gained by proceeding with the designation at
this time. Elysian is already obligated to submit an application for historic designation at an
appointed time, hence there is no risk to the City in deferring the matter to a later date.
We would appreciate your thoughtful consideration of this request.
Sincerely yours,
Christopher J Heaphe~
for Holland & Hart ~~P
CJH/
3775517_LDOC
V 111 d
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Planner~'~~
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ~ I~Q~~
DATE OF MEMO: November 1, 2007 ~f/~
MEETING DATE: November 12, 2007 (cont. from August 13, 2007, August 27, 2007,
September 10, 2007, and October 9, 2007)
RE: 508 E. Cooper Ave Subdivision (Cooper Street Pier) -Ordinance No.
28, Series 2007 (Parcel 2737-182-24-007)
APPLICANT /OWNER:
Cooper Street Co-Tenancy
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.
CURRENT ZONING a4: USE
Located in the Commercial Core (CC)
zone district containing a three story
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.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The Applicant is requesting to
redevelopment the property as a four story
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 space.
SUMMARY:
The Applicant requests the City Council approve
Subdivision Review to construct a mixed-use
building.
Photo of the subject property
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
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.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council approve the
Subdivision Review with conditions.
Staff Memo - 508 E. Cooper Subdivision
G:\city\Jessica\Cases\Cooper Street Pier\Council\CooperStPier_11.12.07Memo.doc
Page 1 of 7
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: City Council is asked to grant Subdivision approval for the
development of amulti-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 ]ot 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-mazket residential unit of 1,966 square feet.
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 (I)free-market residential unit of 2,008
squaze 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
Plannin~ and Zoning Commission granted the growth management reviews required for this
project.
Design Approved by Historic Preservation Commission (HPCI' The HPC granted a Certificate
of Appropriateness, Demolition approval, and Commercial Design Standazd Review for the
redevelopment proposal.Z
~ Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 6, Series 2007 (Exhibit E) granted three Grow[h Management
Reviews for commercial space, for afree-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
[he proposal at their March 20, 2007 and May 1, 2007 meetings. These minutes are attached as Exhibit D,
Z 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 14, 2006, and July 12, 2006) aze attached as Exhibit B.
Staff Memo - 508 E. Cooper Subdivision
G:\cityVessica\Cases\Cooper Street Pier\Council\CooperStPier_11.12.07Memo.doc
Page 2 of 7
Growth Management and Snecial Review Granted by Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Zl:
The P&Z approved Growth Management Reviews for the commercial space, free-mazket
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 acash-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-Family Renlacement 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/~ a
unit, '/z 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 programs
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.b 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. 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 [here already exists one (1)
free-mazket residential unit, therefore commercial and free-market residential allotments were not required for this
proposal.
4 This is based on Land Use Code Section 26.470.040.0.6, 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.
s Exhibit F outlines the Housing Authority's recommendation of cash-in-lieu, which wi0 be paid at the time of
building permit submittal. The fee is calculated at $305,705.22 for the multi-family replacement program.
5 Subdivision, pursuant to Land Use Code section 26.104.100, is defined as "The process act or result of dividine
land into two or more lots parcels or other units of land or separate leeal interests for [he ouroose or transfer of
ownership leasehold interest building, or development..."
~ 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:\cityVessica\Cases\Cooper Street Pier\Council\CooperStPier_11.12.07Memo.doc
Page 3 of 7
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 - 1).
Annrnverl lnimensinnal Requirements:
J~C aiid P&Z Approved iJ~eg~Commerciat {CCU Zane Disfrict
~V. _ Tonal itegt~rements Requirements
Minimum Lot 2,842 sq. fl. No requirement
Size
Minimum Lot 37 Feet No requirement
Width
Minimum 0 Feet No requirement
Front Yard
Setback
Minimum Side 0 Feet No requirement
Yard Setback
Minimum Rear 0 Feet; P&Z granted Special Review No requirement except trash/utility service area
Yard Setback to vary the trash/utility/recycle area shall be required abutting an alley, pursuant to
dimensions to an alley frontage of nine Section 26.575.060
and a half (9.5) linear feet with a ten
(10) foot vertical clearance, and
seventeen and a half (17.5) feet in
depth.
Maximum Building: 34 Feet along Cooper Ave 42 feet for all areas of the property, and
Height 44 Feet for top floor (setback from
property line) 46 feet for areas setback 15 or more feet from
lot lines ad'oinin a Street ri ht-of-wa .
Pedestrian Cash-in-Lieu fee of $50 per square Pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Pedestrian
Amenit S ace foot (284.2 s.f.) _ $14,210 for this lot Amenity
Floor Area Cumulative 4,263 sq. ft. or 1.5:1 Cumulative Maximum: Commercial: 1.5:1
Ratio (FAR) Maximum: 3:1 up to 2:1 (with
7,105 sq. fr. or affordable housing
2.5:1 increase)
N/A Lodging, Arts,
Cultural and Civic,
Public,
Recreational,
Academic uses: 3:1
N/A Affordable
Housing: No
limitation
2,842 sq. fr. or 1:1 Free-Market: 1:1
Staff Memo - 508 E. Cooper Subdivision
G:\city\Jessica\Cases\Cooper Street Pier\Council\CooperStPier_11.12.07Memo.doc
Page 4 of 7
Maximum Free-Market Unit: z,uuv sq. rr.
Residential 2,008 sq. ft. Note: The 2, 000 sq. ft. maximum permitted was
Unit Size established 6y Ordinance 12, Series 2006.
(sq ft) This application was submitted prior to the
passage of Ordinance 12 and is, therefore, not
c~~hiect to the 2.000 sq. ft• maximum.
Landscaping
During the Planning 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 Avenue View Plane, and voted to
delete the condition requiring a street tree from Section 12, Landscaping, of the Planning 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.
Council Ouestions Raised at First Reading: 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 buildine. 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-mazket. 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 prepazed to answer any further questions
regarding the parking at the Public Heazing.
2. Council re nested clarification on the Affordable Housin mill ation re uirements under
the proposed redevelopment. Affordable Housing mitigation is generated in
redevelopment scenazios when new commercial or free-mazket residential space is
created.
s Land Use Code Section 26.435.050, Mountain View Plane Review, states in part "When any nronosed
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."
Staff Memo - 508 E. Cooper Subdivision
G:\city\Jessica\Cases\Cooper Street Pier\Council\CooperStPier_11.12.0 P ge 5 of 7
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-mazket 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-mazket 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 buildin¢ and what nrevious 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 yeazs." The Pitkin County Treasurer's data goes back 17 years (to 1990) and
shows the following uses on the property:
a. Cooker Street Pier: 17 years (1990-today)
b. Siamese Basil: 3 years (2004-today)
a Lucci's Italian Restaurant: 13 years (1990-2003)
Referral A¢ency Comments: The City Engineer, Fire Mazshal, 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 aze 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 amixed-use building that is located in the
infill azea, 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 26.470.040.0.7 states, "Provision of affordable housing through acash-in-lieu 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_11.12.07Memo.doc
Page 6 of 7
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 1, 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:\cityVessica\Cases\Cooper Street Pier\Council\CooperStPier_11.12.07Memo.doc
Page 7 of 7
ORDINANCE N0.28
(SERIES OF 2007)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING
WITH CONDITIONS, A SUBDIVISION AND CONDOMINIUMIZATION FOR 508
E. COOPER AVENUE, PORTIONS OF LOTS L, M, N, BLOCK 95, CITY AND
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, CO, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
PARCEL N0.2737-182-24-007
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 amixed-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 1, 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 amixed-use building consisting of one (1) 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 25~', 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 of 508 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 November 12, 2007,
continued from August 13, 2007, August 27, 2007, September 10, 2007, and October 9,
2007, the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. 28, Series 2007, by a _ to _
~-~ 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_Ordinance11.12.07.doc
Page 1 of 7
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 welfaze.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS:
Section l
Pursuant to the procedures and standazds 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 amixed-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 squaze
footage requirements may be amended provided compliance with the below stated
requirements of the underlying CC zone district is maintained.
