Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.200801145:00 ANNUAL PUBLIC FACILITIES MEETING CITY COUNCIL AGENDA January 14, 2008 5:00 P.M. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Scheduled Public Appearances IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues NOT on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes) V. Special Orders of the Day a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments b) Agenda Deletions and Additions c) City Manager's Comments d) Board Reports VI. Consent Calendar (These matters maybe adopted together by a single motion) a) Resolution #1, 2008 -Posting of Legal Notices b) Resolution #2, 2008 -Contract ISC -Installation of WiFi c) Resolution #5, 2008 -Designation of Newspaper for Legal Notices d) Resolution #3, 2008 -Contract Audio/Visual for Council Chambers e) Resolution #6, 2008 -Contract Highland Hybrid Police Department Vehicle f) Resolution #7, 2008 -Contract Handheld Parking Ticket Writers g) Approval of Kids First Board h) Minutes -December 3, 10, 11, 2007 VII. First Reading of Ordinances VIII. Public Hearings a) Ordinance #49, 2007 -Christ Episcopal Church GMOS Review b) Ordinance #25, 2007 -Jerome Professional Building Subdivision c) Resolution #53, 2007 -Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD continue to 4/14 d) Ordinance #50, 2007 -Code Amendments Historic Lot Splits continue to 3/24 IX. Action Items a) Appeal of Tree Permit Denial = 935 East Hopkins X. Executive Session XI. Adjournment Next Regular Meeting January 28, 2008 COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M. MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk DATE: January 7, 2008 RE: Annual Meeting of the Aspen Public Facilities Authority SUMMARY: The articles of incorporation of the Aspen Public Facilities Authority state that the annual meeting shall be held in the second Monday in January. BACKGROUND: The Aspen Public Facilities Authority is a "non-profit corporation and an instrumentality of the City of Aspen for certain limited purposes". The Board of Directors of the Authority is the members of the City Council, the City Finance Director and the City Clerk. The officers at the last annual meeting were: President Helen Klanderud Vice President Tone Secretary Kathryn Koch Asst. Secretary Jack Johnson Treasurer Paul Menter The Articles of Incorporation state: "Each member of the Board of Directors who is also a member of the City Council shall serve a term coterminous with his or her term as a member of the City Council or until his or her death, removal, resignation or disability. The members of the Board of Directors who hold the office of Finance Director and City Clerk shall serve terms coterminous with their employment as Finance Director and City Clerk respectively, or until their death, removal, resignation or disability. If a vacancy occurs for a Director who is also a City Council member, the person succeeding such person on the City Council shall become a Director of the Authority. If a vacancy occurs for a Directors who is also either the Finance Director or the City Clerk, the person succeeding to such office of the City shall become a director of the Authority. The by-laws also state if the office of vice president or assistant secretary become vacant, the corporation shall elect a successor from its membership at the next regular meeting, and such election shall be for the unexpired term of said office." The Authority should elect aVice-President, if Jack Johnson remains as assistant secretary. When a finance director is appointed, he or she will become the treasurer. The By-Laws state the President shall be the Mayor of the City of Aspen. The Vice President and Assistant Secretary shall be members of the City Council and shall hold office so long as he or she remains a member of the City Council of the City of Aspen. The Treasurer shall be the Finance Director of the City of Aspen. The Vice President was Torre and that office needs to be filled. The Bylaws of the Authority require that an annual meeting be held on the second Monday of January at 5:00 p.m. at the regular meeting place of the corporation. The Bylaws state the following order of business for regular meetings: 1. Roll call 2. Reading and approval of the minutes of the previous meeting (minutes of January 8, January 29, 2007 attached) 3. Election of Vice President Bill and Communications Report of President Unfinished business New business Adjournment The Authority was formed to assist in financing the construction of the Parking Facility. The Authority initially leased the ground for the parking facility from the City, owned the facility and leased the ground and facility back to the City. All of the Authority's interest in the Parking Facility leases and subleases related to the Parking Facility has been assigned to a trustee. In 1995 the Authority passed two resolutions; one allowed the refinancing of the parking garage bonds, and one entered into a similar lease arrangement for Cozy Point. The Ground lease requires that the Authority "maintain its corporation existence, .. will not dissolve or otherwise dispose of all or substantially all of its assets and will not consolidate with or merge into another corporation..." during the term of the ground lease. In 2007, the Aspen Public Facilities Authority authorized the certificates of participation for the purchase of the Isis theatre. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 8, 2007 ASPEN PUBLIC FACILITIES President Helen Klanderud called to order the annual meeting of the Aspen Public Facilities at 5:00 p.m. with J. E. DeVilbiss, Jack Johnson, Torre, Rachel Richards, Paul Menter and Kathryn Koch present. DeVilbiss moved to approve the minutes of January 9, 2006; seconded by Torre. All in favor, Richards abstained, as she was not at the meeting. Motion tamed. Menter noted the city may issue certificates of participation to acquire the Isis and there were some questions whether this Public Facility Authority would be adequate to issue those COPS. Upon review by bond counsel, it was determined the public facilities authority can complete that real estate acquisition. The COPS will be marketed February 1, 2007. Torre moved to adjourn the annual meeting of the Public Facilities Authority at 5:07 p.m.; seconded by Johnson. All in favor, motion carried. Kathryn S. Koch, Secretary r - NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING ,Q~~,x~ r'yt'.a~ . Gt~2 y^C~~ THE CITY OF ASPEN January 25, 2007 At the request of Mayor Helen Klanderud, there will be a special City Council meeting Monday, January 29, 2007, at 4:30 p.m. meeting in the City Council Chambers, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Cobrado. The agenda for this meeting will be 1. Draft Energy Resolution 2 2"a Reading -Ordinance #1, 2007 -Authorization Lease/Purchase Agreement Isis Theatre Kathryn S. K ,City Clerk COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE FOLLOWED BY A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ASPEN Hf~B)~IQ AUTHORTTY, DOCUMENTS ATTACHED Notices delivered to: Mayor Helen Klanderud Councilmembers Torre J. E. DeVilbiss Jack Johnson Jasmine Tygre City Manager Barwick City Attorney Worcester special.not ISO SaurN GALENA STREET ~ ASPEN, COLORADO BI6I]-IBIS ~ PHONE B7O.BZO.S000~ FA%B7O.42O.SIB7 www. azpengovcom Pnniea an aeryaea Peper Special Meetine Aspen City Council Jauuarv 29, 2007 Worcester recapped the items addressed by Council for the agreement aze that the ~.. definition ofmid-level retail is fine the way it is; that affordable housing can be broken if the commercial unit #1 is sold, and that the deed restriction for Filmfest may be vacated upon nonappropriation and the deed restriction on the retail side may not be vacated. Councilman Johnson moved to Resolution #7, Series of 2007, approval of Isis subleases and deed restrictions as amended; seconded by Councilman Torre. Councilman DeVilbiss said the definition ofmid-level retail is too broad and he cannot support it. All in favor with the exception of Councilman DeVilbiss. Councilman Torre moved to approve Ordinance # 1, Series of 2007, on second reading approval of certificates of participation to purchase the Isis; seconded by Councilman Johnson. Roll call vote; Councilmembers DeVilbiss, yes; Johnson, yes; Torre, yes; Tygre, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried. Councilman Johnson moved to adjoum the Council meeting at 8:40 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried. ASPEN 1II~'SRI~ l AUTHORITY President Helen Klanderud called the meeting of the authority to order at 8:40 p.m. Members present Jasmine Tygre, J. E. DeVilbiss, Torre, Jack Johnson, and Paul Menter. ,.... Paul Menter, treasurer, told Council the resolution before the authority authorizes the issues of certifications of participation and approves the acquisition documents. Torre moved to approve Resolution #1, Series of 2007; seconded by Johnson. All in favor, motion carried. Johnson moved to adjoum at 8:45 p.m.; seconded by Torre. All in favor, motion tamed. ~~~ Kat n S. Koch, City Clerk 4 via MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk DATE: December 26, 2007 RE: Resolution Designating the Public Place for the Posting of Notices of Public Meetings Pursuant to 1991 legislative amendments to the Colorado Open Meeting Law as Section 24-6-402(2)(c), City Council is to annually designate at its first meeting for each calendaz year a public place for the posting of notices for meeting. By properly designating a place for posting meeting notices, a public entity will be deemed to have given full and timely notice of any meeting so long as notice thereof was posted as the designated place at least twenty-four hours in advance thereof. Posting notices as the designated place will also suffice for municipal boards and commissions. Attached is Resolution #1, Series of 2008, which identifies the glass case in the first floor lobby of City Hall as the designated place for posting of meeting notices. Approval of the consent calendar will adopt this resolution. Attach Resolution #1, 2008 RESOLUTION #1 Series of 2008 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, DESIGNATING THE PUBLIC PLACE FOR POSTING NOTICES OF PUBLIC MEETINGS. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, deems it in the public interest to provide full and timely notice of all of its meetings; and WHEREAS, the Colorado state legislature amended the Colorado Open Meetings Laws, Section 24-6-401, et seq., C.R.S. to require all "local public bodies" subject to the requirements of the law to annually designate at the local public body's first regular meeting of each calendar year, the place for posting notices of public hearings no less than twenty-four hours prior to the holding of the meeting; and WHEREAS, "local public body" is defined by Section 24-6-402 (1)(a) to include "any board, committee, commission, authority, or other advisory, policy-making, rule-making, or formally constituted body of any political subdivision of the state and any public or private entity to which a political subdivision, or an official thereof, has delegated a governmental decision- making function but does not include persons on the administrative staff of the local public body". NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1 A public notice of each meeting held by the City Council of the City of Aspen and each meeting of any other board, committee, commission, authority, or other advisory, policy-making, rule-making, or formally constituted body of the City of Aspen, shall be posted by the City Clerk at least twenty-four hours prior to the holding of the meeting in the enclosed glass case in the lobby of City Hall, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado. Section 2 The City Clerk shall notify each board, committee, commission, authority, or other advisory, policy-making, rule-making, or formally constituted body of the City of Aspen of the contents of this resolution and the other general requirements of the Colorado Open Meetings Law, C.R.S., Section 24-6-401, et seq. Dated: 2008. 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 January 14, 2008. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jim Considine, IS Director DATE OF MEMO: December 12, 2007 MEETING DATE: January 14, 2008 RE: Contract for Installation of Wireless Equipment REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Council is being asked to approve a contract with ISC for $76,292.94 to install core network wireless equipment. This expenditure is shared with Pitkin County. BACKGROUND: Subsequent to our decision to put County-wide broadband wireless access "on-hold", IS recommended that we establish a standard for internal wireless access to the network for use by Staff, Vendors, and Guests. DISCUSSION: • Establishing an internal standard was approved by the Tech Team since it was both "doable" and consistent with considerable Customer demand for wireless access. • IS issued a RFP to establish a Vendor relationship to provide both wireless equipment and professional services for implementation and support. • ISC, a reseller of Cisco wireless equipment, was selected. The IS selection team felt that Cisco equipment was the best match for our current data environment. In addition, IS has had only good experiences with the equipment and support provided by Cisco. Among the vendors recommending Cisco equipment, ISC was evaluated as having the most experience and the most likely to deliver on their promises. • The standard recommended by I.S. consists of high quality wireless access points, centrally managed by wireless access controllers, and tied directly to our network user authentication system for maximum security. The wireless system would be implemented utilizing the 802.11 a/b/g certifications (WiFi) in order to take advantage of the multitude of compatible client access devices already in plane. • The rollout will begin with City/County meetings rooms including Council Chambers, Sister Cities, BOCC meeting room, the Rio Grande, and the basement of the Pitkin Couthouse. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The funding for this project is included in the AMP for 2008. The initial expenditure includes all of the core equipment needed to manage and monitor Page 1 of 2 wireless equipment anywhere the City/County network has a presence. Subsequent implementations will require only cabling and wireless access points. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the contract with ISC by adopting Resolution #2, Page 2 of 2 2008, on the consent calendar RESOLUTION # 2 (Series of 2008) A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND ISC SETTING FORTH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REGARDING WIRELESS ACCESS TO THE CITY/COUNTY NETWORK AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and ISC, a copy of which contract is annexed hereto and made a part thereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That the Ciry Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that contract between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and ISC regarding wireless access to the City/County network, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager of the City of Aspen to execute said contract on behalf of the City of Aspen. Dated: 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 January 14, 2008. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk JS AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (Under $25,000 Total Compensation) This Agreement made and entered on the date hereinafter stated, between the CITY OF ASPEN, Colorado, ("City") and Information Systems Consulting, ("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 care and the orderly progress of the Work in a timely manner. The parties anticipate that all work pursuant to this agreement shall be completed no later than .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 $23,824.13. 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 therefor, by giving notice, in writing, addressed to the other party, specifying the effective date of the termination. No fees shall be earned after the effective date of the termination. Upon any termination, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, PS2-971.doc Pagel drawings, maps, models, photographs, reports or other material prepared by the Professional pursuant to this Agreement shall become the property of the City. Notwithstanding the above, Professional shall not be relieved of any liability to the City for damages sustained by the City by virtue of any breach of this Agreement by the Professional, and the City may withhold any payments to the Professional for the purposes of set-off until such time as the exact amount of damages due the City from the Professional may be determined. 6. Covenant Against Contingent Fees. The Professional warrants that s/he has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working for the Professional, to solicit or secure this contract, that s/he has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts or any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this contract. 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, are available from City to the employees, agents or servants of Professional. Professional shall be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of Professional's agents, employees, servants and subcontractors during the performance of this contract. Professional shall indemnify City against all liability and loss in connection with, and shall assume Full responsibility for payment of all federal, state and local taxes or contributions imposed or required under unemployment insurance, social security and income tax law, with respect to Professional and/or Professional's employees engaged in the performance of the services agreed to herein. 