)trnnl
a ~ ~' Un~erlymg C _ sI`(fiC) Zone
Dis#rlct
r~me~t .
DimensionaFkegatr~me .
_ G.
_ - ~Regments
Minimum Lot 2,842 sq. ft.
Size No requirement
Minimum Lot 37 Feet No requirement
Width
Minimum 0 Feet
Front Yard No requirement
Setback
Minimum Side 0 Feet
Yard Setback No requirement
Minimum Rear 0 Feet; P&Z granted Special Review No requirement except trash/utility service area
Yard Setback to vary the trash/utility/recycle area shall be required abutting an alley
pursuant to
dimensions to an alley frontage of nine ,
and a half (9.5) lineaz feet with a ten Section 26.575.060
(10) foot vertical clearance, and
seventeen and a half (17.5) feet in
de th.
Maximum Building: 34 Feet along Cooper Ave 42 feet for all areas of the property
and
Height 44 Feet for top floor (setback greater ,
than or equal to fifteen (15) feet from 46 feet for areas setback 15 or more feet from
pro erty line) lot lines adjoining a Street right-of--way.
Pedestrian Cash-in-Lieu fee of $50 per square Pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Pedestrian
Amenit S ace foot (284.2 s.f) _ $14,210 for this lot Amenity
508 E. Cooper Ave Subdivision
G:\city\Jessica\Cases\Cooper Street Pier\Council\CooperStPier_Ordinance11.12.07.doc
Page 2 of 7
DrmenBiona# a~td P&ti,; +
otttmerccal trG4~ Zone Dtstnct
Requ~remen~ ~z}ion~ Requrre .. _ ~_~. ~ Rece ..
or Area
Fl w Cumulative 4,263 sq. ft. or 1.5:1 Cumulative Maximum. Commercial 1 5 1
o 3:1 up to 2:1 (with
Ratio (FAR) Maximum: affordable housing
7,105 sq. ft. or increase)
2.5:1
N/A Lodging, Arts,
Cultural and Civic,
Public,
Recreational,
Academic uses: 3:1
N/A Affordable
Housing: No
limitation
2,842 sq. fr. or 1:1 Free-Market: 1:1
Maximum Free-Market Unit: 2,000 sq. fr.
ft. maximum permitted was
000 sq
te: The 2
N
Residential 2,008 sq. fr. .
,
o
established by Ordinance 12, Series 2006.
Unit Size This application was submitted prior to the
(sq. ft.) passage of Ordinance 12 and is, therefore, not
sub ~ect to the Z, 000 sq. ft. maximum.
Section 2• Plat and Agreement
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: Buildin Permit A lication
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 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 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_Ordinancel Pag e3 of 7
throughout construction. Staging azeas 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/Utility 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) feat in depth, as identified
in the plans approved through Special Reviow 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 Housine
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 Parkine
The Applicant shall provide two (2) off street parking spaces on the adjacent property to
the east to be used as pazking for 508 East Cooper.
Section 9: Water Deaartment 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 aze on file at the
508 E. Cooper Ave Subdivision
G:\city\Jessica\Cases\Cooper Street Pier\Council\CooperStPier_Ordinance11.12.07.doc
Page 4 of 7
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 intercentors (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 sepazators are required for pazking 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 hazd 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.
i. 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 Li¢6ting
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: LandscaAinff
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 Pazks 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 11.12.07.doc
Page 5 of 7
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 Avenue 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.
1. 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 acash-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
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 afee-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 awazded, whether in public hearing or
508 E. Cooper Ave Subdivision
G:\city\Jessica\Cases\Cooper Street Pier\Council\CooperStPier_Ordinance11.12.07.doc
Page 6 of 7
documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, aze
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 sepazate, 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 of the 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:\cityVessica\Cases\Cooper Street Pier\Council\CooperstPier_Ordinance11.12.07.doc
508 E. Cooper Ave Subdivision
G:\city\Jessica\Cases\Cooper Street Pier\Council\CooperStPier_Ordinance11.12.07.doc
Page 7 of 7
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 Finding
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 of the 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 Finding
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 1 of 4
Exhibit A, Subdivision Review Criteria
508 E. Cooper Ave. Redevelopment
c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of
surrounding areas.
StaffFindinQ
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 Finding
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 subdivisiou.
a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for
development because ofJlooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mud,Jlow, rockslide,
avalanche or snows[tde, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition
that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare ojthe residents in the proposed
subdivision.
Staff Finding
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 hazazds 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 Finding
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 set forth at Chapter 2ti.580 shall be provided for the
proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430)
if the following conditions have been met:
1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision
design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan,
the existing, neighboring development areas, and/or the goals of the community.
2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide
justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional
engineers as necessary.
Staff Finding
The Applicant has consented in the application to meet the applicable improvements pursuant to
Section 26.580. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall
be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter
26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling
units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of
Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System.
Staff Finding
The Applicant is providing acash-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 Finding
The proposed subdivision is required to meet the School Land Dedication Standards pursuant to
Land Use Code Section 26.630. The Applicant has proposed to pay cash-in-lieu of providing
land, which will be paid prior to building permit issuance. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
F. Growth Management Approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications
for which al[ 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
Sta Finding
The development does not require Growth Management Allotments for the free-mazket unit or
for the commercial area. The free-market unit generates an Affordable Housing mitigation
requirement of only 12.6 squaze 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 acash-in-lieu payment.
The Housing Replacement requirements is not a GMQS or mitigation requirement. Staff finds
this criterion to be met.
Page 4 of 4
exhibit B
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
ASPEN HISTORIC 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 fagade 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 anon-contributing building to
the district and it is not land marked designated or was it ever considered.
4
xhibit B
i0$ E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF APRIL 19, 2006
The applicant proposed to demolish the existing floor structure and fapade 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 facade 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 Fapade
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 19"' Century fabric left on the building. The
important part was the facade 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
greatly welcomes 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
cxrnoit ~
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 of this building owns 7 spaces along the back alley and they are
proposing to take 1 or %z 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 if there 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 maybe 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 Poss 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 communtty.
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.
cxnioit rs
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 pictwe
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
Exhibit B
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
ASPEN ffiSTORIC 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 staff s problems and concems. Regarding the location of the glass
facade, 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 story is
true to what the secondary story 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 walls is wonderful and we are fortunate to have an
architect who thinks about that. The changes in the second story 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 anair-lock.
The suggestion that a kick plate be added also enhances the project.
Regarding the third story, it should be kept in line and the upper comice
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 facade 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 story are very close to what the guideline intents are. The
third and fourth floor needs additional study. Possibly the two story facade
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 very important and will be added. They will work
on the upper floor and take down the height. 1'he idea was 14 feet on the
first floor, 10 on 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
txhibrt ti
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
ASPEN HISTORIC 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`x; 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
tXhlblt t3
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
ASPEN ffiSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JiJNE 14, 2006
.,_ rry Cavaleri requested to take out temporarily and salvage one column c
the o bottom panels, kick plate of the store front in order to get dirt t of
the bui ing. It appears that the column has already been moved ce.
Alison asked w long it would take. Jerry said four wee with
mechanized equi ent, 8 weeks without.
Jeffrey said you are dea ' with an historical It is also in the middle
of the commercial core. It ms very evas' and he cannot support it.
Amy pointed out that the store fron s been changed and this might give
him the opportunity to put it bac o it riginal state.
Derek said anything we carfdo to expedite thi~s,~ie is in favor of.
Jason said he wou allow it to be opened up but it t be restored back to
the original st
Jerry s~id~he can agree with Jason's recommendation.
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.
.. I, Unfortunately for the applicant they are the first project coming in proposing
=xnioir is
X08 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
ASPEN ffiSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JUNE 14. 2006
a fourth story. Our guidelines envision a 3 story building. I am not entirely
sure how the boazd 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 recommends continuation.
Mitch Haas, planner
Mike Hall, project architect
Andy Wisnosky, director of design
Bill said the main issues aze 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 athree-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 faz 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:
txninit ti
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 torn 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
concem 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
cxniui~ rs
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
ASPEN ffiSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JUNE 14, 2006
fagade 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 #1 S for 508 E. Cooper with
the condition that the fenestration of the facade 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
cxrnoi[ rs
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JUNE 14, 2006
.-.. the louvers are and having the whole fagade go through a corridor. Jason
M - 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. S-0.
stated that the revised plans are much simpler and the trail has bee
mov 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 low 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 m ement on the site. We
worked with the same type o ant palate i 'tially that was approved by City
Council. There is a clear view to a 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 ntry to the public areas of the
pazk. We request that a monit be assigne to work with us on the signage.
We also incorporated back s benches and w ld like HPC's guidance on
the design. With respec o guideline 1.13 if the azd feels the row of
Aspen trees is too m we can make substitutions.
Brain Flynn, F s Dept. said the park now has a very acti and passive use
to it. The c eny and maple trees proposed add color to the sc e.
erson Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were
comments. The public hearing portion of the meeting was cl~
10
1508 E ~ Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 12, 2006
said he would like to see if there is a way to have the historic bui '
incorpora ith the other structures.
Derek said his concern is inQ the location o museum and what is
the master plan.
MOTION: Derek moved t ntinue Willoughby Lift 1$arklSkier
Chalet Steakhouse is hearing until August 9, 2006; s d by Jason.
Roll call v uson, yes; Derek, yes; Alison, yes; Sarah, yes; e e.
Mo ~ carried 5-0.
508 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 residential 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
Exhibit C
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
ASPEN HISTORIC 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; Je,Jj`rey, yes. Motion carried 5-0.
• 1~RT1UTt/ CD 1 !'~L~ A 1~T7\ 1777`. 777 D7 AND DTi 777L`l77 DiTa7 7!~
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 th Hotel Jerome view plane. Restudy breakin a building
into two 30 foot odules. Allow enough space between a 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 is and they have also
created the shadow line that as requested. S is still concerned that a
couple things are not resolved.~i
to the Genre building and architec
against that building. Genre is an
Staff also feels that the side walls
pulled in on the lower but not th
Office feels strongly that the 'ev
that concept of negligible i pact
~ additio breathing room has been given
rally ' is not appropriate to butt up
his 'c landmark and this building is not.
e t been resolved. They have been
ull dept of the building. The Planning
plane is im ortant and HPC should take
very seriously:
Charles Cunniffe, arc ~tect stated that HPC verbalize hat 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 plate heights to
accomplish t t. We are now down to a 3.3 in the view plane. a view
plane is a tding 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 facade and we have
mnlished that.
11
:xhibit C
i08 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review II~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII 526958
Page: 3 of 3
07/28/2008 11:!81
JRNICE K VOS CRUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 18.00 D 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 ID: 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
26.415.070.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 any one 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 stluctwe is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to
properly maintain the structwe,
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,
architectwal, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and
Additionally, for aanroval to demolish, all of the followine 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
Exhibit C
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review IIIIIII VIIIIIIIII III VIIIIIIIIII~ 079 89006 11:161
JRNICE K VOS CiIUDILL PITK[N COUNTY CO R ]6.00 D 0.00
b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the
integrity of the historic district or its historic, azchitectural or aesthetic relationship
to adjacent designated properties and
c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation
needs of the azea; 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 Standazds or any deviation from the Standards provides amore-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 fagade 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 standazds, 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
of5to0.
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) yeaz of the date of approval of a 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
508E Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
discretion and for good cause shown, grant aone-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.
Approve Form:
David Hoefer, Assistant Ci Attorney
Approved as to content:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
G~`~
Kathy Stt ckland, Chief Deputy Clerk
IfuII IIIuI IuI I 526958
JANIiiVIIIIIIIIIIm III~IIIIIIgIUIIII~~Ulllllyl 07/28/2008 12:181
R 16.00 D 0.00
xhibit D
X08 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -March 20, 2007
ied there was a staircase from the east side of the structure; there was very 1'
natura ht; it was one large room with a couple of secondary walls.
asked if the 00,000.00 was based on a category 3; she asked wher a number
came from. Chr- 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 buy out of it in a single family home.
MOTION: Dylan Johns moved to appr 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 o ditional mitigation fee
based upon the 195 s e feet difference. Steve Skadron onded. Roll call:
Guthrie, yes; Ers er, no; Skadron, yes; Johns, yes; Kruger, y APPROVED
4-1.
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 1 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 of the building was proposed at 34 feet along Cooper Avenue
and 44 feet at the top floor; the total FAR was 2.5 to 1 with commercial FAR of
1.5 to 1 and free-market at 1 to 1.
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
t=xnibit u
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
Aspen Planning & ZOninE Commission Meetine 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 acash-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 acash-in-lieu payment and staff felt 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 atrash/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
CXhIDIt U
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
Asaen Plannin¢ & Zonin¢ Commission Meeting_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 151 level of commercial use with an open azea
that would look down to the 1st 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 squaze 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 1800s and the building
burnt down or collapsed from decay during the 1940s; 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
Asaen P-annine & Zonins? Commission Meeting 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
can ent 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.
cxniuu v
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
Aspen PlanuinE & Zonin¢ Commission Meeting 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
1 S`; seconded by David Guthrie. All in favor, APPROVED.
Adjourned at 7:05 pm.
~~
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
v'
12
cxniuu v
4508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review `
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES Mav Ol. 2007
Ruth opened the regulaz 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 (03120/07):
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
xhibit D
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES Mav Ol. 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.
Ganow 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 if the 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 S08 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 S the approval date of May 1. Seconded
byLJErspamer. Roll call; Skadron, no; Speck, yes; Erspamer, yes; Kruger, yes.
,4PPROYED 3-1.
_nniuu v
i08 E. Caoper Ave. Subdivision. Review
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES Mav Ol, 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 20`h.
The minutes would be approved at the next meeting.
Adjourned at 5:15 p
ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
4
Exhibit E, P&Z Resolution
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
RESOLUTION N0. 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
COMDOMINIUMIZATION FOR 508 E. COOPER AVENUE, LOTS L, M, N,
BLOCK 95, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, CO, PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO
PARCEL N0.2737-182-24-007
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 amixed-use building consisting of 4,263 square feet of commercial space, and
one free-mazket 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 standazds,
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 Mazch 6, 2007, the Planning
and Zoning Commission opened and continued the public hearing to Apri13, 2007; and
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on Mazch 8, 2007, the Planning
and Zoning Commission made a motion to reconsider the continuance date, and
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public heazing on Mazch 8, 2007, the Planning
and Zoning Commission continued the public hearing to Mazch 20, 2007; and
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on Mazch 20, 2007, the Planning
and Zoning Commission continued the public hearing to May 1, 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-I)
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 amixed-use building consisting of one (1) free-mazket
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 finds 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
firrthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfaze.
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-mazket 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 (1) free-mazket 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.