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 arise out of or are in any manner connected with this contract, if such injury, loss, or damage is caused in whole or in part by, or is claimed to be caused in whole or in part by, the act, omission, error, professional error, mistake, negligence, or other fault of the Professional, any subcontractor of the Professional, or any officer, employee, representative, or agent of the Professional or of any subcontractor of the Professional, or which arises out of any workmen's compensation claim of any employee of the Professional or of any employee of any subcontractor of the Professional. The Professional agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, and to provide defense for and defend against, any such liability, claims or demands at the sole expense of the Professional, or at the option of the City, agrees to pay the City or reimburse the City for the defense costs incurred by the City in connection with, any such liability, claims, or demands. If it is determined by the final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction that such injury, loss, or PS2-971.doc Page 2 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 claims- made policy, the necessary retroactive dates and extended reporting periods shall be procured to maintain such continuous coverage. (i) Workmen's Compensation insurance to cover obligations imposed by applicable laws for any employee engaged in the performance of work under this contract, and Employers' Liability insurance with minimum limits of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) for each accident, FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease - policy limit, and FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease -each employee. Evidence of qualified self-insured status may be substituted for the Workmen's Compensation requirements of this paragraph. (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 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. PS2-971.doc Page 3 (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 ofI-icers and employees as additional insureds. Every policy required above shall be primary insur- ance, 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 azising 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 are in full force and effect, and shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to commencement of the contract. No other form of certificate shall be used. The 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 Ciry upon demand, or City may offset the cost of the premiums against monies due to Professional from City. (t) City reserves the right to request and receive a certified copy of any policy and any endorsement thereto. (g) The parties hereto understand and agree that City is relying on, and does not waive or intend to waive by any provision of this contract, the monetary limitations (presently $150,000.00 per person and $600,000 per occurrence) or any other rights, immunities, and protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24-10-101 et seq., C.R.S., as from time to time amended, or otherwise available to City, its officers, or its employees. 0. City's Insurance. The parties hereto understand that the City is a member of the Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency (CIRSA) and as such participates in the CIRSA Property/Casualty Pool. Copies of the CIRSA pelicies and manual are kept at the City of Aspen Finance Department and are available to Professional for inspection during normal business hours. City makes no representations whatsoever with respect to specific coverages offered by CIRSA. City shall provide Professional reasonable notice of any changes in its membership or participation in CIRSA. PS2-971.doc Page 4 11. Completeness of Agreement. It is expressly agreed that this agreement contains the entire undertaking of the parties relevant to the subject matter thereof and there are no verbal or written representations, agreements, warranties or promises pertaining to the project matter thereof not expressly incorporated in this writing. 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 ~~~1. /~ City of Aspen fli ~: ~t /J.~ ~i~itK ~n/d,z.T='~ 130 South Galena Street Street Address~f0/ jy . Cs STS Aspen, Colorado 81611 City, State & Zip Code~~~~w ~ glfio ~ 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 regazd whatsoever shall not constitute a waiver of any term, covenant, or condition to be performed by Professional to which the same may apply and, until complete performance by Professional of said term, covenant or condition, the City shall be entitled to invoke any remedy available to it under this Agreement or by law despite any such forbearance or indulgence. 15. Execution of Agreement by Citv. This agreement shall be binding upon all parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns. 16. General Terms. (a) It is agreed that neither this agreement nor any of its terms, provisions, conditions, representations or covenants can be modified, changed, terminated or amended, waived, superseded or extended except by appropriate written instrument fully executed by the parties. (b) If any of the provisions of this agreement shall be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable it shall not affect or impair the validity, legality or enforceability of any other provision. (c) The parties acknowledge and understand that there are no conditions or limitations to this understanding except those as contained herein at the time of the execution hereof PS2-971.doc Pages 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] PS2-971.doc Page 6 ATTESTED BY: WITNESSED BY: CITY OF ASPEN, COL/OR/ADO: Title: C, ~y ~1.•-•s..- Date: `~ - 2~ -'~ 7 PROFESSIONAL: By: Title Date: 9 /7 7U O '/ . PS2-971.doc Page 7 EXHIBIT "A" to Professional Services Agreement Scope of Work Information Systems Consulting will design, create, and implement a secure wireless network(s) to intertace with the City of Aspen/Pitkin County (COAPC) corporate network for the exclusive use of City and County Staff and associated vendors and guests. The design includes: • Secure access to wireless network • Secure access from wireless network into City/County network • Ability to deploy workgroup sized solutions while maintaining scalability • Ability to centrally monitor and manage all wireless access points • Both internal and external access • Protocols and procedures for the effective implementation of a wireless network including spectrum analysis, environmental requirements (power, mounting,...), testing, and problem diagnosis and remedy. • Ability to dynamically detect and adjust to various attack vectors PS2-971.doc Page 8 EXHIBIT "Be' to Professional Services Agreement Rate Schedule Iflii.',av,~~l~l~~h NeM~aTdrlg the Rockies Negtmmq GrAV Oi're FeaeAOe,W bill m,me6gNigfnN f>R1~1~~ GATE: puote M eWt0111N: CustomerContaot: At7gus12, 2007 YJlreless Access a C4yl000my Network C8yolASpen pWdtaeing Office 130 SoNN Galena Street Aspen, CO 61611 Pr®~uct & Services Qu®te EgWpmeM Payment Terms Nel dce Upon Reoaipt. Selvicee Payment Terms 50%Prajsd Services due at Project Stan • 50%Prged 6enice9 due Uput Prged Canple0m. CammmR+a etiel lnewctlam: SALESPERSON PhanlNunle(IEenN AdOUS JeNNamina ~ 8185251!!1 Jheming~eaor0.aq OUANRSY -~'~. PARTNURSER~--: OE9Cp~11ON -.: '. LISTPRICE.. :F:d:N.POMT ~ pes6ne00n OISCOUNTmPa1CE ~:T7TM8 ~: -- Ouamrecepl -TOTALPmCE.. ~ 1o 7o 1o f0 to 1o 1 1 t 1 1 eg AIIALAP12121GAx9 NRPPAaA aN7~vwcoaG~Nn 11RK9ly-t2311JX CONSNTLN1237A Nc2aawn•R7P en on g a AOawLUd02-1210 991L y952 ~ NA OSIdM-WG170225 GLC c a doanw w Dual fCC On rmloaztovacaL4 9e1mAa1 ,it t2ao mum cam Iseol SeA1c WI Lw E RY o .1 M AP Dwl24 ONa1 LaRP.7N 'IbODerG o nmm rNSa+wel Seder a b26 ~ APo Pmhuh'8 aw wxb140D AIRL NamPmMa 5~'0G94 •12WlPN CmroAer 7 •T f 8 s 939.00 i 5 a 80.OD s m.oo S 5 9,996.00 5 ~ 5 - S 800.00 5 996,00 5 s19Ae s s S 8160 s s S ~ 5 5,197.10 a S 896.00 S 20140 i t9a10 s 86610 s aeo 0 - 5 9,197A1 f 856.00 S 3o5A0 7 1 1 cgs m AIR•WOS•WL•7.OJ0 CON34U- WL1X senxntl incl Y,30u b50L Aheegal WdU2 SW APP PPS Gew Pr9; w8.aalmn S - $ 5.996.OD 1189.00 S 0,117A0 a 98311 5 . a 3117.60 S 99378 I CRoreaaonel gnbeslneta 9on.P ~ d L rain Total 7771.96 3 23,834.13 PS2-971.doc Page 9 v~~ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk DATE: January 7, 2007 RE: Resolution #5, 2008 -Designating the men Times as the City's Legal Publication REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests Council adopt Resolution #5, 2008 - designating the Aspen Times as the legal publication for the City of Aspen. BACKGROUND: The Aspen City Charter requires all ordinances be published in full after first reading noting the time and place for the public hearing. The land use code also requires various public notices. According to the state statutes, the standard for legal publications is that a newspaper has a second class mailing permit. In order to have a second class mailing permit, a publication has to demonstrate to the U. S. Postal Service that they have at least 50% paid subscriber base. According to the U. S. Postmaster in Glenwood Springs, the only newspapers that would qualify are the Snowmass Sun or the Rifle Tele am. In September 2007, the publisher of the Aspen Times sent a letter stating "The Aspen Times is no longer pursuing paid publication status for the Aspen Times Weekly with the United States Post Office and are no longer using a second class mailing permit". Since at least the 1960's, the City of Aspen's legal notices have been published in the Aspen Times. The City Attorney's Office is of the opinion that, as home rule charter city, the City can designate by resolution an official newspaper for the publication of all notices required by the City Charter or the City Code. DISCUSSION: When staff brought this issue to Council in September 2007, Council adopted Resolution #79, 2007, adopting the Aspen Times as the repository for legal notices for the city and further directed staff to conduct a bid process. Staff sent request for bids to the two newspapers at the Aspen end of the Roaring Fork Valley. Both newspapers were asked to do a mock up of an ordinance and to quote a price for legal publication. The Aspen Times quote was almost half the price as that quoted by the Daily News. Also, the Aspen Times Weekly has a location within the paper for all the legal notices at this end of the valley. FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: There is a line item in the city clerk's and the community development department's budgets for legal notices. This will not impact the budget. Putting this out to bid may reduce the costs slightly. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: This will not change the way business is currently being done so there should be no negative or positive impacts on the environment. The most positive environmental impact would be not to publish ordinances in full; however, that is a Charter requirement and requires voter approval to do so. We took that Charter Amendment to the voters in November 2002 and it was defeated 1139 to 811. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends adoption of Resolution #5, 2008 MOTION: By adopting the consent calendar and Resolution #5, 2008, Council will be designating the Aspen Times Weekly the site for the City of Aspen's legal notices for the calendar year 2008. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: G;/~li•'u~e Attachments: Resolution #5, 2008 RESOLUTION # 5 (Series of 2008) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL DESIGNATING THE ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY AS THE SITE FOR THE LEGAL NOTICES FOR THE CITY OF ASPEN WHEREAS, there is a Charter requirement to publish ordinances adopted by the City of Aspen and requirements within the City of Aspen land use code to publish notices regarding land use cases, and WHEREAS, no newspaper at this end of the Roaring Fork Valley meets the state requirements as a "legal publication", and WHEREAS, City Council directed staff to conduct a bid process among the publications at this end of the Roaring Fork Valley WHEREAS, the City of Aspen has been publishing legal notices in the Aspen Times Weekly for over 50 years, and their price for legal notices was about 50% less than the other publication that presented a bid. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby designates the Aspen Times Weekly as the legal newspaper for the purpose of publication of all legal notices required to be published pursuant to the Charter of the City of Aspen or any provision of the Aspen Municipal Code for the calendar year 2008. Dated: Michael C. Ireland, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held January 14, 2008. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk v~~ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM : Kathryn Koch, and Bentley Henderson THRU: Steve Barwick DATE OF MEMO: 12-24-07 MEETING DATE: 01-14-07 RE: Council Chambers Remodel - AV Contract SUMMARY: Provided for your consideration is a contract with MediaLogix of Denver for the provision and installation of the new audio/visual equipment in the City Council Chambers. Staff is recommending approval of the contact. BACKGROUND: Over the course of the past year staff has been moving toward finalizing design considerations for the remodel of the City Hall basement Council Chambers. One of the components of the remodel is the installation of new audio/visual equipment. The contract before you is the result of a competitive bid process that staff conducted last fall. DISCUSSION: Subsequent to the request for proposals we received 3 competitive bids. These bids were reviewed internally, and by a local audio/visual technician. Given the constraints of the budget, and the extent of the proposal, the bid before you was the most competitive. This component of the remodel will provide for better presentation capabilities for our staff and those presenting to Council, superior audio reproduction for audience members and those watching on television, and an upgraded visual presentation at City Hall for members of the audience, staff, and City Council. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The bid for the upgraded electronics is $108,803.00. Funds have been budgeted and are available. Attachments: MediaLogix Contract Resolution #3, 2008 RECOMMENDATION: By adopting the Consent Calendar, you are approving Resolution #3 Series 2008, for the contract with MediaLogix of Denver for the audio/visual upgrades to the City Council Chambers. RESOLUTION NO. 3 Series of 2008 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF NEW AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPEMENT FOR CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 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 the purchase and installation of new audio/visual equipment in the City of Aspen City Council Chambers, between the City of Aspen and MediaLogix Inc., an 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 the purchase and installation of audio/visual equipment for the City of Aspen, between the City of Aspen and MediaLogix Inc., 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 14`h day of January, 2008. 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 H:~I,egal & Contrac[Unedialogix reso.doc AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement made and entered on the date hereinafter stated, between the CITY OF ASPEN, Colorado, ("City") and MediaLogix, Inc. ("Professional"): For and in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: Scope of Work. Professional shall perform in a competent and professional manner the Scope of Work as set forth at Exhibit "A" and Equipment Schedule Exhibit A.1" attached hereto, and by this reference incorporated herein. Completion. Professional shall commence work immediately upon receipt of a written Notice to Proceed from the City .and complete all phases of the Scope of Work as expeditiously as is consistent with professional skill and care and the order]y progress of the Work in a timely manner. The parties anticipate that all work pursuant to this agreement shall be completed no later than February 28, 2007. Upon request of the City, Professional shall submit, for the City's approval, a schedule for the performance of Professional's services which shall be adjusted as required as the project proceeds, and which shall include allowances for periods of time required by the City's project engineer for review and approval of submissions and for approvals of authorities having jurisdiction over the project. This schedule, when approved by the City, shall not, except for reasonable cause, be exceeded by the Professional. Payment. In consideration of the work performed, City shall pay Professional on a time and expense basis for all work performed. The hourly rates for work performed by Professional shall not exceed those hourly rates set forth at Exhibit "B" appended hereto. Except as otherwise mutually agreed to by the parties the payments made to Professional shall not initially exceed $108,803.00. Professional shall submit, in timely fashion, invoices for work performed. The City shall review such invoices and, if they are considered incorrect or untimely, the City shall review the matter with Professional within ten days from receipt of the Professional's bill. Non-Assignability. Both parties recognize that this contract is one for personal services and cannot be transferred, assigned, or sublet by either parry 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. Termination. The Professional or the City may terminate this Agreement, without specifying the reason therefor, by giving notice, in writing, addressed to the other party, specifying the effective date of the termination. No fees shall be earned after the effective date of the termination. Upon any termination, all fmished or unfmished documents, data, studies, surveys, PSI-971.doc Page 1 damage was caused in whole or in part by the act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or its employees, the City shall reimburse the Professional for the portion of the judgment attributable to such act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or employees. Professional's Insurance. (a) Professional agrees to procure and maintain, at its own expense, a policy or policies of insurance sufficient to insure against all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. Such insurance shall be in addition to any other insurance requirements imposed by this contract or by law. The Professional shall not be relieved of any liability, claims, demands, or other obligations assumed pursuant to Section 8 above by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance, or by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance in sufficient amounts, duration, or types. (b) Professional shall procure and maintain, and shall cause any subcontractor of the Professional to procure and maintain, the minimum insurance coverages listed below. Such coverages shall be procured and maintained with forms and insurance acceptable to the City. All coverages shall be continuously maintained to cover all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. In the case of any claims- made policy, the necessary retroactive dates and extended reporting periods shall be procured to maintain such continuous coverage. (i) Workers' Compensation insurance to cover obligations imposed by applicable laws for any emp]oyee engaged in the performance of work under this contract, and Employers' Liability insurance with minimum limits of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) for each accident, FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease - policy limit, and FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease -each employee. Evidence of qualified self-insured status may be substituted for the Workers' Compensation requirements of this pazagraph. (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 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. PS1-971.doc Page 3 Completeness of Agreement. It is expressly agreed that this agreement contains the entire undertaking of the parties relevant to the subject matter thereof and there are no verbal or written representations, agreements, warranties or promises pertaining to the project matter thereof not expressly incorporated in this writing. Notice. Any written notices as called for herein may be hand delivered to the respective persons and/or addresses listed below or mailed by certified mail return receipt requested, to: City: City Manager City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Professional: MediaLogix, Inc. 300 East Mineral Ave., Ste. 7 Littleton, CO 80122 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 13-48, pertaining to non-discrimination in employment. Waiver. The waiver by the City of any term, covenant, or condition hereof shall not operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term. No term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement can be waived except by the written consent of the City, and forbeazance or indulgence by the City in any regazd whatsoever shall not constitute a waiver of any term, covenant, or condition to be performed by Professional to which the same may apply and, until complete performance by Professional of said term, covenant or condition, the City shall be entitled to invoke any remedy available to it under this Agreement or by law despite any such forbearance or indulgence. Execution of Agreement by City. This agreement shall be binding upon all parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns. 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. Illegal Aliens -CRS 8-17 5-101 & 24-76.5-101. a. Puroose. 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 PS1-971.doc Page 5 shall continue to apply to participate in the Federal Basic Pilot Program and shall in writing verify same every three (3) calendar months thereafter, until Professional is accepted or the public contract for services has been completed, whichever is earlier. The requirements of this section shall not be required or effective if the Federal Basic Pilot Program is discontinued. (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 damages to the City of Aspen arising 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. PS1-971.doc Page 7 ATTESTED BY: CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: By: Title: Date: PROFESSIONAL: f ~, WITNESSED BY: ~, ~ L ` ~ ~~`~' - By: ~/ o Title: a Date: PS1-971.doc Page 9 MediaLo~ix~ m~u 5oe MediaLogix, Inc. System Design and Functionality MediaLogix is pleased to present our proposal for the Aspen City Council Chambers Audio Visual System. MediaLogix's turnkey package includes all equipment, materials and labor necessary to provide a system that meets the requirements and demands of today's City Council Chambers expectations. MediaLogix has a thorough understanding of the entire scope of this work and our resources aze standing by to guazantee its successful implementation. MediaLogix provides each system they design and install a full one year warranty against any installation or workmanship defects. Also MediaLogix pass thru all manufacture warranties and guaranties. MediaLogix would be happy to discuss additional yeazs of warranty service and maintenance to support your needs. MediaLogix has selected manufacturers that support "Energy Star' ratings and other energy efficiencies available. Life expectancy will be based on system use, but the user can expect 60,000 hours for all LCD Displays, 3000 Hours (per lamp) on DLP Projector, One year warranty on all electronic products with a expected life of 5 to 10 years. The proposed system is put together utilizing top quality products and components. The system also attachment below delineates the clarifications, inclusions and exclusions for this bid response. Please note specifically the requirements related to the electrical infrastruchire and CAD drawings, which aze necessary for our successful completion. ATTACHMENT "A" MediaLogix will provide and install the Audio Visual System related materials as follows: Audio Sound Reinforcement System 1. Supply and install One (1) Crestron Touchscreen Control System which will be the user interface for complete control of the entire audio visual system. This touchscreen will be custom programmed to include all of the available sources and audio visual controls in an easy to use "One Touch" format. 2. Supply and install Seven ('~ Desktop Council Members Microphones and related hazdwaze. 3. Supply and install One (1) Desktop Gooseneck Microphones and related hazdwaze into the presentation podium. 4. Supply and install Two (2) Wireless Microphones to be utilized by key presenters that need ability to move around the room during their presentation. 3JO L. 231~~ral A~~nue. Suite 7 LletLtnri, G7 B~Jlze ''ft"c-i 7t I'i. i' I~+1 Cl - 9f t i./I T 1 7F01/ I ~, MediieLo~ix~- 5. Supply and install Five (5) Extron flush mount hideaway network connection modules to allow the council members and presenters to plug in a laptop computer for their use or send a presentation to the video displays. 6. Supply and install One (1) Biamp Audio DSP Processor to route and control all the audio sources. 7. Supply and install Sixteen (16) Low profile ceiling speaker in the main council chambers azea with backcan and mounting hazdwaze. 8. Supply and install Six (6) Low profile ceiling speaker in the "Over Flow" azea with backcan and mounting hazdwaze. 9. Supply and install One (1) Equipment Racks including related hardware. 10. Supply and install One (1) of the following electronic source devices in the main equipment rack: - DVD Player/Recorder - VCR Player - Audio Video Switcher - Broadcast Audio Video feeds - Document Camera - Audio Power Amplifiers - Furman Power Conditioners - Mazantz Solid State Recorder Video Disvlay S sY tem 1. Supply and install Four (4) Two (2) Ceiling mounted 49in LCD Displays behind the council members for the audience use and Two (2) in the public gallery space. 2. Supply and install One (1) 42in LCD display on the council member's side of the public podium for council members use as a confidence monitor. 3. Supply and install One (1) Wall mounted 55in LCD Displays in the "Over Flow" space located in the rear of the room. This display would also utilized as a stand alone display for meeting or presentation in that room. 4. Supply and install One (1) DLP Video Projector to display video and document images onto the west side "Presentation Wall". This projector was selected instead of another LCD display due to the image size needing to be lazge enough to make it readable to the patrons in the gallery azea: Ji ir7 E N7ireeiaLwenue, Suir~ 7 ~IttlrR.ori. L:O i3tJle.2 3t73.7~3.~9~ ~ - 303.7~3.39~! F 5. Supply and install One (1) Vaddio Ceiling Mounted Document Camera to display documents, drawings, models and other objects thru the video display system. 6. Supply and install Nine (9) of the following electronic devices in each courtroom for antonymous control of each room: 7. Supply and install all cabling as necessary for an operational system. 8. System testing and training of City of Aspen personnel as required. 9. Project related drafting as required for submittal preparation and as-build documentation as required. 10. All labor and materials for the installation of the systems proposed, less those items specifically excluded below. 11. System testing, operational adjustments and technical reporting as required. 12. Systems documentation including operations & maintenance manuals, as-built documents and owner's manuals of each itemized product. Audio Visual System (Base): Audio Visual Systems (Over-Flow Room): $ 91,724.00 $17,079.00 1? MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Richard Pryor THRU: Steve Barwick DATE OF MEMO: 1-7-2008 MEETING DATE: 1-14-2008 RE: Police Toyota Highlander Hybrid vle REQUEST OF COUNCIL: This memo is a request for approval of the purchase of one Toyota Highlander Hybrid vehicle for equipping and use in the capacity of a "Trial" police patrol vehicle. BACKGROUND: The Police Department has been investigating the possibility of implementing a hybrid fleet since 2004, when it became apparent that Saab would not continue it's relationship with the City of Aspen. At that time no police agency in the U.S. that we could determine was using a fully equipped hybrid SUV for police patrol. Staff also had concerns about the ability of a hybrid vehicle to adequately provide for electrical power storage and generation, to enable the fully functional use of installed police equipment. At that time a representative of the equipment installation company the police department uses, Av-Tech of Golden, attended a council meeting and explained from a technical perspective the concerns when outfitting a hybrid vehicle with police electrical equipment. As a result the direction given to the Police Department was to progress to a bidding process for the next fleet of police vehicles. The winning vehicle from that bidding process was deemed unsuitable by council and staff was directed to look at other options, which spawned the current Volvo contract. The current Volvo contract calls for Volvo to buy back the current fleet of police vehicles at the end of 2008. DISCUSSION: In August of 2007 staff from the Aspen Police Department visited Lindsay, California where a fleet of pre 2008 model yeaz Toyota Highlander Hybrid vehicles has been in use as patrol vehicles for 2 years. It is the only location in the U.S. that staff has been able to determine, where a police department is using a 4x4 hybrid SUV that includes an almost complete police equipment package (emergency lights, siren, radaz, radio etc.) This is important, as a critical factor in the implementation of such a fleet is the ability of a hybrid vehicle to support the amperage draw from police electrical equipment. As a result of that visit, staff now has sufficient information to believe that this specific hybrid vehicle may function safely as a police patrol vehicle. While some problems such as dead Page I of 3 batteries, and poorly functioning radar units have been encountered by Lindsay, we believe we may be able to overcome these issues and a trial phase will help us work through this. With the change over of the police fleet scheduled for the end of 2008, the police department now sees an opportunity to take the next step in transitioning to a hybrid police fleet. Prior to taking this step, the police department needs to be sure that a hybrid fleet will function safely. The intent of this purchase is to provide for a short trial phase where one vehicle can be installed with police electrical equipment that minors that of the current fleet. That vehicle can then be driven and used as a marked police vehicle to ensure that the equipment and vehicle function as they should, and to work out the inevitable "bugs" in the systems. This will also give us the opportunity to see to what degree actual fuel consumption decreases. If the trial is successful, the contract attached to this memo provides for the additional supply of vehicles to replace the entire police fleet (9 additional vehicles). If the trial is unsuccessful, the police department will retain the installed equipment as spare parts for repairs, and will either transition the vehicle to an unmarked police car with a lesser quantity of emergency equipment, or offer the vehicle to another city department wishing to purchase one. A consideration in conducting this trial is the cost to purchase and install police equipment for this vehicle which is approximately $22,000. The equipment needs to be identical to that which is currently installed, because when the fleet is exchanged, that equipment will be retained and used in the new fleet. To purchase different makes or models of equipment would render the trial redundant. FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: • Trial Hybrid Patrol Vehicle Highlander cost: (funding exists in the "Fleet" budget) $35,392.00 If the trial is successful, this vehicle will become one of the replacement vehicles for the police fleet. Funds have been appropriated for the police fleet replacement. If the trial is unsuccessful, this vehicle will either remain in the police fleet as an unmarked vehicle with a lesser level of electrical emergency equipment installed or it can be sold to another department wishing to purchase it. • Police Equipment and installation One time appropriation: $22,000.00 This appropriation is not currently funded. The alternatives are to either use carry forward savings from the 2007 fleet budget, or to approve a 2008 supplemental request into either the police or fleet budgets. This memo does not seek a response on the question of the equipment and installation funding. However, the information is provided so that the full cost of the project is disclosed. Page 2 of 3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: There are potentially significant impacts if the trial project is successful. The possibility exists of an increase in fuel efficiency of 100% (or more) for the Police Department fleet. The trial itself will increase fuel consumption for the Police Department as this vehicle would be a temporary addition to the fleet. This appropriation could directly and positively impact the City's Canary Initiative, as well as lead the way nationally in the transition to hybrids for police department fleets. ACTION: Police Department staff recommends the adoption of this item on the consent agenda. ALTERNATIVES: While there is risk associated with this proposal, it is difficult to see any other practical alternative other than to wait until vehicle manufacturers produce a dedicated police hybrid vehicle. This may occur in the next two years, but there is no certainty that this will happen. If the trial is unsuccessful, the risk is that the vehicle will not be used as originally intended, however, it can still be used. There is some financial risk in the loss in value of installing the police equipment into a vehicle that ultimately does not work for us. The equipment itself is still of value to the police department. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ATTACHMENTS: ~S Page 3 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. Series of 2008 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND Bi orn Toyota , AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID DOCUMENT(S) ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a CONTRACT between the City of Aspen, Colorado and ,B1Q Hom Toyota_ a copy of which contract is annexed hereto and made a part thereof. NOW, WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section One That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that CONTRACT between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and Bighorn Tovota a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager of the City of Aspen to execute said contract on behalf of the City of Aspen. Dated: .2008 Mick Ireland Mayor SUPPLY PROCUREMENT AGREEMENT CITY OF ASPEN BID NO. 2007-19FM THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into, this 19~' day in December of 2007, by and between the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereinafter referred to as the "City" and Bighorn Tovota .hereinafter referred to as the "Vendor." WITNESSETH, that whereas the City wishes to purchase, One (1) Silver Tovota Hiohlander Hybrid Hereinafter called the UNIT(S), in accordance with the terms and conditions outlined in the Contract Documents and any associated Specifications, and Vendor wishes to sell said UNIT to the City as specified in its Bid. NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the Vendor, for the considerations hereinafter set forth, agree as follows: 1. Purchase. Vendor agrees to sell and City agrees to purchase the UNIT(S) as described in the Contract Documents and more specifically in Vendor's Bid for the sum of _ Thirty Five Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Two and no cents dollars ($ 35.392.00 ). 2. Option to purchase. In addition, Vender agrees to sell and the City of Aspen may agree to purchase up to (~ units of the same quality and specifications as the vehicles that are the subject of the agreement for the sum of ($ 35.392.00 )per unit: During the Six month period following the date of this agreement. 3. Delive . (FOB 1080 POWER PLANT RD. ASPEN, CO.) 4. Contract Documents. This Agreement shall include all Contract Documents as the same are listed in the Invitation to Bid and said Contract Documents are hereby made a part of this Agreement as if fully set out at length herein. 5. Warranties. A full description of all warranties associated with this purchase shall accompany this contract document. 6 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement and all of the covenants hereof shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the City and the Vendor respectively and their agents, representatives, employee, successors, assigns. and legal representatives. Neither the City nor the Vendor shall have the right to assign, transfer or sublet its interest or obligations hereunder without the written consent of the other party. 7. Third Parties. This Agreement does not and shall not be deemed or construed to confer upon or grant to any third party or parties, except to parties to whom Vendor or City may assign this Agreement in accordance with the specific written permission, any rights to claim damages or to bring any suit, action or other proceeding against either the City or Vendor because of any 7-PORCH.DOC breach hereof or because of any of the terms, covenants, agreements or conditions herein contained. 8. Waivers. No waiver of default by either party of any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof to be performed, kept and observed by the other party shall be construed, or operate as, a waiver of any subsequent default of any of the terms, covenants or conditions herein contained, to be performed, kept and observed by the other party. 9. Agreement Made in Colorado. The parties agree that this Agreement was made in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and shall be so construed. Venue is agreed to be exclusively in the courts of Pitkin County, Colorado. 10. Attorney's Fees. In the event that legal action is necessary to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its costs and reasonable attorney's fees. 11. Waiver of Presumption. This Agreement was negotiated and reviewed through the mutual efforts of the parties hereto and the parties agree that no construction shall be made or presumption shall arise for or against either party based on any alleged unequal status of the parties in the negotiation, review or drafting of the Agreement. 12. Certification Regarding Debarment. Suspension. Ineligibility. and Voluntary Exclusion. Vendor certifies, by acceptance of this Agreement, that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from participation in any transaction with a Federal or State department or agency. It further certifies that prior to submitting its Bid that it did include this clause without modification in all lower tier transactions, solicitations, proposals, contracts and subcontracts. In the event that vendor or any lower tier participant was unable to certify to this statement, an explanation was attached to the Bid and was determined by the City to be satisfactory to the City. 13. Warranties Against Contingent Fees. Gratuities. Kickbacks and Conflicts of Interest. Vendor warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to solicit or secure this Contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Vendor for the purpose of securing business. Vendor agrees not to give any employee or former employee of the City a gratuity or any offer of employment in connection with any decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, preparation of any part of a program requirement or a purchase request, influencing the content of any specification or procurement standard, rendering advice, investigation, auditing, or in any other advisory capacity in any proceeding or application, request for ruling, determination, claim or controversy, or other particular matter, pertaining to this Agreement, or to any solicitation or proposal therefor. Vendor represents that no official, officer, employee or representative of the City during the term of this Agreement has or one (1) year thereafter shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof, except those that may have been disclosed at the time City Council approved the execution of this Agreement. 