Hsional' fed tensional Underlying Commercial (CC} Zoine District
Rete~# ` R+~giifi~nts R~tarements
Minimum Lot 2,842 sq. fr. No requirement
Size
Minimum Lot 37 Feet No requirement
Width
Minimum Lot N/A No requirement
Area/Dwelling
Minimum 0 Feet
No requirement
Front Yard
Setback
Minimum Side 0 Feet No requirement
Yard Setback
Minimum Rear 0 Feet No requirement except trash/utility service area
Yazd Setback shall be required abutting an alley, pursuant to
Section 26.575.060
Maximum Building: 34 Feet along Cooper 42 feet for all azeas of the property.
Height Ave
44 Feet for top floor (setback 46 feet for azeas setback 15 or more feet from
from ro ert line) lot lines adjoining a Street right-of--way.
Minimum N/A No requirement
Distance
between
Page 2 of 6
Exhibit E, P&Z Resolution
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
x -T ~ } ~ ~ NLaE ~-~ t#O ~~ ~ Y:JIN{1 {{eta...
t 'M
,;c..ar ..yr, ~ ,arc -
-
Buildings on
Lot
Pedestrian Cash-in-Lieu fee of $50 per 1000 Pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Pedestrian
Amenit S ace s uaze feet = $14,210for this lot Amenity
Section 2: Plat and Agreement
Pursuant to the procedures and standazds 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: Building 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 azeas 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/Utility 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 azea 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 squaze 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 Parkins
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
District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that cleaz
water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) aze 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 betenant-finished, interceptors will be
required at this time if food processing establishments are anticipated for this project.
d. Oil and Sand sepazators aze 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 of 6
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 hazd 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 sanitazy sewer system.
Any glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities.
i. Soil Nails aze 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 LiHhtin¢
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: Landscaaina
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 pazk 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 acash-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, PSZ Resolution
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
Payment = $50 x 284.2 sguaze 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 afee-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 mazket 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 awazded, whether in public heazing or
documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, aze
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:\city\Jessica\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°/u 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;
• Avery 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
• Plumbing plans for the pool and spa areas require approval of the drain size by
the district.
• Glycol snowmelt and heating systems must have containment provisions and
must preclude discharge to the public sanitary sewer system.
• Plans for interceptors, separators and containment facilities require submittal by
the applicant prior to building permit.
• 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.
• Below grade development may require installation of an ejector pumping system.
• 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.
• Permanent improvements are prohibited in areas covered by sewer easements
or right of ways to the lot line of each development.
• All ACSD total connection fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
• Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard
landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the
district.
• Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the
planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or
treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate
the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional
proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area
of concern in order to fund the improvements needed.
• Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the
planned capacity of the existing collection system, and or treatment facility, the
development will be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire
portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. The District would fund the
costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the
material cost difference for larger line).
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;
• External lighting will need to be addressed
• 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 Munson;
The City of Aspen Environmental Health Department has reviewed the land use submittal
under authority of the Municipal Code of the Citv 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 degree of air purity possible by requiring the use of all
available practical methods and techniques to control, prevent and reduce air pollution
throughout the city..."The Land Use Regulations (Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code) seek
to "lessen congestion" and "avoid transportation demands that cannot be met" as well as
to "provide clean air by protecting the natural air sheds and reducing pollutants".
Using standard Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Rates this development will
on the air quality.
of this development will NOT have a pernicious (negative) effect
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 recycling 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 utilityltrash/recycling 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 atoter = 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 any one (1) hour
period of time.
FIREPLACE/WOODSTOVE PERMITS: The applicant must file afireplace/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 (Water /Electric -Steve Hunter;
• No Comments made
Page 6 of 9
Exhibit F, DRC and Housing Comments
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jessica Gan•ow, Community Development
FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing
DATE: January 4, 2007
RE: 508 EAST COOPER AVENUE REDEVELOPMENT (aka
COOPER ST. PIER)
Pazcel 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 squaze feet of net leasable azea (NLA), storage space, a
bathroom, an elevator, and circulation corridors and stairs.
• Ground Floor: 1,328 squaze feet of NLA with storefront windows, storage space, a
bathroom, an elevator, and circulation corridors and stairs.
• Second Floor: 1,094 squaze feet of NLA, storage space, a bathroom, an elevator,
and circulation corridors and stairs. An azea along the west wall will remain open to
the level below.
• Third and Fourth Levels: One free-mazket residence with 2,008 square feet of net
livable azea split between two levels -level three to contain 1,147 squaze 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 REQUIREMENTS:
Free-Mazket 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 squaze
feet of above-grade net livable free-mazket 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-mazket residential net livable space is 42 square feet. Therefore,
12.6 squaze feet of above-grade net livable employee housing is required (42 X 30% _
12.6). Section 8 of the Guidelines states that 400 squaze 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-mazket
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 squaze feet of net leasable floor azea (NLA) on the first level and 3.075 FTE's per
1,000 squaze feet of NLA on the upper floor. The existing development contains 1,558
square feet on the first floor and 2,815 squaze 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 squaze 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-Family Housine Replacement Program Requirement: The existing residential unit is
within amixed-use building; therefore the Multi-Family Housing Replacement Prograzn
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 azea to be demolished is a one one-bedroom unit of 1,966 net
livable squaze feet. The MFHRP would require one-half of a unit, one-half of a bedroom
and 983 squaze 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 HousineMlitiQation Required: The Free-Mazket 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 squaze 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 squaze 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 squaze feet and is a very
Page 8 of 9
Exhibit F, DRC and Housing Comments
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
constrained lot with buildings abutting on three sides. Part of the 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 squaze feet.
RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Boazd 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 anemployee-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 anyproposed 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 any other multiple dwelling 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, ortenants-in-common. Any such interest is for the
purposes of this Title a single interest.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
IN RE: MATTER OF APPLICATION DATED
SEPTEMBER 24, 2006, REGARDING 508 EAST
COOPER AVENUE REDEVELOPMENT
OWNERS: COOPER STREET COTENANTS'
REPRESENTATIVE: MITCH HAAS. HAAS LAND PLANNING.
LLC; POSS ARCHITECTURE 8~ PLANNING
APPLICANT'S ATTORNEYS: GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
DATE: SEPTEI~~ER 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 ("CC") Zone District.
~ 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 of the 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 §
26.470.0400.2 of the Aspen Land Use Code.
5. Growth management review approval from the Planning &
Zoning Commission for afree-market residential unit within amixed-
use project pursuant to § 26.470.0400.6 of the Aspen Land Use Code.
6. Growth management review approval from the Planning &
Zoning Commission for affordable housing for acash-in-lieu payment
for 12.6 square feet of livable space pursuant to Land Use Code
§ 26.470.0407.
202731_2.doc 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 of the 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-
zoz~3~_z.ao~ 3
housing payment and the required school lands dedication fee under
Chapter 26.630 of the 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.
zoz~3i_z.aoo 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 Planning &
Zoning vote approving the Cooper Street Redevelopment.
202731_2.doc 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
' Council member Johnson conceded that the commission recommending the current infill regulations could not £nd
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.
202731_2.doc
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 apublic-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.
20273I_2.doc '~
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
202731_2.doc g
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
202731_2.doc 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 Already Granted Final Approval of the Proposed
Height and Desien of the Building. City Council Has No Jurisdiction to
Deny 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
202731_2.doc 1
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 Authority 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 u. Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County, 181
202731_2.doc 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 u.
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. City Council Has No Jurisdiction or Discretion to Impose
Zonine~ Restrictions on the Cooper Street Building That Are Different
From the Zoning Regulations Applyine to All Other Buildings in the
202731_2.doc 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 u. 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
zoz~si_z.ao~ 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
zoz~3 i_z.ao~ 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
"advisory document." C.R.S. § 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.R.S., 1997 (deleted by
amendment effective August 3, 2007). Subsection (3) of C.R.S. § 31-23-
202731_2.doc 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 u. 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
approval." 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
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 1(
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 approval.6 To
find otherwise would make House Bill 07-1246 retroactive in 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
s The City has 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.
s 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_2.doc 1'~
"presumption of prospectivity." City of Golden u. 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 Heiehtened Review Standards for Development in
Environmentally 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
202731_2.doc 1 g
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
202731_2.doc 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 Affordable-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 ahousing-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
'See Section 7. a. and b. below.