7-PURCH.DOC In addition to other remedies it may have for breach of the prohibitions against contingent fees, gratuities, kickbacks and conflict of interest, the City shall have the right to: 1. Cancel this Purchase Agreement without any liability by the City; 2. Debar or suspend the offending parties from being a vendor, contractor or sub-contractor under City contracts; 3. Deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the value of anything transferred or received by the Vendor; and 4. Recover such value from the offending parties. 13. Termination for Default or for Convenience of City. The sale contemplated by this Agreement may be cancelled by the City prior to acceptance by the City whenever for any reason and in its sole discretion the City shall determine that such cancellation is in its best interests and convenience. 14. Fund Availability. Financial obligations of the City payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise made available. If this Agreement contemplates the City utilizing state or federal funds to meet its obligations herein, this Agreement shall be contingent upon the availability of of those funds for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 15. City Council Approval. If this Agreement requires the City to pay an amount of money in excess of $10,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid until it has been approved by the City Council of the City of Aspen. 16. Non-Discrimination. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry, handicap, or religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform under this Agreement. Vendor agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, section 13-98, pertaining to non- discrimination in employment. Vendor further agrees to comply with the letter and the spirit of the Colorado Antidiscrimination ACt of 1957, as amended, and other applicable state and federal laws respecting discrimination and unfair employment practices. 17. Integration and Modification. This written Agreement along with all Contract Documents shall constitute the contract between the parties and supersedes or incorporates any prior written and oral agreements of the parties. In addition, vendor understands that no City official or employee, other than the Mayor and City Council acting as a body at a council meeting, has authority to enter into an Agreement or to modify the terms of the Agreement oh behalf of the City. Any such Agreement or modification to this Agreement must be in writing and be executed by the parties hereto. 7-PURCH.DOC 18. Authorized Representative. The undersigned representative of Vendor, as an inducement to the City to execute this Agreement, represents that he/she is an authorized representative of Vendor for the purposes of executing this Agreement and that he/she has full and complete authority to enter into this Agreement for the terms and conditions specified herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The City and the Vendor, respectively have caused this Agreement to be duly executed the day and year first herein written in three (3) copies, all of which, to all intents and purposes, shall be considered as the original. FOR THE CITY OF ASPEN: By: City Manager ATTEST: City Clerk VENDOR: ~~ (~ 6E-~RJJ `_~1 gy: L Title. ~ ~1.~ 7-PURCH.DOC v~.~- MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: THRU: DATE OF MEMO: MEETING DATE: RE: Mayor and City Council Tim Ware, Director of Parking Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager January 4, 2008 January 14, 2008 Hand Held Citation Units Replacement REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The Transportation and Parking Department is requesting the approval of the attached contract between the City of Aspen and T2 Systems for the replacement of 10 hand held citation issuing units. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council approved the funds for these units within the 2007 asset management plan. BACKGROUND: The Parking Department uses an automated ticket management system that makes use of hand held ticket writers. These units are critical for enforcement of the city's parking management plan. The hand held units issue tickets, keep track of permits, provide event management and contain current scofflaw lists. DISCUSSION: The Parking Department has been using the current hand held units for four years and the units have reached the end of their useful life. The units are starting to fail on a regular basis and are ready to be replaced. FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: The hand held units are proposed at $39,748.75 that includes all equipment and on-site installation. If we were not to use the automated system, it would require another full time employee to perform all the data entry required with hand-written tickets and the officers' efficiency in the field would decline. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Using an automated system cuts down on the amount of paper used compared to hand-written tickets. The automated system only requires one piece of Page 1 of 2 paper for the ticket whereas hand written tickets require an office copy to allow data entry and filing. RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Transportation and Parking Department recommends that the City Council approve the contract for ten new hand held units between the City of Aspen and T2 Systems. ALTERNATIVES: Council could postpone the replacement of the units. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution #~on the consent calendar." CITY MANAGER ~J Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION #~' (Series of 2008) A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND T2 SYSTEMS SETTING FORTH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REGARDING HAND HELD PARKING TICKET WRITERS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and T2 Systems, a copy of which contract is annexed hereto and made a part thereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that contract between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and T2 Systems regarding hand held parking ticket writers, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager of the City of Aspen to execute said contract on behalf of the City of Aspen. Dated: 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 I~IVA~~ ~ ~, ~~ Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk SUPPLY PROCUREMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into, this 10th day of December 2007 between the City of Aspen, Colorado, herein after referred to as the "City" and T2 Systems hereinafter referred to as the "Vendor". WITNESSETH, that whereas the City wishes to purchase to handheld ticket writing units and accessories hereinafter called the UNIT(S) being more fully described and attached herewith as 'Exhibit A', in accordance with the terms and conditions outlined in the Contract Documents and any associated Specifications, and Vendor wishes to sell said UNIT to the City as specified in its Bid. NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the Vendor, for the considerations hereinafter set forth agree as follows: 1. Purchase. Vendor agrees to sell and City agrees to purchase the UNIT(S) as described in the Contract Document and more specifically in Vendor's Bid for the sum of Forty Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Seven Dollars and Seventy Five ($40,467.75). 2. Delive (FOB 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET, ASPEN, CO 8161 1) 3. Contract Documents. This Agreement shall include all Contract Documents as the same are listed in the Invitation to Bid and said Contract Document are hereby made a part of this Agreement as if fully set out at length herein. 4. Warranties. Manufacturer's warranty applies to the first year. Extended warranty purchased for hardware maintenance (without imager) starting in year 2. 5. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement and all of the covenants hereof shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the City and the Vendor respectively and their agents, representatives, employee, successors, assigns and legal representatives. Neither the City nor the Vendor shall have the right to assign, transfer or sublet its interest or obligations hereunder without the written consent of the other party. b. Third Parties. This Agreement does not and shall not be deemed or construed to confer upon or grant to any third party or parties, except to parties to whom Vendor or City may assign this Agreement in accordance with the specific written permission, any right to claim damages or to bring any suit, action or other proceeding against either the City or Vendor because of any breach hereof or because of any of the terms, covenants, agreements or conditions herein contained. 7. Waivers. No waiver of default by either party of any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof to be performed, kept and observed by the other party shall be construed, or operate as, a waiver of any subsequent default of any of the terms, covenants or conditions herein contained, to be performed, kept and observed by the other party. 8. Aareement Made in Colorado. The parties agree that this Agreement was made in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and shall be so construed. Venue is agreed to be exclusively in the courts of Pitkin County, Colorado. 9. Attornev's Fees. In the event that legal action is necessary to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its costs and reasonable attorney's fees. 10. Waiver of Presumption. This Agreement was negotiated and reviewed through the mutual efforts of the parties hereto and the parties agree that no construction shall be made or presumption shall arise for or against either party based on any alleged unequal status of the parties in the negotiation, review or drafting of the Agreement. 11.Certification Reaardina Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility, and Voluntary Exclusion. Vendor certifies, by acceptance of this Agreement, that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from participation in any transaction with a Federal or State department or agency. It further certifies that prior to submitting its Bid that it did include this clause without modification in all lower tier transactions, solicitations, proposals, contracts and subcontracts. In the event that Vendor or any lower tier participant was unable to certify to the statement, an explanation was attached to the Bid and was determined by the City to be satisfactory to the City. 12. Warranties Against Contingent Fees Gratuities Kickbacks and Conflicts of Interest. Vendor warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to solicit or secure this Contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Vendor for the purpose of securing business. Vendor agrees not to give any employee of the City a gratuity or any offer of employment in connection with any decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, preparation of any part of a program requirement or a purchase request, influencing the content of any specification or procurement standard, rendering advice, investigation, auditing, or in any other advisory capacity in any proceeding or application, request for ruling, determination, claim or controversy, or other particular matter, pertaining to this Agreement, or to any solicitation or proposal therefore. Vendor represents that no official, officer, employee or representative of the City during the term of this Agreement has or one (1) year thereafter shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof, except those that may have been disclosed at the time City Council approved the execution of this Agreement. In addition to other remedies it may have for breach of the prohibitions against contingent fees, gratuities, kickbacks and conflict of interest, the City shall have the right to: 1. Cancel this Purchase Agreement without any liability by the City; 2. Debar or suspend the offending parties from being a vendor, contractor or subcontractor under City contracts; 3. Deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the value of anything transferred or received by the Vendor; and 4. Recover such value from the offending parties. 13.Termination for Default or for Convenience of Citv. The sale contemplated by this Agreement may be canceled by the City prior to acceptance by the City whenever for any reason and in its sole discretion the City shall determine that such cancellation is in its best interests and convenience. 14. Fund Availability. Financial obligations of the City payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise made available. If this Agreement contemplates the City utilizing state or federal funds to meet its obligations herein, this Agreement shall be contingent upon the availability of those funds for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 15.City Council Approval. If this Agreement requires the City to pay an amount of money in excess of $25,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid until it has been approved by the City Council of the City of Aspen. 1 b.Non-Discrimination. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry, handicap, or religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform under this Agreement. Vendor agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, section 13-98, pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. Vendor further agrees to comply with the letter and the spirit of the Colorado Antidiscrimination Act of 1957, as amended, and other applicable state and federal laws respecting discrimination and unfair employment practices. 17.Intearation and Modification. This written Agreement along with all Contract Documents shall constitute the contract between the parties and supersedes or incorporates any prior written and oral agreements of the parties. In addition, vendor understands that no City official or employee, other than the Mayor and City Council acting as a body at a council meeting, has authority to enter into an Agreement or to modify the terms of the Agreement on behalf of the City. Any such Agreement or modification to this Agreement must be in writing and be executed by the parties hereto. 18.Authorized Representative. The undersigned representative of Vendor, as an inducement to the City to execute this Agreement, represents that he/she is an authorized representative of Vendor for the purposes of executing this Agreement and that he/she has full and complete authority to enter into this Agreement for the terms and conditions specified herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The City and the Vendor, respectively have caused this Agreement to be duly executed the day and year first herein written in three (3) copies, all of which, to all intents and purposes, shall be considered as the original. FOR THE CITY OF ASPEN: By: ATTEST: City Clerk VENDOR: sy: ~~ ~~~t ~~~~,~~ Title City Manager Exhibit "A" ® T2 Sya2el21s • ConfidmHal QholaHhn For ary aAepen OuPb Data: 1DJD/ND] t:XpAS: 122 ] !111}0! I OudeID: FM1028D]1123 I 3 ~, MNww IYFYnmu:bb2l11vAtlM YtIMr S ]19.a unhpx MarfMF In MV 1. u MNrm I44bm:u:2ob2211wM IwNVIMrinlt S TOAO nrwmctatln4 M wa I. La L5 Tar: s Nmm Ia SYalama Ma main rnry a1lPh M Inaw mN W INaww Mfpmlatlm n W M DY CN PlAapm pblalling (c wWatIMaDMAA DaNMw lne lmpNmanbhmr avrvlow MDwn lrblume M IIW OINtetlpll. Plww MeM Mh punhbn mMUtlY mnpna N ropmvMV IM mwtwoulM INPlmalbn poatlDN. $Mpplq Uuryee pmH]aea0aro an an w11nM AWaI aDlppMp cmtrW Ee DINtl.lfm Mlppllp Mmpaa Mro bnn pwvtleealeA aHUYaDppIN matt!!! aWl Da DNhi. Iwwlenrt anm whmM ArtwlMwlPwb rW bDYlp. tt 3YmwYMaaapNmea hmaan Iwl al m. PmgrwaNlllp Dwla. IMa mmna Mal tt SYf Wna r1111:vokP Imgoaa aq wrvMax eNlvnq. wm ewltpmaneawbaw DYNe NZUp MtM Vlm epxeue open eallrary R SYbm.lm'. 1us wo9mn5 gM., suM no NCNnoIm, hEbw 162]5 ]1}3146500 rn ]113 145 5 01 V14 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk DATE: January 8, 2008 RE: Kids First Board The Kids First Board is anon-binding board with the mission and goals as outlined on the attached information sheet. The members listed below have been serving on the board without official Council appointment for the past 6 to 14 months. Shirley Ritter, executive director of Kids' First, requests Council affirm these appointments. I attached their applications. By adopting the consent calendar, Council is appointing Scott Garcia, Jodie Nelson, Katherine Sand, Nell Strijbos-Arthur, Ned Ryerson and Austin Weiss to Kids' First Board. Kids First Advisory Board Kids First Mission Promote the availability of quality, affordable early childhood care & education; Provide access to childcare information and resources. Kids First Goals 1. Increase the quality of early childhood education and care. 2. Maintain affordability of programs and provide information regarding the true cost of childcare. 3. Increase and maintain the availability of childcare programs. 4. Increase public education and awareness about the importance of early childhood education. 5. Support the recruitment and retention of qualified early childhood education teachers. appointed term Julie Markalunas Hall 2002 2010 Erlinda Morehead 2002 2008 Austin Weiss 2006 2009 Debbie Braun 2002 2008 Scott Garcia 2007 2010 Jodie Nelson 2007 2010 Katherine Sand 2006 2009 Nell Strijbos-Arthur 2007 2010 Ned Ryerson 2007 2010 Enabling Legislation Established by Aspen City Council upon voter approval of ordinance 81, series of 1989 Powers and Duties A. Develop annual and long-term goals which further the mission of Kids First Board B. Recommend projects, programs and funding to Aspen City Council C. Review and Recommend grants to childcare programs D. Advocate for Kids First and its' programs E. Attend monthly scheduled meetings and assist in the collaborative efforts of these meetings which promote the goals of Kids First. Meetings Held the first Friday of each month at Community Bank of Aspen at 9:00 AM. Kids First Board is staffed by Shirley Ritter, Executive Director. Membership Qualification -Broad cross section of the community that represents various interests from staffing, business, parents, childcare providers and individuals. No residency requirement Term - 3 years Number - 8 to 12 CCBoardsCommF'RM Page 1 of 1 ~~:"~ APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OR COMMISSIONS NAME S~oTT ~ • 4~-idt STREET ADDRESS __ Sso rLl/rr.2sio~ C~~-. lL~+s,g~- _ c_-o X3'6 3-/ MAILING ADDRESS HOMEPHONEIFAX WORK PHONF. /FAX ~yZ BOARD OR COMMISSION FOR WHICH APPLICATION IS MADE: ** Planning & Zoning Commission Boazd of Adjustment Board of Examiners & Appeal ** Historic Preservation Commission Wheeler Board of Directors Clean Air Advisory Board Commercial Core & Lodging Roaring Fork Transit Agency Housing Authority Liquor License Authority Child Caze Advisory Committee Asset Planning Commission k'J i of ~/v~-ofr5 -krGS !