202731_2.doc 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 summarizes the employee-housing
requirements for the Cooper Street redevelopment under Section
26.470.040.7. 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,
202731_2.doc 2 1
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 of the 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
any one of three alternatives to meet the requirements of the Multi-
Family Replacement Program. After 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.
202731_2.doc 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 adeed-restricted unit or a cash-in-lieu
payment available to build affordable housing elsewhere in the City.
zoz~s~_z.a°~ 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.O1OB
specifically provides that fractional replacement housing program
requirements may 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.
s 1 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.
zoz~31_z.aoe 24
The Staff and Housing Authority 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
202731_2.doc 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
Negatively Affect Future Development. There is no evidence
supporting any notion that the subdivision of the Cooper Street
building will somehow negatively affect development in 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.
202731_2.doc 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 Pay All Exaction Fees
Required by 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
202731_2.doc 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
202731_2.doc 2g
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
202731_2.DOC 29
MEMORANDUM
v~~,
TO: Mayor Ireland and City Cou//ncil
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Planner J ~ V~
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ~(/~
DATE OF MEMO: November 2, 2007
MEETING DATE: November 12, 2007
RE: Wienerstube Subdivision, Ordinance 29 Series 2007
After examining the agenda for the November 12, 2007 Council Meeting, Staff requests the
Public Heazing for 307 S. Spring and 625 E. Hyman (Wienerstube) Subdivision be continued
to November 26, 2007. This request is being made because this project has a later Ordinance
number than the other Land Use Application on the Public Hearing portion of the November
12, 2007 City Council agenda (Cooper St. Pier at 508 E. Cooper) and because Staff
anticipates the Public Heazing for Ordinance 48, Series 2007 and the Budget will take up a
majority of the meeting. 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 reading will be
provided as part of the November 26, 2007 packet. Staff will be at the November 12`n
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 of 2007, approving a Subdivision for the redevelopment at 307 South Spring and 625
East Hyman, to November 26, 2007."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
~ Staff is recommending approval of the Subdivision request. If City Council wishes to hear this application
Staff is prepared to give a Staff presentation.
v~N f
TO:
FROM:
THRU:
DATE OF MEMO:
MEETING DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Mayor and City Council
Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Planner ~%~'
Chris Bendon, Director Community Development
November 5, 2007
November 12, 2007
RE: Extension of Commercial Core Business Mix and
Historic Interiors Moratorium
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 46, Series 2007
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: A six-month extension of the "Commercial Core Business
Mix and Historic Interiors" moratorium adopted under Ordinance No. 51, Series of 2006,
as amended.
BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 51, Series of 2006, established a temporazy
moratorium on the issuance of building permits in the Commercial Core Zone District,
and was adopted on December 12, 2006, for asix-month period, originally scheduled to
expire on June 12, 2007. This moratorium was extended for an additional six months on
June ] 1, 2007, and is currently scheduled to expire on Dec. 12, 2007.
Under this moratorium, staff has worked with a consulting team on potential code
amendments with regard to the historic designation of interior elements, and with regard
to the possible regulation of the mix of commercial uses.
DISCUSSION: The issue of commercial mix was identified by the previous City
Council in April 2006 as one of four azeas of focus for the ls` Moratorium, adopted
pursuant to Ordinance No. 19, Series of 2006. The public feedback process on this issue
began with a public wireless keypad session at the Jerome Hotel in July 2006, when
approximately 10 questions were posed on this particular issue.
Although staff began to conduct reseazch on commercial mix regulatory tools in the fall
of 2006, and work sessions were held with the P&Z, Council and ACRA in the early
spring of 2007, the press of other moratorium-related issues left little time to focus
squazely on this highly complex issue. The ls` Moratorium expired on May 29, 2007
without code amendments being reviewed or adopted regarding commercial mix.
However, the 2"d Moratorium, adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 51, in December 2006,
also identified commercial mix as an issue, and the prohibition on building permits in the
Commercial Core Zone District effectively provided time to continue considering code
amendment regazding commercial mix issues.
Staff received general direction from the current Council in June 2006 to continue
research and public feedback on the issue. An instant voting keypad session was held at
the Jerome Hotel on September 21, which continued to explore the definition of the
problem and the range of potential regulatory tools. Following the Sept. 21 keypad
session, two work sessions have been held with Council and a third is currently being
scheduled.
The purpose of these Council work sessions is to gain additional Council feedback on the
definition of the problem, in order to better identify the type of regulatory tools that may,
or may not, be applicable. Following the work sessions with Council, staff will draft a
recommendation regazding which regulatory tools aze most applicable. Council has
recently requested a staff recommendation on potential regulatory tools.
After compiling a recommendation, staffls intention is to proceed through the public
hearing process, first to P&Z and then to City Council.
As a general matter, the public policy discussion on commercial mix has taken an
extended period of time due to the highly complex nature of the problem, the sometimes
experimental nature of the potential regulatory tools, and the time required to attend to
various other pressing priorities. In the meantime, Council has adopted amendments to
Ordinance No. 51 to ensure a reasonable measure of flexibility with regazd to the
issuance of building permits in the Commercial Core Zone District.
With regard to potential code amendments on the historic designation of interior
elements, staff has met with Council at a work session and has received sufficient
direction to draft a code amendment. Staff plans to bring these potential code
amendments to the Historic Preservation Commission in December, and will soon
schedule public hearing dates with the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City
Council.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that Council extend the moratorium
established by Ordinance No. 51, Series of 2006, as amended, by six months to June 12,
2008.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No. 46, Series of 2007," upon
Second Reading.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ORDINANCE N0.46
(Series of 2007)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, EXTENDING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NUMBER 51, SERIES OF 2006, AND AS
AMENDED PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE N0.2, SERIES OF 2007, AND AS
AMENDED PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NUMBER 26, SERIES OF 2007, AND
AS AMENDED PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NUMBER 37, SERIES OF 2007.
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen (the "City") is a legally and regulazly 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 Government Land Use Control Enabling
Act of 1974, as amended, §§29-20-101, et seg. 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 of 2007, and as amended pursuant to Ordinance Number 26,
Series of 2007, and as amended pursuant to Ordinance Number 37, Series of 2007; and,
WHEREAS, Section 7 of Ordinance Number 51, Series of 2006, allows for the
termination date of the moratorium to be extended by City Council through the adoption of
an ordinance; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council reaffirms the reasons for implementing the
moratorium, specifically that recent land use applications seeking Development Orders in
various City Zone Districts do not appear to be consistent with the goals and vision as
expressed by the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan and aze having the following negative
effects upon the community:
• Recent development activity indicates potential negative impacts on the
preservation of the unique historic character of certain structures, including
their interiors and current uses;
• Recent development activity indicates potential negative impacts on the
unique character of the uses of buildings and structures within the
commercial core of the City of Aspen; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council and the Community Development Department
require an additional period of time in which to review all existing land use codes and
regulations as they affect land use development in certain Zone Districts within the City of
Aspen to ensure that all land use development proceeds in a manner that is consistent with
the Aspen Area Community Plan; and
Ordinance No. 26, Page 1
Series 2007
WHEREAS, the City Council and the Community Development Department
require an additional period of time in which to conduct a thorough analysis and assessment
of the Land Use Code and regulations affecting the development of land within certain Zone
Districts of the City of Aspen with particulaz attention to the preservation of historic interior
elements, and with particular attention to a diverse, healthy and vibrant mix of commercial
uses; and
WHEREAS, the City Council and the Community Development Department
require an additional period of time in which to investigate methods and procedures to
insure the preservation of historic interior elements, and to insure a diverse, healthy and
vibrant mix of commercial uses; and,
WHEREAS, an extension of the moratorium termination date will enable a
reasoned discussion of the desired chazacter and rate of development and redevelopment and
consideration of amendments to the Land Use Code without creating a rush of development
applications and the related impacts upon the community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1-Extension of Moratorium Termination Date:
The termination date of the temporary moratorium enacted through the adoption of
Ordinance Number 51, Series of 2006, as amended pursuant to Ordinance Number 2, Series
of 2007, and as amended pursuant to Ordinance Number 26, Series of 2007, and as amended
pursuant to Ordinance Number 37, Series of 2007, is hereby extended to terminate on June
12, 2008.