~/~sT ** IF YOU ARE APPLYING FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OR P & Z, PLEASE ATTACH A BRIEF STATEMENT ADDRESSING YOUR GENERAL PHILOSOPHY ON: l.) Aspen Area Community Plan - on which aspects you may agree or disagree 2.) Growth in Aspen and the Aspen Area 3.) Affordable I-lousing EMPLOYMENT PREVIOUS TWO YEARS: T/Is-.sE.GU.~/rc ~~./fG STREET ADDRESS PREVIOUS TWO YEARS: S.4~s-~ As .q~3ov~ INVESTMENTS AND/OR LAND HOLDINGS IN PITKIN COUNTY: n/o~E I DESIRE THE APPOINTMENT FOR THE FOLLOWING REA50NS:~l~Pc+~rY.~/mar rt, .gtsis~ iN 7}f~_ SIGN DATE: Z - Z'3 •o '7 file:!/C:\Documents and Settings\SCgarcia\L.ocal Settings\Temporary Internet FilesIOLKC\... 2!"23/3(107 APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OR CONIMISSIONS NAME STREET ADDRESS MAILING ADDRESS HOME PHONE / FAX ~ qZ~~-' PHONE /FAX fj~{y -1 81 `~ BOARD OR COMMISSION FOR WHICH APPLICATION IS MADE: Child Caze Advisory Committee EMPLOYMENT PREVIOUS TWO YEARS: pe~h Yn ~~b s S~ c` ~Cu ~ s-~ TREE ADDRESS PREVIOUS TWO YEARS: ~ ~ -rl'^h ~-YU» s e ~c7 , ~1 ! INVESTMENTS AND/OR LAND HOLDINGS IN PITKIN COUNTY: ~;,~~ home- addv~3~ pr aide, I DESIRE THE APPOINTMENT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 7~ ~ v~Do~ded ~~~ ~ ca,~`~~ ~~ ~~,~ c~-~ ~ 5k ~I'U y~r dS -1-~ ,7~- S~~tif4 ~a,-1~- ~.~us+~~S i C~J~s~ ~U a,Urtuv ~ ate' , .z~C , E: _ DATE: ~ ~~~~~ ~I ~ 3~i ~ ~ -I to City of Aspen -Kids First Phone: 920-5363, Fax: 920-5407 215 North Garmisch, Suite 1, Aspen, CO 81611 `jadie N~sDv~ X41 P~~n Trop ~. f~S/~O, l'a- X14+~ Print Form Jan 18 06 07:57p Katherine Sand +1 970 920 0103 p.l CITY OF ASPEN APPOINTMENT APPLICATION NAME I<AiliEf2~N= 5~'cN(~ STREET ADDRESS 120 So u~+ ~o S~~i /{SP~+~I MAILING ADDRESS P~ o . L,oX <, I /h SP E-rl R 16 12 HOME PHONE /FAX °I 20 o I o'~ WORK PHONE 1-Fi4~C" °14 ~ S 12g ~ 920 oos 3 BOARD OR COMMISSION FOR WHICH APPLICATION IS MADE: "'' Planning & Zoning Commission Board of Adjustment Board of Examiners & Appeal "* Historic Preservation Commission Wheeler Board of Directors Clean Air Advisory Board Commercial Core & Lodging Roaring Fork Transit Agency Housing Authority Liquor License Authority Child Care Advisory Committee Asset Planning Commission ** IF YOU ARE APPLYING FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OR P 8~ Z, PLEASE ATTACH A BRIEF STATEMENT ADDRESSING YOUR GENERAL PHILOSOPHY ON: 1.) Aspen Area Community Plan - on which aspects you may agree or disagree 2.) Growth in Aspen and the Aspen Area 3.) Affordable Housing EMPLOYMENT PREVIOUS TWO YEARS: STAY AT IoM[- Mo fit. STREET ADDRESS PREVIOUS TWO 120 So V i l'4 2""~ INVESTMENTS ANDIOR LANDHOLDINGS IN PITKIN COUNTY: ,v Please return to Aspen City Clerks Office, 130 S. Galena Si. Aspen, CO 81612, Fax: 920-5199 I desire the appointment for the following reasons: AS ~f ''101~'I~ °~ ~ `"" rJ APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OR COMMISSIONS NAME N e I I ~~'.i 6~5- ~ STREET ADDRESS ~ 35 Low-e/4~azl~r':.l-~ f~F#IIG~ MAILING ADDRESS ~~~ ~ ~~~ '~ HOME PHONE /FAX Q d 3- a. ~ ~ ~ WORK PHONE /FAX 5 ~~'f i r}o BOARD OR COMMISSION FOR WHICH APPLICATION IS MADE: Child Care Advisory Committee EMPLOYMENT PREVIOUS TWO YEARS: STREET ADDRESS PREVIOUS TWO YEARS: S A-w-~. INVESTMENTS AND/OR LAND HOLDINGS IN PITKIN COUNTY: Scrr-o t'i' Ceti--off'' ~h.a~*-f +3 V; I I -~,t, I DESIRE THE APPOINTMENT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: SIGNATURE: DATE: `~' !~ O P ease re n to ity of Aspen -Kids First Phone: 920-5363, Fax: 920-5407 215 North Garmisch, Suite 1, Aspen, CO 81611 Submit by Email Print Form CITY OF ASPEN APPOINTMENT APPLICATION STREET ADDRESS *~~ ~ ~4/~~Si2f~ , Ur, 7-Sri, MAILING ADDRESS 5aN?Z- HOME PHONE 4z7°36t 6 WORK PHONE CELL PHONE 9<!~_ggo 7 E-MAIL BOARD OR COMMISSION FOR WHICH APPLICATION IS MADE: +** Planning & Zoning Commission + Board of Adjustment Board of Examiners & Appeal +** Historic Preservation Commission Wheeler Board of Directors Commercial Core 8 Lodging + Roaring Fork Transit Agency + Housing Authority + Liquor License Authority ~~ Child Care Advisory Committee + Open Space Advisory Board ** HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OR P 8 Z APPLICANTS, PLEASE ATTACH A BRIEF STATEMENT ADDRESSING YOUR GENERAL PHILOSOPHY ON: 1.) Aspen Area Community Plan - on which aspects you may agree or disagree 2.) Growth in Aspen and the Aspen Area 3.) Affordable Housing + CITY RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT IS 1 YEAR IF SELF EMPLOYED, IDENTIFY NATURE OF EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENT PREVIOUS TWO YEARS: STREET ADDRESS PREVIOUS TWO ~S INVESTMENTS AND/OR LANDHOLDINGS IN PITKIN COUNTY: h~G1 N~J°~.-_ <(,(~Idv~-- CITY OF ASPEN d APPOINTMENT APPLICATION ~~[D NAME v `~'d-~ ~ ~ ¢, s s STREET ADDRESS t'i_ \ Y11: ~.,. ~. P ~,~ t< ~' ~ . s ~, C , -, ~ ~ b ~ ~ MAILING ADDRESS s0...._._ HOME PHONE /FAX 5titi - ~+'~-'>~ WORK PHONE /FAX ~1L4 -z~ z3 BOARD OR COMMISSION FOR WHICH APPLICATION IS MADE: *" Planning & Zoning Commission Board of Adjustment Board of Examiners & Appeal ** Historic Preservation Commission Wheeler Board of Directors `Clean Air Advisory Board Commercial Core & Lodging Roaring Fork Transit Agency Housing Authority Liquor License Authonty C:h~lci"CanrAdvisiV'y Corimiftee X Asset Planning Commission '"' IF YOU ARE APPLYING FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OR P & Z, PLEASE ATTACH A BRIEF STATEMENT ADDRESSING YOUR GENERAL PHILOSOPHY ON: 1.) Aspen Area Community Plan - on which aspects you may agree or disagree 2.) Growth in Aspen and the Aspen Area 3.) Affordable Housing .OYMENT PREVIOUS TWO YEARS: ~••'~ ~~' ~-s~.. ~r~.:~y C.oo~ ~~~~i r~.z ,. V ~ !lllaa C 1.c:: C.~b tv c ~ a' z c a. c. X11._ STREET ADDRESS PREVIOUS TWO YEARS: INVESTMENTS AND/OR LANDHOLDINGS IN PITKIN COUNTY: \1\ m;~~~~ ~~...-.lam ~'~. C~~rb~ I desire the ointment for the following -~ .~-. SIGNA' Please return to Aspen City Clerks Office,130 S. Galena St Aspeu, CO 81612, Fax: 920-5197 MEMORANDUM v~~~a TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Sara Adams, Preservation Planner THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ~,~ DATE OF MEMO: MEETING DATE: January 4, 2008 January 14, 2008 RE: 536 West North Street aka. Christ Episcopal Church, Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility, Second Reading of Ordinance # 49, Series of 2007 (Parcel 2735-121-11-808), continued from December ]0, 2007. On December ]0`h, City Council continued second reading of Ordinance #49, the Christ Episcopal Church request for Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility. Council continued the application to allow more time to reflect on the request. There have been no changes to the application or staff recommendation since December 10th. ATTACHMENTS: A -Recent letters from neighbors B-Staff~memo dated December 10, 2007. C -Growth Management Review Criteria for an Essential Public Facility . D -Planning and 7,oning Commission Resolution #23, Series of 2007. E -Planning and7.oning Commission Minutes, August 7, 2007 and Augusl 28, 2007 F-Planning and Zoning parking review, August 19, 1980 minutes G -Application ORDINANCE N0.49 (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 Depaztment 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 standazds, 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 9,158 squaze feet through the Conditional Use process, established a new off-street parking requirement through Special Review, approved certain Dimensional Vaziances, 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. 49, Series 2007, on First Reading by a three to zero (3 - 0) 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 recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Ordinance No. 49, Series 2007 Revised 1/4/2008 G:\ciry\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 standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standazds 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 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 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 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 azeas 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. 49, Series 2007 Revised l/4/2008 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: Parkins 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 Housins 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 standazds 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 cleaz 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. 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 sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage azeas must have approved containment facilities. , f. Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines. Ordinance No. 49, Series 2007 Revised 1/4/2008 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 Pazks 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 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 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 23, 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 necessazy to obtain a development order as set forth in this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a vested property right, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 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.49 Series of 2007, of the Aspen City Council. Ordinance No. 49, Series 2007 Revised 1/4/2008 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 shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 17• A public heazing on the ordinance was held on the l0ei 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 , 2008. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney Ordinance No. 49, Series 2007 Revised 1/4/2008 G:\city\Sazaa\christ episcopal church\churchOrdinance.doc Page 5 of 5 Page 1 of 1 Sara Adams ~~~t~~- From: Falenders [falender@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 9:59 PM To: Sara Adams Subject: Christ Episcopal Church Dear Sara, We continue to seek common ground between the Church, the neighbors, and the City. At the City Council hearing, the Church again noted their view that the large deciduous tree in the front yard prevents them from moving the building forward, out of the rear yard setback. Mayor Ireland even stated something to the effect, not necessarily an exact quote, "I guess we are stuck with the tree". While we believe the Church can function quite well with a smaller building, those comments at the Council meeting led me to read, on line, the Municipal Code section regarding tree removal. I assume the Church filed a permit request to remove the tree, and the request was denied by the Parks Department? Did the Church file an appeal of the denial with the city manager as allowed in the code? If that was filed and denied, did they appeal to Council as also allowed by code? If the Council can authorize removal of the tree, and the Church can pull the buildings out of the rear setback, perhaps that would represent an imperfect but acceptable compromise to all parties. We are more concerned than ever about setbacks when the Church attorney answered the Mayor's question about a willingness to agree to no further expansion with a clear statement: no we cannot agree not to expand further. While none of us like to see trees removed, I point out two important considerations: 1)the view of the tree is significantly blocked by the two very large and beautiful evergreens in the front yard, and 2) if you refer to the "Old Photograph" on the cover of your Nov. 2, 2007 Staff memorandum to Council, you will note that all trees on the Church property, at some time after its construction in 1963, are newly planted. It is clear from the photo that the tree in question was planted no earlier than 1963, does not predate the Church, and is certainly not a tree from the mining era. Construction of the Church as proposed requires significant variances, and has resulted in dissension between the neighbors and the Church, and a legal appeal to Court. We believe in the overall scheme of this application, perhaps staff and Council should reevaluate the tree. Without City cooperation this compromise is impossible. Sara, I ask that you please forward a copy of this letter, and your response to me regarding the tree removal permit process, to Council. I hope maybe all parties can leave the Jan. 14, 2008 Council hearing reasonably satisfied. As always, thank you for your consideration. Steve Steve Falender 603 W. Gillespie St. Aspen 970-920-1816 1 /4/2008 Sara Adams Page 1 of 2 From: Chris Forman Sent: `Monday, December 17, 2007 11:02 AM To: Sara Adams Cc: Stephen Ellsperman; Brian Flynn Subject: RE: Christ Episcopal Church Sara, They have not submitted a tree removal permit application yet, therefore there has been no denial or approval of ANY trees at this time. They met with me to get a better understanding of which trees could possibly be removed. I have met with their team on site several times, and have verbally indicated that the large silver maple should remain, while others on the site would be candidates for removal. That was stated at our first meeting. Shortly after that initial contact, their team had several ideas of designs that would allow construction, while saving the tree. Here's how it works: They submit the tree removal application to the Parks Dept. I review it and prepare a permit that approves and/or denies removal of requested trees. The permit itself shows all reasoning behind the decisions made. The permit is then submitted to the Director of Parks for sign off. When we both sign the permit to allow trees to be removed, that's that. If we both sign the permit, denying a tree to be removed, they can appeal at that point if they are not able to redesign around the tree. The appeal goes to the City Manager's office. He will then overturn the Parks decision, agree with us, or send it to council. That decision is given in writing to the applicant via the City Manager's office. Chris Forman, City Forester 585 Cemetery Lane Aspen, Colorado 81611 970-920-5120 p 970-920-5128f chrisfrrDCi. asoen co us From: Sara Adams Sent: Monday, .December 17, 2007 9:08 AM To: Chris Forman Subject: FW: Christ Episcopal Church Good morning Chris: Could you read this email below about the Christ Episcopal Church and give me a little overview of the tree removal permit process? Thanks! Sara From: Falenders [mailto:falender@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 9:59 PM To: Sara Adams Subject: Christ Episcopal Church • • 1 /4/2008 ~~f~%7 To: Aspen City Council From: Neighbors of Christ Episcopal Church Date: December 7, 2007 ' Re: Christ Episcopal Church GMQS Review, December 10, 2007 As a neighbor of Christ Episcopal Church, I wish to state my opposition to the GMQS Application for the Christ Episcopal Church proposed expansion. Steve and Debbie Falender's letter to the Aspen City Councfl dated December 7, 2007 expresses my feelings regazding this excessive expansion_ I concur and support the Falender's analysis and conclusions. Thank you for reviewing this application. Print Name Address Signature G'~,~~i~L~- s ~~ L Cis s S~ ! av, GI~L~sp~~ ,/ ~~l~r Jo r, ~~us ra v ~ ~1~, ` ~~ ~ru~ ~a j G!' ~~~~. S~ ~ `~-`~i ~ ~ ~~ -, I , ~\ A r, o /~ /1 I l ~g R l<i-} L u /J As ~,; ~ ;-r~-~~c c~ i l' 1rz~;~~~al~~~~- ~ -Z~f u . ` ~ ~ i1 _- • 7 ~ ~o w ~o nth fit, _ ~ Sys ~ ~ I1 ~•~-~~ ~~~ . C.hc-is il`k' Ckc,ri'~ienc2sl--`~o (o ~e~• ca tr1•'~~q(eu-St; ~ro t ~~~ ~~~ ~~, 3~~ S ~ u~c, 3i ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ c~riEF~~;~ ~~. ~~~~,~~~ ~ ~ N~~ ~ ~~ ~~ 3 ~~~t~ A~ To: Aspen City Council From: Neighbors of Christ Episcopal Church Date: December 7. 2007 Re: Christ Episcopal Church GMQS Review, December 10, 2007 We are writing in regard to the Christ Episcopal Church (Church) Application for GMQS review. We are neighbors of the Church. We ask Council to grant the Church's GMQS application on the condition that the proposed expansion be reduced to the minimum size necessary to accomplish the Church's stated purposes of energy efficiency, building code compliance, and accessibility. As you well know, this a growth management (GMQS) review application, and the purpose of GMQS review is to ensure that new growth occurs in an orderly and efficient manner, is designed to maintain the character and ambiance of the City of Aspen, and implements the AACP's goals and policies. GMQS review asks the Council to determine whether a proposed development is consistent with the AACP, and the AACP says in the section on design standards that a building should be built in context with its surroundings. We have no doubt that the Church provides benefits to the community, and that its programs are therefore consistent with the AACP. However, GMQS review, being about impacts on growth and development, as well as community benefits, is the place where Council can evaluate the context and compatibility of a proposed expansion. The Church provides beneficial programs today in its current size, and can continue to do so with a more modest expansion. _ Staff concludes that the proposed expansion is compatible with and sensitive to the context of the residential neighborhood. We do not agree. The expansion is too extensive, too large, and way out of context with the R-6 neighborhood in which it is located. In its November 2 memo to Council, staff describes the extent of the Church's proposed expansion with only one set of numbers (noting a proposed floor area increase from 7118 sf to 9000 sf). We think that other numbers better describe the extent of this very significant expansion proposal. Expansion, using numbers From existing To proposed % INCREASE from the Nov. 2 staff memo Increase in FAR of both buildings from 7118 sf to 9000 sf 26% on the site -the church building and the rectory (although no modification or expansion of the rectory is proposed Church GMQS Letter, page 1 ~~~ December 7, 2007 ~~ Consider the following: Expansion, using numbers From existing To proposed % INCREASE from other documents and approximate approximate plans in the file. (Numbers are approximate because they seem to be changing as the architect verifies dimensions. Increase in FAR of the church from 4322 sf to 6176 sf 42% building alone, without the rectory (because the rectory is not being modified or ex anded Increase in actual square footage from 5792 sf to 9000 sf 55% of the church building, not includin the recto Increase in percentage of lot from 28% to 40% 43% covers e Proposed lot coverage compared allowed 27% proposed 40% 50% greater to lot coverage allowed in the coverage than neighborhood on a lot the size of allowed in the the Church's lot. nei hborhood Proposed FAR compared to the allowed 4470 sf proposed 9000 101 % The FAR allowed in the neighborhood sf buildings as on a lot the size of the Church's proposed are lot. 2x as large as allowed in the nei hborhood. Proposed rear setback compared to rear setback re uired in the 10' required. 