Section 2 -Chanties to Moratorium:
Ordinance Number 51, Series of 2006, as amended pursuant to Ordinance Number 2, 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 Ordinance Number 51, Series of 2006;
Ordinance Number 2, Series of 2007; Ordinance Number 26, Series of 2007; and Ordinance
Number 37, Series of 2007, except as follows:
^ The termination date shall be extended as described in Section 1, above.
Section 3•
This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Ordinance No. 26, Page 2
Series 2007
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall
be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions thereof.
Section 5•
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 6•
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 12s' day of November, 2007, at 5:00
in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (IS) days prior to
which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general
circulation within the City of Aspen.
Section 7•
This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final adoption.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 22"d day of October, 2007.
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
day of
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
2007.
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
Approved as to form:
John Worcester, City Attorney
Ordinance No. 26, Page 3
Series 2007
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council ~~
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director I IIMM
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer ~~~~ ~ ~
RE: 110 E. Bleeker Street, Extension of Vested Rights
Resolution Nog Series of 2007, Public Hearing
DATE: November 12, 2007
wry
APPLICANT /OWNER:
Lexie Brockway Potamkin, owner.
REPRESENTATIVE:
Eben Clark, Klein, Cote & Edwards,
LLC.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Single-family home.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval with a condition.
SUMMARY:
LOCATION: 110 E. Bleeker Street, Lots The Applicant requests a three year extension of
L and M, Block 65, City and Townsite of vested rights for an existing approval to
Aspen, Colorado. rehabilitate and expand a designated historic
building.
CURRENT ZONING & APPROVED USE
R-6, single family home.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant requests Council extend the existing vested rights for an HPC approved
residential project to December 8, 2010, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.308.010 C.,
Extension or Reinstatement of Vested Rights. (City Council is final review authority who may
approve or deny the proposal). The extension relates to a project approved by HPC Resolution
No. 33, Series of 2004, which allowed the rehabilitation and expansion of a Victorian era brick
home located in the West End. The Resolution vested the approval until December 8, 2007.
Staff finds that the review criteria are met. Delays have occurred for this project primarily
because of two factors; the determination that specific sideyard setback variances were not
properly awarded by HPC during their review of the project (subsequently resolved through
additional review of the project at a public hearing), and conflicts over the status of a non-
Victorian era garage that sits partly into the alley and partly on a neighboring property. This
garage is intended to be retained and is being reviewed by Community Development and the
City Attorney's Office to determine if it deserves status as a legally non-conforming structure.
Resolution of this issue has held up review of the building permit that was submitted months
ago. Staff finds that the approved project at 110 E. Bleeker entails significant preservation effort
and will make a very positive contribution to the architectural integrity of the home and
neighborhood.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the requested extension of vested property
rights for three yeazs and establish an expiration date of December 8, 2010 for the 110 E. Bleeker
Street project with the following condition:
That, should the existing building permit application expire, the establishment herein of a
vested property right shall not preclude a new building permit from the applications or
regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land
use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing,
electrical and mechanical codes, and all adopted impact fees. The developer shall abide
by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, and impact
fees that are in effect at the time of building permit, unless an exemption therefrom is
granted in writing.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
"I move to approve Resolution No.9~Series of 2007, approving with a condition, a three (3)
yeaz extension of vested property rights for the 110 E. Bleeker project as was originally
approved by HPC Resolution No.33, Series of 2004 (and later amended with regard to
setbacks by HPC Resolution No. 8, 2007.) The new expiration date will be December 8,
2010."
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A -Review Criteria and Staff Findings
EXHIBIT B -Application
Exhibit A
Section 26.308.O10.C., Extension or Reinstatement of Vested Rights, of the City Land Use Code
provides that development applications for an extension of vested rights may be approved in
accordance with the following standards and requirements.
1. In reviewing a request for the extension or reinstatement of vested rights the City
Council shall consider, but not 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;
Staff Finding:
The applicant is currently in conformance with HPC conditions related to this property.
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;
Staff Finding:
The Applicant has been in the building permit process since January 2, 2007. Review
has been held up by the issues described in the staff memo; setbacks and an existing
garage structure.
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;
Staff Finding
Outside of the application processing costs incurred by the applicant with respect to City
Land Use Application Fees and Referral Fees, there have been no benefits already
received by the City as a result of project approval such as impact fees or land
dedication. Impact fees are collected at the time of building permit issuance. Staff finds
this criterion to be met.
d. The needs of the city and the applicant that would be served by the approval of
the extension or reinstatement request.
Staff Finding:
The proposed project includes removing non-historic paint From this brick home,
stabilizing the foundation, and using historic photographs to restore the front porch, bay
windows and other features, which is very valuable to the community. In addition to the
work directly affecting the Victorian, an addition is proposed which HPC determined to
be in compliance with their design guidelines.
RESOLUTION NO. ~5
(Series of 2007)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A THREE (3)
YEAR EXTENSION OF THE VESTED RIGHTS GRANTED BY HPC
RESOLUTION N0.33, SERIES OF 2004 (AS AMENDED) FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 110 E. BLEEKER STREET, LOTS L AND M, BLOCK 65, CITY
AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel No.2735-124-37-006
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
Lexie Brockway Potamkin, represented by Eben Klein of Klein, Cote & Edwazds, LLC,
requesting approval of a three (3) yeaz extension of the vested rights granted for the
project approved by HPC Resolution No. 33, Series of 2004 (as amended); and
WHEREAS, the applicant submitted the application for extension of vested
property rights on August 14, 2007 before the vested rights expired; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.308.010 Vested Property Rights of the Land
Use Code, City Council may grant an extension of vested rights after a public heazing is
held and a resolution is adopted; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed the application
and recommended approval of a three (3) year extension of vested rights for 110 E.
Bleeker Street; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the requested
extension of vested rights for 110 E. Bleeker Street under the applicable provisions of the
Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of
the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a
public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council fords that the extension of vested rights proposal
meets or exceeds all applicable land use standards and that the approval of the extension of
vested rights proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the
Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution fiuthers and is necessary
for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN,
COLORADO,THAT:
Section 1:
The Aspen City Council does hereby approve a three (3) yeaz extension of vested
rights for the 110 E. Bleeker project as was originally approved by HPC Resolution
No.33, Series of 2004 (and later amended with regard to setbacks by HPC Resolution
No. 8, 2007) establishing a new expiration date of December 8, 2010, with the
following condition:
1. That, should the existing building permit application expire, the establishment
herein of a vested property right shall not preclude a new building permit from
the applications or regulations which are general in nature and aze applicable to
all property subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not
limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, and all
adopted impact fees. The developer shall abide by any and all such building, fire,
plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, and impact fees that aze in effect at
the time of building permit, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing.
Section 2•
All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awazded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan
development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein,
unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 3•
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 4•
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 5:
A duly noticed public heazing on this Resolution was held on the 12th day of November,
2007 at 5:00 PM in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
FINALLY, adopted, passed, and approved by a to L-~ vote on this _ day
of , 2007.
Approved as to form:
John P. Worcester, City Attorney
Approved as to content:
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
KLEIN, COTE & EDWARDS, LLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
HERBERT S. KLEIN hsk~Jkcelaw.net
LANCE R COTE, PC' Im(t~dkcelaw_net
JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, III, PC jee nkcelaw.nel
EBEN P. CLARK epc(tJkcelaw.net
MADHU B. KRISHNAMURTI mbk@kcelaw.net
207 NORTH MILL STREET, STE. 203
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
iELEPHONE_ (970) 935-8700
FACSIMILE.(970)925-3977
"also admin 1 in California
August 14, 2007
City of Aspen City Council
c/o Amy Guthrie
Senior Planner -Historic Preservation
130 S. Galena Street, 3rd Floor
Aspen, CO 8]611
RE: Application for Extension of Vested Rights for 110 E. Bleaker St., Aspen Project
("the Project")
Deaz Council Members:
This letter is the written description of the proposal in the above application and a written
explanation of how the proposal complies with the City of Aspen Land Use Code.
The applicant is Lexie Brockway Potamkin, 7714 Fisher Island Dr., Fisher Island, Florida
33109-0966 ("Applicant"). This firm is authorized to act on Applicant's behalf with regazd to
the Project. The subject property is located at 110 E. Bleaker St., Aspen. The parcel is identified
as parcel number 273512437006, and the legal description of the property is Lots L & M, Block
65, City and Townsite of Aspen. By this letter, our firm certifies that, based on our review of
title to the property, the present owner is Ms. Lexie Brockway Potamkin.
The Project has been previously reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission (the
"Commission") three times, in 2002 and 2004 and 2007. The Commission approved the Project
in Resolutions No. 27, Series of 2002, and No. 23, Series of 2004 (the "Resolutions"). In 2007,
the Commission granted a vaziance of the Combined Side Yard Setback from the required fifteen
(15) feet to the proposed ten (10) feet in Resolution No. 8, Series of 2007.
Applicant is requesting an extension of her vested rights because there are several issues
that have come to light through the application process that have prevented the issuance of her
building permit, and such an extension will allow time to remedy those issues. Specifically, after
Applicant's HPC approval, it was determined by Staff that HPC had not formally adopted one
necessary side yazd set back for the Project. This was simply an oversight on the part of Staff,
the Applicant and HPC. To correct this problem, Applicant and Staff scheduled a second HPC
hearing, and it was only through this later process that it was discovered that Applicant's existing
City of Aspen City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 2 of 4
garage encroaches into the alley to the north, and sits across the townsite lot line to the east.
Applicant is currently working with both City Engineering and the owners of the neighboring
property to resolve these issues.
This request is for:
1. An Extension of Vested Rights for a period of 3 years to complete the Project as it is
currently approved.
The requested Extension of Vested Rights will allow Applicant to resolve the boundazy
issues, and complete the Project as it is currently approved. The home itself is a raze example of
a brick Victorian in the downtown azea. In its current form, the Project is an historic remodel
that includes only improvements that respect the historic features of the home. The remodel also
refines the structure and landscaping to highlight the historic character. Staff has stated that
remodeling the home will have the public benefit of both preserving the home and enhancing the
public's ability to view and appreciate its unique character. Applicant has worked with Staff to
create and excellent Project, and after extensive review, both HPC and Staff appear to agree.
The requested Extension of Vested Rights also complies with the specific provisions of
the City of Aspen Land Use Code. Section 26.308.010(C)(2) of the Code provides:
The City Council may by resolution, at a public hearing noticed by publication, mailing, and
posting (See section 26.304.060(E)(3)(a)(b)(c)) approve an extension or reinstatement of expired
vested rights or a revoked development order .... (Emphasis added).
1. In reviewing a request for the extension or reinstatement of vested rights the City Council
shall consider, but not 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 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.
This Application meets each of the above criteria as follows:
Criterion: The applicant's compliance with any conditions requiring performance prior
to the date of application for extension or reinstatement:
City of Aspen City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 3 of 4
Response: Applicant has met all conditions imposed by the City and HPC that require
performance to date.
Criterion: 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:
Response: Applicant has diligently pursued the Project to date including: revising the
Project on several occasions as requested by Staff; seeking a building permit to the point
where issuance of the permit is delayed only by these recently discovered issues;
acquiring additional approvals as requested by Staff; seeking an encroachment license
from the City for the pre-existing gazage; and working with neighboring property owners
to resolve property line issues.
Criterion: 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:
Response: Because a building permit for the Project has not yet been issued, impact fees
applicable to the Project are not yet due. However, when the building permit is issued,
Applicant will pay Park Dedication and School Land Dedications. Beyond the monetary
benefits, Staff has recognized that there are relatively few 19`h Century brick homes left
in Aspen, and has stated that the renovation of this "nicely detailed Victorian" would
"benefit the neighborhood and community". See Staff Memorandum dated January 23,
2002. The Project also remains true to the original home and the intent of Aspen historic
preservation policies because there are no other changes to the historic structure. The
Project is a restoration of the home to its original state and the construction of a
complementary addition. Applicant has also agreed to restore and replace the front bay
windows and the two front doors. Applicant conducted substantial work on researching
the correct windows to be installed on this highly visible part of the home. In addition,
Applicant has agreed to remove and replace several trees on the Property, at the request
of Staff, in order to showcase the historic attributes of the home and the front porch
renovations. Applicant further agreed to modify the original plans to reduce the height of
the connection between the existing structure and the addition so as not to detract from
the appeazance of the historic portion of the home, and render the design more acceptable
to Staff. Finally, Applicant has agreed to remove anon-historic addition to the rear of
house.
Criterion: The needs of the city and the applicant that would be served by the approval
of the extension or reinstatement request.
Response: Several of the needs of and benefits to the City aze set out above. In addition,
Applicant asks Council to consider the time and resources already dedicated to this
Project by both HPC and the City generally. Both have reviewed the Project several
City of Aspen City Council
August 14, 2007
Page 4 of 4
times on different administrative levels, and requiring the Applicant and the City to work
through that process again would not be an efficient use of City resources. Further, there
do not appear to be any new code provisions or regulations from which the Project is
exempted by its prior approvals. Therefore, there is nothing the Applicant is escaping, or
that the City is being denied, as a result of the requested extension.
The needs of the Applicant in this case have to do with the recently discovered
issues with the reaz and side lot lines. Applicant is requesting an extension of her vested
rights to allow time for her to remedy those issues that have recently come to light, as
these issues are preventing the issuance of a building permit. Specifically, afrer
Applicant's HPC approval, it was determined by Staff that the HPC had not formally
adopted a necessary side yard set back for the Project. This was simply an oversight on
the part of Staff, HPC and the Applicant. To correct this problem, a second HPC hearing,
was necessary and it was only through this later process that it was discovered that
Applicant's existing garage encroaches into the alley to the north, and sits across the
townsite lot line to the east. Applicant has recently received approval from City
Engineering for an encroachment license to allow the gazage to remain in place, but
Applicant is still working with the neighboring property owners to address their concerns
with the garage and the Project generally. Applicant hopes those concerns can be
resolved amicably.
Based on the foregoing, Applicant meets each of the stated requirements for an extension
of vested rights. Beyond the listed requirements, the grant of an extension will allow the Project
to proceed as planned once the current issues have been addressed. This will result in the
preservation and renovation of an example of a raze Victorian brick home in the downtown azea,
and will highlight the historic aspects of the home for the benefit of the City's chazacter,
preservation program, and its visitors and residents. Therefore, Applicant requests the grant of
the requested extension of vested rights.
Thank you for your consideration of this application.