5' proposed neighb_o_rhood ______ It is hard to imagine that an expansion of the magnitude indicated in the table above could be considered "in context" and "compatible" in a neighborhood where no other property would be allowed to come anywhere close to the FAR, floor area, lot coverage, or setback exception as proposed by the Church. The Church states, and the staff confirms in the staff memo, that the Church has no intent to increase its programs or its membership. The Church states that it needs to expand its building in order to increase energy efficiency, comply with the building codes, and improve accessibility. We believe that all of these purposes are laudable. However, the Church has presented absolutely no verifiable information relating the additional space to codes, energy efficiency, or accessibility. Common sense suggests that these goals can be accomplished with a much smaller impact on the neighborhood. Church GMQS Letter, page 2 December 7, 2007 _, ~~ A. No one in the neighborhood would receive approval for an addition so in excess of neighborhood zoning rules. We do not see why the fact that the Church is a Church would give it greater rights in this case. There is a federal statute, the RLUIPA, that limits the government's power to impose or implement land use regulations that impose a substantial burden on religious exercise. However, rules and regulations imposing a burden on religion that is less than a substantial burden may and should be applied to churches and other religious entities the same as to anyone else. We certainly don't see how a slightly less expanded community room and a slightly less expanded sanctuary could in any way be deemed a substantial burden on the Church's religious undertakings. We bring up RLUIPA because it was discussed at P&Z. If Council has concerns about the effect of RLUIPA, we hope you will consider carefully the precedent-setting implications of approving a development proposal that effectively and substantially waives all applicable neighborhood zoning rules. We think that precedent-setting is a concern because RLUIPA also prohibits unequal treatment and discrimination on the basis of religion or religious denomination. In short, we ask that you evaluate this proposal in the same careful process that you would use to consider a request from any neighbor to expand a building in excess of the codes. We believe you would require any of us to protect the "scale, massing, and character" of our neighborhood (a goal stated in the AACP) and to build structures of a size appropriate to the specific land they occupy. Furthermore, to the extent that the original church building has historic significance (a consideration consistently mentioned in staff memos), a more modest expansion would better preserve the historic look of the building. In conclusion, we ask that you approve only the expansion that can be proven necessary for accessibility, energy efficiency, and code compliance, and that you give very little weight to expansion that is simply a preference or a dream for a bigger building. This is consistent with the GMQS goals of efficient and orderly growth and the context and compatibility goals of the AACP. Thank you for your consideration. ~`~E Steve and Debbi Falender 603 W. Gillespie St. Church GMQS Letter, page 3 December 7, 2007 ~~~ . MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Sara Adams, Preservation Planner THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director DATE OF MEMO: November 30, 2007 MEETING DATE: December 10, 2007 RE: 536 West North Street aka. Christ Episcopal Church, Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility, Second Reading of Ordinance # 49, Series of 2007 (Parcel 2735-121-11- 808) REQUEST OF COUNCIL: 536 West North Street requests Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility. BACKGROUNll: • Proiect summary 536 West North Street, commonly known as Christ Episcopal Church, is located on the corner of Norh Street and North Fifth Street in the R-6 residential zone district. The applicant proposes to increase space for church services and update facilities by extending the existing "bonnet" structure and demolishing Old Photograph of 536 West North Street, built in and replacing the addition to the main 1963 by Chicago architecture 6rm Stanton and church building. 'Fhe floor area is Rockwell. proposed to increase from 7,118 square feet to 9,158 square feet. A primary reason for this application is Co increase energy efficiency, compliance with the Building Code and improve accessibility. • Lot history The F,piscopalian congregation has a long established history in Aspen beginning in 1881 during the Mining Era. The architecture of Christ Episcopal Church represents Modern EXHIBIT B Revised 1/7/2008 G:\city\Saraa\christepiscopalchurch\ehurchsecondreading.doc Page 1 of 4 philosophy prevalent during the "revival" of Aspen in the 1950s and 1960s lead by prominent Modern architects and theorists Walter Paepeke, 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 square 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 pazking 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 currently 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 azea from 7,118 square feet to 9,158 square feet; re-established parking requirements through the Special Review process; and granted rear yard 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 andI.oning 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 Episcopal Church is an Essential Public Facility4 because it serves both members and ~ 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. i On August 28, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commission adopted Resolution #23, Series of 2007 by a vote of 4 - I. Minutes from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting held on August 21, 2007 and August 28, 2007 aze attached as Exhibit C. 'Section 26.104.100 of the Land lJse 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." ° There is a precedent in Aspen fur religious organizations to be reviewed as essential public facilities. The most recent example is the Jewish Community Center development a[ 435 West Main Street, which received growth Management approval in 2006 as an essential public facility. EXHIBIT B Revised 1/7/2008 G:\city\Saraa\chrisi episcopal church\churchsecondreading.doc Page 2 of 4 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 reaz and demolish and replace the addition to the east. Staff finds that the proposed design is sensitive to the Modern architecture 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. T'he Church building has not been updated since the 1970s. Neighborhood Context: Council expressed concern regarding the impacts of the proposed development on the primarily residential West End neighborhood. The applicant has provided supplementary imagesb that illustrate the various studies conducted to reduce an adverse impact on the residential neighborhood. Staff finds that the one story mass proposed for the new addition and the connector piece between the old and new construction successfully breaks up the mass into different modules, thus reducing the impact of the development on neighboring parcels. Affordable Housing: 7 he band lJse Code establishes this as a separate review process largely because Essential Public Facilities are unique. A more typical growth management review focuses on employees generated from commercial and free mazket 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. Parking: Among the criteria for Growth Management Review as an Essential Public Facility is compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP), 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. 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 [o Ordinance #48, Series of 2007. s Exhibit E. Exhibit A compares the proposal with the goals in the AACP. EXHIBIT B Revised 1/7/2008 G:\city\Saraa\christcpiscopa]church\churchsecondreading.doc Page 3 of 4 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." PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance #49, Series of 2007 upon Second Reading." 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 7.oning parking review, August 19, 1980 minutes E-Application, supplementary illustrations EXHIBIT B Revised 1/7/2008 G:\city\Sazaa\christ episcopal church\churchsecondreading.doc Page 4 of 4 The development of an Essential Public Facility, upon a recommendation from the Planning and Loning 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 he 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 Modem 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 C 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 parking 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 are stacked) onsite, with eight spaces in abeyance with the condition that the City could require the iFnplementation 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 are unobstructed. The Planning and Zoning Commission established new parking 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 Buff dent 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 analyaed for its unique employee needs. The Clty Council may waive, or partially waive, affordable housing mitigation reguirements 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 aze two full-time employees and two part-time employees on staff; the two full-time employees are housed in the rectory. Staff finds that criterion d is not applicable, as no new employees are 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.('.6, unless otherwise restricded 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: "fhe proposal does not include a tree 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, Z Exhibit B. EXHIBIT C GMQS Review for an Essential Public Facility G:\city\Saraa\ehrist 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 C 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 NO.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 squaze 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 7,one 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 standazds, 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 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, WHF,REAS, the Aspen Planning and 7,oning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and. EXHIBIT D 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 standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Z..oning Commission finds that this resolution furthers 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: Dimensional Standards Pursuant to the procedures and standards set lorth 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 square feet to 9,000 square feet through the Conditional Use process, the establishment of new off street parking 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 7 ownsite of Aspen, CO. "fhe approved dimensional standards, floor azea, and off-street parking are indicated in the chart below under the heading, "proposed development": Table 1: The following dimensional variances are approved solely for the proposed redevelopment. Existing Development Proposed=_='? Development= Rear Yard Setback (feet) 10 ~ Site coverage o 28 ro a ~~."-}- 39,5 r_ Floor Area (square feet) 7, 118 "9,OOt~ ~~~_: Section 2: Conditional Use Amendment: The subject property is approved for a total of 9,000 square feet of floor azea 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: Buildine Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final City Council Ordinance and P&Z Resolution. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Department. EXHIBIT D P&7, 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 identificatio^ 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. Section 4: Special Review: Parking Requirements The subject property is approved to have four (4) parking spaces and one (1) stacked parking 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 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 8: Sanitation District Requirements a. Service is contingent upon compliance with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's (ACSll) rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. EXHIBIT D P& Z Resolution #23, Series of 2007 Page 3 of 5 b. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. c. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where sofr 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 dischazge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. £ Soi] Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines. g. Applicant's civil engineer will be reyuired 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 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. Phis 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 awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 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 Chis resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion EXHIBIT D P&l. 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 28s' 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 D P& Z Resolution #23, Series of 2007 Page 5 of 5 Aspen Planning & 7.Onldg Commission Meeting Minutes -August 7, 2007 COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2 MINLTTES ................................................................................................................. 2 LIFT ONE CONCEPTUAL TIMF,SHARE/PUD .................................................... 2 CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH GMQS AND OTHER LAND USE APPROVALS ............................................................................................................ 6 EXHIBIT E PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 7, 20 Aspen Planning & Zoninp,,,_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 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 E PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 7, 20076 Aspen Planning & 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 similar 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 [0 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 miriimum 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 ls` 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 E PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 7. 2007 7 Aspen Planning & ZOII1Rg Commission Meeting 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; sh'b 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. Arm 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 const~~~ k13&2aSS~~~es AUGUST 7, 2002 Aspen 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 21S`; David Guthrie seconded. All in favor, APPROVED. MOTION: LJ Erspamer moved to adjourn; seconded by David Guthrie; all in favor. Transcribed by: ~~C.e/ 6~-l~ ~t--.-v ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk EXHIBIT E PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 7, 20079 Asaen Plannine & Zonine Meeline Minutes Aueust 28 2007 COMMENTS ................... ............................ 2 ............................................................. MINUTES .......................... ..... .................. ........................................................... 2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .............................. CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH GMQS and OTHER LAND USE APPROVALS .......................................................................................................................... 2 EXHIBIT E PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 28, 2007 I Aspen Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes -August 28, 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 11th MINUTES MOTION: LJ Erspamer moved to approve the minutes from August 7`h 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). John Rowland opened the continued public hearing. Sara aoams saiu u,c>c Way 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 square feet); special review for parking (the applicant requested new parking requirements); 2 dimensional variances (rear 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. Sara Adams introduced 3 letters into the public record from Lisa Markalunas, Anne Burrows and Janice & Charles Collins. EXHIBIT E PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 28, 2007 2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None stated. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (08/07/07): Aspen Plannine & Zoning Meetint? Minutes Aueust 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 RLUIPA in that it was treated as any other applicant. LJ 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 Lneeded only occur at 2 points; the mass of the building was peaking up with t~~Cl-IIS1T E barrel shape. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 28, 2007 3 Aspen Plannine & Zoning Meetine Minutes -August 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 parking 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 NovemberlDecember 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 undereroft, which would 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 chai~t~Bl C lit~~ked there have not been any final decisions made by~~,~~,iA~,B~N OMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 28, 2007 4 Aspen Plannine & Zonine Meetine Minutes AuBUSt 28 2007 if this additional space was necessary and did not feel the same with the addition on the back. Collins voiced concem for the lack of landscaping in the alley. 2. Diana Rumsey 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. Rumsey said there were now 2 dishwashers; the added space of the church was necessary because the plumbing, roof and insulation all needed replacement. Rumsey 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 current 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 pazking was a huge impact from Sunday services, large weddings and funerals as well as the Music Festival and Harris 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 Harris Hal] 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. Burrows attended a concert last winter and it was stated that they wanted to have more concerts in the fixture. 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. Bun•ows 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 remode] 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 E PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 28, 2007 5 Aspen Plannine & Zoning MeetinE Minutes - Aueust 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 agreed 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 yard 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 yard 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 Markalunas asked for clarification on the addition of square footage. Sanchez replied that they were going from the existing 7,118 sgquare feet to 9,000 square feet. Sanchez said the reason that they w~~'~.,R~R~mo zoMNG1COMMISS ON MINuTE~s d AUGUST 28, 2007 6 Aspen Planning & Zoning 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 al] 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 square 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 hardship 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 find that expanding the church for the reasons in the application that meet the AACP, in terms of providing community services. Adams stated to ant a variance there was the xHi T E gT ~1A~511ki8AK~~~~Q® pvasal$1 AUGUST 28, 2007 7 Asaen Planning & Zoning Meeting 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'd 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 pari 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, na; Cuthrie, 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 E PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 28, 2002 Regular Meeting Aspen Planning 5 Zoning Commission August 19, 1960 Hunt asked if the staff were going to do something about the 90 day limit for subdivision exceptions. Hunt 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 Aoard 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. Ms. 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 reouires 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 14 to 12 with 9 implemented right now and 8 spaces held in abeyance to demo parking on the streets. Ms. 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 sug- 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. Hartunond 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 9 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 neiyhbors arld 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 ExrIISIT F PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PARKING REVIEW ~.. +/ AUGUST 19, 1980 RECORD OF 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 1980 generally supports the reduction in parking and realizes no matter how much parking is beh ind the Church Will 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 his client would prefer parking, if any, tv the front of the Church with a curb cut, which would improve traffic flow. McGrath supported 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. But if the P & 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. Ms. 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 Beck questioned parking in the alley and having the snow plowed. It may he 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 Anderson. All in favor, motion carried. Anderson moved to adjourn at 7:15 p. m.; seconded by Ms. Klar. All in favor, mo~ion carried. / ~ Xathryn Roc Crty Clerk E%HIBIT F PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PARKING REVIEW AUGUST 19, 1900 ~r APPLICANT: ATTACHMENT 2 -LAND USE APPLICATION Name: Crt~'/~/"T ~l/r'G0~!/L G~~~/ Location: 53,6 Gi/. ~ojL~./ Lo75 /~-/S $LOC(G9c/ N,g2G/hNS /jp/7/%6e9y (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal de ri tion where a propriate) Parcel [D # (REQUIRED) REPRESENTATIVE: Name: G«~/LT S~><{GfG6Z Address: SO ~ ~-f0 G?~IOF ~(~"~ 5`~ . Ca ¢ l9-.S~/S( Cy y /~ /~ Phone #: ~i?'D . cl ~ ~ X~ Name: ~irl'1"I ST ~( /`Go ~,~'(_, Gf {tJ~LGf~ Address: S~j /p ~,(/ , j~olLT/~ Phone#: 9~d ?jZ70 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, condominiumization) Expansion Mountain View Plane ^ Lot Split ^ Temporary Use ~ Other:v~~iUn~(,'~'pm ^ Lot Line Ad~ustment ^ Text/Ma Amendment EXISTING CONDITIONS: (descri tion of existin buildin s, uses, revious a royals, etc.) Gf~/R-~1 SAG«-~ZGPiS ~ Tom fYPP2dv~ PS l'~US Ga>~/Ti,~~y-L USA 1~visws Sv~u~n- lzGri/~v taK_ p~ccc~ PROPOSAL: (description of proposed bui]dings uses modifications etc.) i~M~oD~L O~ 6/Lllr~AiNZ-- ~/~1 81.47 1~r1~JGK~ ~1D~JIT~ou T~ ~i~Po~T SP~gcF-5 ~ fIDO/Zco~M.- P,~~ry~ sP/fic~ Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ [~ 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 Standards 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 Years." The town's revival after 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 azched 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 are 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. f) The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such additional demand is mitigated through improvements proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services. Response: The proposed Christ Episcopal Church development plan 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. Response: 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'/. 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 f) above will minimize impacts on available public utilities and services. Existing public facilities are adequate Tor 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 shazed 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. 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. 3. Existing or planned on-site or off-site pazking facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street pazking. 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 I 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 pazcel, 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 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: 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 4 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. CHRIST January 8, 2008 Members of the Aspen City Council Aspen City Hall 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 CHURCH RE' Christ Episcopal Church of Aspen Application for Growth Management Approval Dear Members of the Council: Enclosed with this letter is a petition (in two formats, one single-paged and one multi-paged) which was signed by a total of 116 people. Of the 116, approximately 66 reside in the West End. The text of the petition is as follows: COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOR THE CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH RENOVATION We support Christ Episcopal Church's application for Growth Management approval by the Aspen City Council. The Church needs the proposed improvements to enhance the worship and fellowship facilities for the church's congregation and to provide adequate administrative and support spaces for the church staff. The expansion has been designed to fit in with the scale of the neighborhood, a result of its full compliance wkh the City of Aspen's Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The footprint of all of the buildings on the properly will only cover an addkional 11% of the site and 49% of the proposed floor area will be partially bebw grade, thus limiting the visual impact of the expansion. We urge the City Council to approve the Growth Management application of Christ Episcopal Church at their meeting on January 14, 2008. If we took several more weeks to collect additional names, I have no doubt that we could increase significantly the number of signatures on this petition. But what we are presenting to the Council at this time is indicative of the broad community support for our project that exists in Aspen and in the wider community served by Christ Episcopal Church. We hope that you will approve our request for Growth Management Approval. faithfully, Bruce McNab Petition, Community Support for the Christ Episcopal Church Renovation THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN ASPEN 536 W. North Sheet Aspen, CO 81 61 1-1 253 The Rev. Bruce McNab, Rector Parish Office (970) 925-3278 • Rector (970) 309-0403 COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOR THE CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH RENOVATION We support Christ Episcopal Church's application for Growth Management approval by the Aspen City Council. The Church needs the proposed improvements to enhance the worship and fellowship facilities for the church's congregation and to provide adequate administrative and support spaces for the church staff. The expansion has been designed to fit in with the scale of the neighborhood, a result of its full compliance with the City of Aspen's Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The footprint of all of the buildings on the property will only cover an additional 11 % of the site and 49% of the proposed floor area will be partially below grade, thus limiting the visual impact of the expansion. We urge the City Council to approve the Growth Management application of Christ Episcopal Church at their meeting on January 14, 2008. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7 8. ~~~ K~C' ~S~t~aL ~i~ )~ ~ spy h C~,~ . _ ~s~er1 I y ~o Si ~.rro~ V is{~ Aspen ~`o~~~~ ~~c%/ ~~n~ ~-- ~b~ h~ /ta-~- ~y"a'`"" 15.C'a+'ek.e ~Ia~f{rJCII G'`,c"~Z_~~t~ 16. I1 i r i ~ ~ (~ ~ tL~^ 17. //M77 \ '' ` 18. bR.ie.~ ~.~/~ IS o .5 20. ~~4~~ PQUy vr~ 21.~~fe.L~a~ 22. 23 24 25 26 27 34. 35. 36. J ,, AA V, ~u~ I /~~' N~ j~~c...r k cq /~9 ~na~-a r•~rr~-wm~ss V !(u ~... 32~ S. ~tnt,,1ti.~ .~o b I1,o Ca ~~ s~.a~ L- ~ Y I b N ,. /~ y a ~ -1~~-K 4~~~-q- ~ -~-sQ~ 3~6c~~~oy ~'.2 ~ -d~l~w~ 1~ I~~i~l~au~~i ~'~ai~ ~~~ ~d ~ ~~ J ~ -~ ~ l 3 3 ~x ~ o~+wa~ ~Y~y;2 f C!p ~ 4'25 -R ~-aE ~ukk~, ~'` 5,~~n ~ 32. n~VLQ~~~I 33. I(. 1,- ~~ -.~ 2s. ~~~STI -v 1~1 A~1~ / ~~'~' 37. ~1'1A~GriK~7 SNRN~uDIJ 38. cb~l ~ k~ v„ti,Dw ,ac~~u.k- D Sy Z M~ Slc,~N,~,w,~ `s p_..,C Asprn 7D0 lliC Il.~..c~ .61~L • ~- '700 ~oo,CF ~ fZ 4o.~Dfj./ c~a~ib S 41. ~ UQ (~~ ~ . ~~ ~ kC--~. 42.I1701aY h7q--NiA~t ~dOl.+6+~ II T 44. 16 ~ S ~~"~~. 45. ~~Q___I.DU~Y~ ~.14)~.111 a7.~ANCy~I. SM rl~-1 48. ~ G: Y~ ~ 55..7QI ~ NIIFt2'(ItJtf~1 r i ~ ~ 14 ~. zai~~~T~~~T~ (y ~ w ~ib~I - ~ 58. ~ ' . Gv85E2 rzZ"7 /~'~ni ! (/~ .1~ , ~~nG PD.goX Y~lL ~/ooa/,, llt~k~Co. d'/~S~ J ~~c~. g~ IISI - g161~ 3~ ~~~ ~~` 4 ,.. C50 ~ Z~ ~ t' tc~ w L~ ~ ~.t ~ ~. ~, i 61. ~~' iv~nA L~~v'i-'~~1~ ~/~ 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. s7~ 68. 69. 70. 71. ~< 72.' ~' ~~ t..e~,~ SkZ,, kw~ 1 ~:~s~, ~~1~~ SA1ei A-~~ ~6 ~ ~p~~~ ~~ ~/'r~ IZ -~ ~~ 5 ~~ SI- ~lc~ t ~D. 657s. Sw.~n-aar ~Ilys~ g lG IS ~/6/~ -C(~~S'~ I~ G~7 g/~v/vS /~/ J'f~1 d w VuasS ~ O GbL /? a. bax 6~G ~ S.V. Co ~~~' , ~, ~X7i~ ~~~1~~~~ Pis BtGcS ~ sy;~i 2 _, . Pi6~ 77 i,~E~2iNE ~1~E~ 80. ~liza~ 81. Me ~6.. Pc-v~se~, 8z.1~(~ ~, M4,,~.fl+N ... ~ .~,.y . -, .. _.. ~.,,,a,,,~,_ /~s.,.7 o S 7rO Fe~'v~ s,'dt.e ~ "' ~ "'t ~.s.~-~ . < ,' Lam. !3 -^a rn ,Ta ~ / Zia E G v nor- 14-oP arti, ~~~ ~~~o S~~~l~~ ~o~ 1oZ, were- v+~~rr. S~. ~SP~,z ~~ $1611 4 HsP~.,ct~ ~~ ~~ ~ 83. ~'O~( ~~.9..t/3S~ 84. f' ~ r I 86. 87. __-- 88. 8s. so.~ 91. 92. ~~ wtK !~ G~i~ 6'L .Ply/j ,~Yleic~ YY~55 Cm . 94. i^ ti n, ~. n ,oo woo0 95 --~~ (u~C~Li~ ~~'f ~/I~t,~~~Ki ~ Sr~CSu~n1.4~S ~/1vLt~G~ ~.Pr 96. 97. 98. 99. 5 ~~ /n I19~ !1'11. Ig ~y~ ~.vr ,c~R-ire ~~j/~ s-~_~' ~tl~ ~"~LAI1kAf ~~~~~ (~a~ ~ L-x.bn-i -~ ,~ N~~ a~ E3 e'TT y G) E l~S .~.fl y 1 i 'sc.~-f ~• ~lrF++ 12/ t 1.~~~~ ~05 ~,bn~-s s Iq--2`~ C~~s~- 1A-~_ RD. ~~;~ ~ Yom` ~T ~l~(~~~~ ~ tF~ w-rr~ ~`~~ ;j 20 (~ . ~~,4NC , 5 ~d ~S~S' Ca_~.~b 5161 z, 5020 l.J ~•-~~, s As~o~.~ ~c~,, ~5~~ ~L~~ ~ i ~-~(l, ~'"z S~~ ~ ~ C~ ~ Fsi6 /~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~r~>%y' /~/. l~~ra.S ~ba N. ~- ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~, ~, e~ ~ ~~ lO2! Xt/~'-!S 5~ ~.. ~~ ~d l ~ ~cr~ C~ i~~~- ~-~NC~s ~t ~~-~~~~~1~~~~ ~ i COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOR THE CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH RENOVATION We support Christ Episcopal Church's application for Growth Management approval by the Aspen City Council. The Church needs the proposed improvements to enhance the worship and fellowship facilities for the church's congregation and to provide adequate administrative and support spaces for the church staff. The expansion has been designed to fit in with the scale of the neighborhood, a result of its full compliance with the City of Aspen's Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The footprint of all of the buildings on the property will only cover an additional 11% of the site and 49% of the proposed floor area will be partially below grade, thus limiting the visual impact of the expansion. We urge the City Council to approve the Growth Management application of Christ Episcopal Church at their meeting on January 14, 2008. iys9-~t~ ~~t/VI"If11m Condominium Hotel in Downtown Aspen January 8, 200$ Sarah Adams City Council Office CITY OF ASPEN Aspen, Colorado ClT; ~T7;,jRNFD"S ~qN r1 `~ lOp~~ Dear Sarah, I have prepared a letter to be copied and provided to all the City Council Members for the Monday, January 14 meeting. This relates to the GMQS approval process for Christ Church in Aspen. Thanks for providing this to the council members. Let me know if you need anything further from me. Thank you! 1. arren E. Klu~ General Manager The place to stay in Downtown Aspen! 617 East Cooper Avenue • Aspen, Colorado 81611 .970-925-1000 e-mail: info@aspensquarehotel.com • v/ww.aspensquarehotel.com 1-800-TO ASPEN (1-aoo-asz-77ss> Warren E. Klug 100 North 8th Street #3 Aspen, Colorado 81611 970-309-6786 January 7, 2008 TO: Members of the Aspen City Council RE: Christ Church GMQS Approval Dear Council Members, In towns large and small, all across America, churches and congregations occupy a special place in local communities -including right here in Aspen. Churches are centers of spiritual growth and spiritual support, and they provide a place for important local groups and services. Groups that are inappropriate for hotel meeting rooms or conference centers fmd a home in local churches. Aspen's Christ Church is such a place, a local "essential public facility" in legal terms. Space and services provided at Christ Church go way beyond just church members. Members of the Aspen City Council have seen this for themselves. The renovation and expansion plans of Christ Church in Aspen deserve the support and approval of the Aspen City Council, and such approval is appropriate when we consider the property, history of other local congregations, and the functions of the church building. I am writing to urge your approval of our renovation plans. Part of the value and attraction of a local church is its location in a neighborhood area providing services to residents all around and beyond. Churches function as the spiritual home for neighbors, and they provide valuable services to the greater community. That is certainly why even the Federal Government put local churches in a favored place, stating that a church cannot be treated "less equally" than others in land use and approval considerations. We can leave that to the lawyers, but the intent is clear. City Council Letter: January 7, 2008 Page 2 Christ Church is doing an important job providing a spiritual home for its members, azea residents and visitors (important in our visitor-oriented area) as well as valuable services to the community. It needs to be allowed to do an even better job with improved public spaces. Christ Church has been part of the West End community and an important local facility since the middle 60's, probably longer than almost all neighbors have been in residence. The building was expanded once since then, and the adjacent rectory built on the same parcel of land. Now, we come before the City Council seeking GMQS approval to follow on the approvals already given by Aspen P & Z. It is approval that is appropriate and beneficial to the local community. The Christ Church renovation plan calls for making the building fully accessible, not the case now. This means space for an elevator, proper ADA bathrooms, and it allows for the main hospitality gathering space to be on the ground level with good natural light and good kitchen access. Presently, the only large gathering room is in the basement, and there is no ADA- approvedway to access it. Better fire exits are also included in the renovation plan -important in an azea that is used frequently by children. There will be a modest increase in fixed seating in the worship space (taking the place of the movable chairs that have been in the aisles for years). But the goal of the renovation project is NOT to provide more seats for lots of additional people or large spaces for new programs. Rather, the goal is to provide better, more appropriate, safer and more accessible spaces for the worship, educational, outreach, and community service activities that the church is already offering. Some factors to consider: 1. Total building "footprint" on the pazcel, including both the rectory and the present church building, is 4,388 square feet. This is the total main level squaze footage presently. 2. The "foot print" of the present church building is 2863 square feet. We aze asking for an additional 1762 square feet total. The total main level of the church will be 4,625 squaze feet when expanded. City Council Letter: January 7, 2008 Page 3 The added above ground square footage increase as proposed is all on one level, with no second story requested. 4. In the west end neighborhood, there are houses with more squaze footage covering their lots, and many aze taller than the church is now or will be after renovation! 5. There is additional below-grade level renovation and added space planned, which adds to the FAR numbers as required; but the visible building is not so much bigger than the present building. The basic "foot print" will be 4,625 when complete. In terms of total FAR, totaling both the church and the rectory on the site, the addition is 2.040 square feet, a 28% increase in FAR. 6. Roof height of 25 feet is allowed. We are maintaining the present barrel roof height of 19 feet, asking for no more, well under the 25 feet maximum. The buildings are only one story, with a basement. 7. While Christ Church has private residences around it, within a half a block to a block north are the expansive public facilities of the Aspen Music Festival, the Aspen Center for Physics, and the Aspen Institute. The big MAA parking lot serving the Benedict Music Tent and Harris Hall is just a half block away from Christ Church. In fact, some MAA events take place here in the summer, and we host music classes for Music Festival students. 8. Some neighbors have expressed concerns about pazking. I submit that their real azgument is with the huge number of cars during the summer due to the Aspen Music Festival events. Frankly, Christ Church does not create big numbers of cazs on the public streets. Parking is not a reason to deny the church's GMQS application. I truly understand that neighbors do not want construction azound them for a season -who does? And, I understand that residents are not happy with all the cazs that the Music Festival brings to the neighborhood for two months in the summer. I do understand-but these are not proper reasons to deny Christ Church the GMQS approval requested, the legalities aside. Construction will be completed in 12-15 months, and no changes to the Christ Church plan will mitigate the Music Festival parking problems. City Council Letter: January 7, 2008 Page 4 At the last meeting when the church's GMQS application was presented, a letter from a dozen or so neighbors was presented. Members of the council will receive in prior to the Jan. 14 meeting a petition including nearly ten times as many names. As a church, we view our "neighbors" as extending beyond the people who live next door. Our "neighbors" are those who need what we can give them. How do we count the people who are touched by the work of Christ Chwch, or the other faith communities in our town? The numbers are huge, I am sure. The value that Christ Church brings to the neighborhood as an essential public facility and the truly insignificant impact the renovations in the building will have on the neighborhood enforce the arguments for City Council approval. I ask that you make that determination, and decide to allow the church to be improved and renovated as proposed. We will continue to be "good neighbors" to the surrounding residents, the Aspen Community and beyond. That is our goal. Thank you. Very truly yotus, ~~ ~_'`~ Warren E. Klug Aspen Resident Christ Church Member 0 a~ a~ 0 D Z ww ~~} V ~~ V V ~. ~~ ~~ W ~~ a 4 `o ~ Q 7 Np N C ~ M N .C Q ~ OI J~ N ~ H ^ ~ ~~ / ~~ Q O U N `1 U 9 O N A O O U N Y U .L N ~ C 7 ~_ ~ i ~ ~ U O ~~ Q ~ mE '~ f ~ f ~ ,•~ r' * L ~ /i ~~ . ~ E.M ~.j ~ ~l a r ®~ _.