Sincerely,
KLEIN, COTE & EDWARDS, LLC
By:
Eben P. Clazk
Extenison of Vested Rights Itr 8.14.07
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Agreement for Payment of Citv of Aspen Development Application Fees
C[TY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and Lexie Brockway Potemkin
(hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
I. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for
Extension of Vested Rights to complete previously approved renovation of historic brick V ictorian located
at I l0 E. Bleeker St. in Aspen (hereinafter, THE PROJECT).
2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that the Ciry of Aspen has an adopted fee structure for Land
Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application
completeness.
3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it
is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application.
APPLICANT and C[TY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an
initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis.
APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he
will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the
CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. C[TY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty
of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application.
4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for C[TY staff to complete
processing or present sufficient information to the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning
Commission and/or Ciry Council to enable the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning
Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings
are paid in full prior to decision.
5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect
full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the
amount of $ 705 which is for three hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed
the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the C[TY for the
processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of $235.00 per planner hour
over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT
further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case
will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid.
CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT
By:
Chris Bendon
Community Development Director
Date: 8 /~~1 ~~
-1-
Billing Address and Telephone Number:
2~t rs • M.k S4 _ . $fc Zo?
fb= -6 Go 0 6L(
ATTACHMENT 2-LAND USE APPLICATION
PROJECT:
Name: Lexie Brockway Potamkin
Location: 110E Bleeker St Aspen CO 8 ] 611
(Indicate street address lot & block number legal description where appropriate)
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) 273512437006
APPLICANT'
Name: Lexie Brockway Potamkin
Address: 7714 Fischer Island Dr. ,Fisher Island, FL 33109-0966
Phone #:
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name: Eben Clazk, Klein, Cote & Edwazds, LLC
Address: 201 N Mill St Ste 203 Aspen CO 81611
Phone #: 970 925 8700
TYPE oP APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
^ GMQS Exemption ^ Conceptual PUD ^ Temporary Use
^ GMQS Allotment ^ Final PUD (&PUD Amendment) ^ TexUMap Amendment
^ Special Review ^ Subdivision ^ Conceptual SPA
^ ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream ^ Subdivision Exemption (includes ^ Final SPA (& SPA
Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment)
Mountain View Plane
^ Commercial Design Review ^ Lot Split ^ Small Lodge Conversion/
Expansion
^ Residential Design Variance ^ Lot Line Adjustment ® Other: Extension of Vested
Rights
^ Conditional Use
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (descri lion of existin buildin s, uses, revious a royals, etc.)
Previously approved renovation and expansion of existing historic brick Victorian in downtown azea.
PROPOSAL' (description of proposed buildings uses modifications etc.)
Three yeaz extension of vested right to complete project as previously approved
~ - - - - -
Have you attached the following'! r r:na Lur,: a_ iva
^ Pre-Application Conference Summary
® Attachment # 1, Signed Fee Agreement
^ Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form
^ Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standazds
^ 3-D Model for large project
All plans that are larger than 8.5" X 11" must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text
(Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an
electronic 3-D model. Your pre-application conference summary wi{l indicate if you most submit a 3-D model.
.. .. ., i
I IIIRI VIII VIII VIII IIII IIII IIIIIIII III VIII IIII IIII a 81060 6 8011:301
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMLSSION (HPC)
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO MAJOR
EVELOPME FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED A 1 E. BLEEKER
-~TI21;'E I, TS L AN M, BLOCK 65, CITY AND TOR'NSITE OF ASPEN,
COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO, 33, SERIES OF 2004
PARCEL ID: 2735-12d-37-006
listed on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures;" and
WHEREAS, Robert and Lexie Potamkin, represented by Rally Dupps, Consortium Architects,
and Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning, have requested a Substantial Amendment to the Final
Development granted by Resolution #27, Series of 2002 for the property located at 170 E.
Bleeker Stteet, Lot L and M, Block 65, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. The property is
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or, structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlazged, 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 a Substantial Amendment to Final Major Development Review, the HPC must
-~ review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a heazing to
determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design
Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.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, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated December 8, 2004, performed an analysis of
the application based on the standazds,, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines have been met, and recommended approval with
conditions; and
WHEREAS, at their regulaz meeting on December 8, 2004, 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 of 5 to 1.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
HPC gtants approval for a Substantial Amendment to Major Development (Final) for 110 E.
Bteeker Street with the following conditions:
t/1. HPC has granted a 325 squaze foot FAR bonus and a 5% site coverage variance for
the project. In order for this project to qualify for the FAR bonus, the porch, front
~ ~fl_i.~F~~~
vut~' ~ z 2no~
~i.NEU1PIG DEPRP,Tf`4ENT'
IiIIIfINIIIIIiIIiIIIINIII~IIIIIINIIIIIIiIIiiIIN 006°0g;1:3a~
S[LVIp Op~IS P/TKfN COUNiY C0 R 16.00 D 0.00
window, and both front doors are to be restored to their original -condition and the
paint must be removed from the masonry.
2. The method for removing the paint from the masonry must be approved by HPC staff
and monitor. Test patches will be reviewed by staff and monitor.
~/3. After the paint has been removed from the historic house, the applicant shall contact.
staff for an inspection to determine whether there were any original window openings
on the east facade of the house, under the gable end. If so, the window(s) should be
restored based on a plan approved by staff and monitor,
3' ~ 4. A cut sheet must be provided for any new windows to be installed in the historic
building, to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor.
~ '~` S. Detail drawings showing the reconstruction of the porch and bay window to match the
photographs must be submitted for review and approval by staff and monitor.
,i ` 6. Any changes to the landscape plan must be reviewed and approved by HPC staff and
monitor. Provide additional information about the new tree installation indicated on
the landscape plan, for approval by staff and monitor.
~ {' 7. As part of an overall restoration of the historic character of the property, staff
recommends the owner work with the City Parks Department to remove and replace
the existing trees on the City right of way with more appropriate trees. The current
trees disrupt the relationship between the front of the house and the street. If the
owner is in agreement, this will be done at the City's expense.
~~ &. A picket fence as represented in the plans may be constructed along the property lines.
' 9. HPC staff and monitor must approve a plan for the type and location of all exterior
lighting fixtures prior to wiring, installation or purchase. The light fixtures must
" comply with the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and the
"City Lighting Code!'
10. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved
drawings shall tie provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the
information is available, before their installatioa.
~7 / 11. Submit.a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly
what areas of the existing house are to be removed as part of the renovation.
,. 12. No elements are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist, other
than what is approved by HPC. No existing exterior materials other than what has
been specifically approved herein may be removed without the approval of staff and
monitor.
r 13. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first
being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor.
-~ 14. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the
building permit glan set and all other prints made for the purpose of constmetion.
/f~. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC
resolution applicable to this projec#. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to
HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of
approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation
Officer prior to applying for the building permit.
J~f The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty
Iicense in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit.
,i ) 7, Restudy the detailing of thejunction between the historic house and the rear porch of
the addition. The design, which must be approved by staff and monitor, must protect
the historic building from damage (for instance from snow or drainage directed at the
old masonry), and must look at eliminating the overlap onto the comer in_terms of
protecting the original building's integrity.
18. Restudy the roof over the stair town on the addition to meet guideline 10.9, to be
reviewed and approved by staff and monitor.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 8th day of December,
2004.
Approved as to Form:
' e ~-~-
Davi Hoefer, Assiatan City Attorney .
Approved as to content:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSIUN
y
Je alferty, Chair
ATTEST:
Gl.-(.--~ ~tir.fC~.Crk.-~,~~
Kathy Strial and, Chief Deputy Clerk
1I u1 ~,~~ l `~~ ~`i I,~I u 506078
~~I~~II'I~A~I~~apINKI~~}I~IAIYIUl~~1II~~~I~~NaN~~IloBtita9 ee~it:se~