® .~. / ~ ~J~ ~ ~ Ir' ® -~ .-~ ~ ~ • Q ~ i , roro ~ ~~ ~ L O ~ ~ ~ ~ o U ti • s e r ~ N ~ U '+'' ~ ~ ,. v a~ C ~ _ - ~ - a ~ _ ~ o U ~ t.t.. ~ ~~ =z ~Q ~~ w ~~ ~J =Q N +-~ u Aa n~~o N -~-+ -r-~ L '~'^~ ^vJ W ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ U ~~ Q _ ~ ~ O ~ N ~J C~ v .ti 3da =~ 9 p A 3 « u .E ~ b 'iC U ~• O ~ a~ o yQQSya s ~ ~ ~ T$s_ ~ o V 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r c' ~ x u c 9,-8y~ U r£ ~ N `p « m ~ ' v~y~ 5zu a. 0 c!'r n ~ ti d A .~. ~ LL TQ ~L m ~ w r R ~ ~ ~ y~ ~ =~ y Z R LL 3 OI ~' .4 m p ~p R~ y~ M;« ; C ~ ~ N T '~?{~C,. ti g y ~ .! ;~ ~~~ Y O G 4E $ y~5 O C A n V .. a m 0 U td Q A ~ -p U ~ N_ N f]. 4- ~ O +~ O O a r cu o ~ t.; -.- *_ .. / A f ~ O ^~^ ~.1. ~ x ? a. ~ ,w „s a g ~, ~ ~ $d a~ t H .~ z~ ~ N m$ m v O 8 -~"~r O Q sry '~ V! ~i ~ 3 ~ v ~ ~ _-- ~~ ~ ~ w ~ $ . ~ v x 3d Fc c .. i.~ ` o ,4 m c ~ K s g u v ` ... rS ~~ V O 31 * t L ,r V f: Y" r' ~ t y ac ~ x ~ a o A Y 3 ~ > - N ~,~~,.: 0 ~v °o ;~. E ,; a {:. °o m a~ c ~--~ N N O C C'7 ~ i Q~ Q ~ ~ Cd ~ ~ U ~ ~ C~ Q U «S O ~ ~ l.iJ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ i C) v i A~ _ , 3evav~ ~^, - _ lS:~ N: ~= ~7 • N ~~~: ~~~ o- ~~ ~j' ~t v ------ aan~ona~s 6ui~sixa U W U --------------------- _ - - ~{oaglas ,0 L N~ lu~ia ~Cq aan~on~}s pasodoad ~ ~ ` `~N ~o~glas ,0 G c7 lu6ia ~Cq ~, ~ ~ ,`~ ~ ~. ~ - ~ ~ ~ \ ~~ A ~ \ \ ~~ ~ , ~ ~ ~~, J U ~ \ O m 2 w Z ~ ~ r-----------aui~ ~ado~d ------------ a6eae6~o a6pa „8-,5 0 c- ;; U ~~ v ~ a- i~ ^~^,~ ^W W L ~~ ~J O N l.! I C~ CL C'7 Cl) ~ Q ~ ~ ~ CU ~ ~ C~ ~o 0 ~_~~ i ~~ ~ ~ U ~ ~= ~ Q O _ 0-~ ~ c~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ U U ~;, S ka». ; ;'~ `. 1 '. \C. ~'" s ~L` ~ ~~. \1. . e ~ \, `e \` h C O +_ ~- O ~L N O O~ ~. w a N ,~ o ~C C U', ~' .~ 1 C O N ~O t U .~rss H •M, _ ~\ § d V ~~ ' ~ ~~ r ~ ~ y 6 ~ ~ tE --_' ~ '~ _ ~^~~ .O . ~` 4~ U w r ~ U ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~i~ ~ t. ~. >.<' • ~f s f' ~ ~ ~ S a ~ \ ~ :21c 0 t .LJ t x: 0 Q y~ Q d L ?~ d 3 O ~~ .x fA L 0 ~`' L ~ L Q cd O O C_~ „~ s e~~=0 ~5' ~ ~Y` 5 E~£ fi.~'.29~ ~_ 9 a ~ ~S Eg^~ ~: ag°Ep~: W.rg ~ ® f° 9~~ 4 ~ g•^ E e~ E~~ u u~~a'9 ~~SS~B_En° g 583~~ t~F~r~•~s~~s~~~j§§j''~9~ E._~ys6€G ~e~ yay ~e~i ~gp0o .£'9m ~~GA~.6~ei~ £aVLL°P~a9c p ~8 ~s~cYe~a ~'Sbag~~"g~~~a~S7.~Q~~~3 ~. `e Y~S ~espa G S ~~sB~~~~yR $ ~ECy~~ ~~~n •$°°£E S ga$ ~ •P o9~9 ~gS 68~~~''_3~P ~s~~P'8$~v~e~Lu~i~9 ~9.e ~Cii~~YS3g2°J Ylllb MEMOKANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ~~ FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director RE: Jerome Professional Building (201 N. Mill Street) Subdivision and Extension of Vested Property Rights Review Second Reading of Ordinance No. 25, (Series 2007) MEETING DATE: January 14, 2008 SPECIAL NOTE: This staff report is new since the October 22"d public hearing and addresses the issues raised by City Council at the hearing. It contains the following: • An updated staff memo with additional information provided by Staff and the Applicant; • Staff recommendation & motion; and • A revised ordinance; and • A complete reprint of all relevant exhibits. SUMMARY: On October 22nd City Council conducted a public hearing on the Jerome Professional Building redevelopment proposal (first reading was conducted on June 25`h). During the hearing, concerns over the need for affordable housing within the city were raised by the City Council. The applicant had proposed to redevelop the site with amixed-use building containing sub-grade parking, three (3) affordable housing units, six (6) free-market housing units, and commercial/office uses. Since the last meeting the applicant has revised the proposal to include the sub-grade parking, five (5) affordable housing units, five (5) free-market housing units, and commercial/office uses. APPLICANT /OWNER: Jerome Professional Building Condominium Association, Inc. REPRESENTATIVE: Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning, LLC. LOCATION: Lots P, Q, R, and S, Block 78, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO, commonly known as 201 N. Mill Street. CURRENT ZONING Br USE: Located in the Mixed Use (MU) zone district. The building is atwo/three story office building containing nineteen commercial condominium units totaling 9,275 sq. ft.. PROPOSED LAND USE: The Applicant is requesting to develop amixed-use building containing sub-grade parking, five (5) affordable housing units, five (5)free-market housing units, and commercial/office uses. GENERAL BACKGROUND This application was submitted in April of 2006, prior to the passage of the moratorium and therefore not affected by it or the subsequent code amendments. The application was heazd by the Planning and Zoning Commission in August of the same year. As a result of the hearings conducted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, Resolution No. 26 (Series of 2006) was passed by a five to zero (5-0) vote (Exhibit D). The Planning and "Coning Commission's resolution approved three growth management reviews, commercial design review, special review, and made a recommendation of subdivision approval. During the hearing of August 15, 2006, the Applicant's representative stated that three of the off-street pazking spaces associated with the REQUESTED COUNCIL APPROVALS: The Applicant requests of the City Council approval of the subdivision and granting of vested property rights for a period of three years. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: fhe Planning and Zoning Commission granted approval of three growth management reviews, commercial design review, special review, and made a recommendation of subdivision approval STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends additional modification of the application prior to granting approval of the subdivision request and the vested property rights request. proposal will be dedicated for use by the affordable housing units (Exhibit C) Photo: 201 N. Mill Street The Applicant is requesting subdivision approval because the development of multi- family dwelling units requires approval of subdivision pursuant to the definition of subdivision in the City's land use code (see section 26.104.100, Definitions). If the Applicant is interested in creating individual ownership interest in the units, condominiumization must be undertaken. Once construction is nearly completed but prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the developer must file a condominium plat and associated documents for review and approval by the City Engineer and Community Development Director. This is required to demarcate ownership units within a single building. LAND USE RF.OUES"1'S AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals of City Council to redevelop the site: • Subdivision for the construction of multiple dwelling units pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480 (City Council is the final review authority who may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposal after considering a recommendation from the Planning andZ,oning Commission). • Vested Property Rights for the development proposal, which allows the development to be built after approval without meeting any zoning or land use changes during a prescribed time period, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.308 (City Council is the final review authority). The Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) reviewed the Application on August 1, 2006 and August 15, 2006 (1'he minutes from these meetings are attached as Exhibits B and C). The Applicant received the following approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Resolution 26, Series 2007 (Exhibit D). • Growth Management Approval for Ex~ansion/New Commercial, Lodge, or Mixed-Use Development in the development of a new mixed-use building pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.040 C.2. • Growth Management Approval for Free-Mazket Residential Units within a Mixed-Use Proiect in the development of new free-mazket residential units within a mixed-use project pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.040 C.6. • Grow[h Management Approval for Affordable Housing in the development of affordable housing pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.040 C.7. • Commercial Design Approval for amixed-use development within the City of Aspen requiring a building permit pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.412. • Special Review Approval for an increase in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of both the Commercial use and Free-Market Multi-Family Housing use of the building pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.430.040 A. PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant, Jerome Professional Building Condominium Association, Inc., has requested approval to demolish an existing office building located at the corner of North Mill Street and East Bleeker Street that is located on a 12,000 square foot lot and redevelop the site with a new mixed-use building containing commercial, employee housing, and free market residential uses. The existing property is located in the Mixed- Use zone district. The site is sloped and the new five story building (some of which is below grade) contains: • A completely sub-grade parking garage. Vehicular access to the property and the garage will be from the platted, but currently unimproved, alley right-of--way that is adjacent to the north property line of the subject property. The garage will provide twenty-one parking spaces (previously twenty), four of them in a tandem configuration. • 1'he next level is partially above and below grade and contains the lower level of two (2) of the employee housing units and commercial/office space. • Most of the third level is above grade on all sides and contains the upper levels of two (2) employee housing units and commercial/office space. • The fourth level contains two (2) free-market residential units (previously three) and three (3) employee housing unit (previously one). • "I'he fifth level contains three (3)free-market residential units. STAFF COMMENTS EMPLOYEE HOUSING MITIGA"CiON: Since the last hearing, the Applicant has amended the application by increasing the number of employee housing units provided while reducing the number of free- mazket units. "fhe table below outlines the changes in the two applications with regard to the employee housing component. The applicant has increased the employee unit count by two units, increased the overall number of bedrooms provided, and voluntarily offered to lower the category of three of the employee housing units. Table 1: Emnlovee Housin¢ Units Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit S Total's Previous Unit Type 2 2 2 N/A 6 Proposal bedroom bedroom bedroom bedroom Net 1,105 1,050 944 sq. 3,099 Livable sq. fr. sq. ft. ft. sq. fr. Area Unit 4 4 4 4 Cate or Employees 2.25 2.25 2.25 6.75 Housed 7anuary Unit Type 3 3 1 studio 3 11 $a' bedroom bedroom bedroom bedroom bedroom Proposal Net 1,200 1,200 701 sq. 400 sq. 1,200 4,701 Livable sq. fr. sq. fi. ft. fr. sq. ft. sq. ft. Area Unit 4 4 3 2 3 2@ 4 Category 2 @ 3 1 2 Employees 3 3 1.75 1.25 3 12 Housed Table 2: Required Emuloyee Mitigation New Sq. Ft. Re uired Miti ation New Commercial Net 3,276 sq. ft. 6.52 Employees Leasable Area* New Free Mazket 8,558 sq. fr. 2,567.40 sq. ft. Residential Net Livable Area 6.25 Employees** Notes: *An employee generation credit is provided for the existing project's commercial net leasable area. ** - 'fwo 2-bedroom units and one 1-bedroom unitat the minimum net livable azea required for a Category 3 or 4 unit would equal 2,600 sq. ft. and house 6.25 employees. The land use code allows an applicant to satisfy multiple mitigation requirements (both the residential and commercial components of the project) concurrently when on-site employee housing is provided. Table 2 shows the required employee mitigation for both the commercial expansion and the residential component of the proposal. Since the Applicant is providing on-site affordable housing units, the Applicant is required to provide employees housing for the higher mitigation requirement of 6.52 employees generated by the commercial expansion. "the Applicant's affordable housing will house twelve (12) employees. OFF STREET PARKING: The previous proposal provided three employee housing units with three allocated off- street parking spaces. The Applicant had agreed to this allocation during the Planning and Zoning Commission's review of the application. With this new proposal, the Applicant is offering "to provide two hybrid vehicles (i.e. Toyota Prius or similar model) to be parked in one of the tandem on-sitc parking spaces" for the use of the occupants of the employee housing units. This otter is in-lieu of on-site parking for the affordable housing or a cash- in-lieu payment. From an environmental standpoint, the potential reduction of oil dependent vehicles being used in the community is a benefit and a possible worthwhile tradeoff. How this program would work and be administered by the homeowners association is open to question and consideration. It may be that a better alternative would be to contribute to the established car share program: Roaring Fork Valley Vehicles. The program currently has a vehicle located at Rio Grande Park. Another consideration is that tenants, although provided access to a car share type vehicle, will have their own vehicle which will be parked in the surrounding neighborhood and contribute to the congestion within the neighborhood. Staff has no code basis to negotiate an alternative solution to the parking proposal. Although the land use code does no( require designating specific spaces for specific uses within the building twenty-one spaces are required to be provided on-site and the applicant currently has designed nineteen that meet the land use code's design requirements hased upon the reconfgured garage plan. The Applicant can provide a cash-in-lieu payment,for two of the parking spaces as the property is located in the Aspen Infill Area. As part qJ' (he Planning and %ning Commission review, the Applicant did agree to designate one parking space per employee housing unit and staff recommends providing on-site parkin~~ for the employee housing at this one per unit ratio. Dimensional Standards: The following table compares the proposed development dimensions with the dimensional requirements of the Mixed-Use (MU) zone district. Tahle 2' Comnarison of Proposed vs. Required Dimensional Requirements Dimensional Proposed Dimensional Underlying Mixed-Use ZonaDis#'--r-- k~.u. ~ 1~qurement Requirements Requiremen#s {+ -~: ~~. - _ _ _ __n, _ _ .~:: Minimum Lot 12,000 sq. ft. 3,000 sq. fr. Size Minimum Lot _ 120 Feet 30 Feet Width Minimum Lot _ N/A Not applicable to a mixed use development Area/Dwellin Minimum Front _ 10 Feet ] 0 Feet (which may be reduce to 5' by Special Yard Setback __ Review) Minimum _ _ 7 Feet 6.66 Feet Alternative Front (Comer lots are required to provide one front yard Yard Setback meeting the minimum setback and one at 2/3 the required front yard setback) Minimum Side 5 Feet 5 Feet Yazd Setback Minimum Rear ____ 5 Feet 5 Feet Yard Setback Maximum Height __ __ 32 Feet __ _ 32 Feet (for a mixed use buildin ) Floor Area Ratio _ 24,000 sq. fi. .802:1 or Cumulative Maximum: Commercial:.75:1 up to (FAR) 9,622 sq. ft. 2:1 or 24,000 sq. ft. 1:1 (by Special Review* *) .4:1 or 4,742 Affordable Housing: No sq. fr. limitation .79:1 or Free-Market Residential: 9,484 sq. ft.* .75:1 up to 1:1 (by S ecial Review**) Minimum Off- 21 spaces* * * Residential -Multi-Family within amixed-use Street Parking buildin :One space per unit or 10 spaces. 100% may be provided through apayment-in-lieu. Commercial: One space per 1,000 net leasable sq. fi. of commercial space or 10.8 spaces. 100% may be rovided throu h a pa ment-in-lieu ____ _ Notes: * -The Mixed-Use zone district requires that the total free-market residential Floor Area on the parcel be no greater than the commercial Ploor Area. ** -The Applicant was granted via Special Review a Commercial FAR of .88: ] or 10,515 sq. ft. and a Free-Market Residential FAR of .87:1 or 10,442 sq. fr. *** -Four of the parking spaces are in a tandem configuration. Unless approved by Special Review, the proposed configuration can only count as nineteen (19) spaces towards the parking requirements. The existing development contains eighteen parking spaces (in excess of the required commercial off- street parking requirement). The current proposal is required to provide twenty-one off-street parking spaces. The difference can be made by a ayment-in-lieu for the residential or commercial requirement. COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW: Commercial Design approval was granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission for the design of the building included as Exhibit H. Since that approval, the exterior of the building has been modified. The Applicant has stated that part of this modification has been due to the increase in employee housing units and need to design a building that is more efficient in its use of space. The design, based upon the amended elevations included in Exhibit J, has been modified in represented exterior materials, the look of the fenestration, and how the building is articulated. The approved building provided a good transition from the historic commercial core to the Service, Commercial, Industria] zone district. The prior fenestration provided a more lofUindustrial feel and the horizontal division of the building's farrade along Mill Street was more successful that the vertical division being proposed. The corner entryway has become heavier with the column thickness. Based upon the elevations provided staff believes that the aesthetics of the project have been negatively impacted and the proposed changes are a departure from the origdnal representations made and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff recommends that the design character of the building be returned to the previous iteration as much as possible. SUBDIVISION: The Applicant is requesting subdivision approval because the development of multi- family dwelling units requires approval of subdivision pursuant to the definition of subdivision in the City's land use code. In reviewing the subdivision portion of the application, Staff believes that the proposal meets the applicable subdivision review standards established in Land Use Code Section 26.480.050, Review Standards. Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the injill development goals established in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan. VESTED PROPERTY RIC HTS: The Applicant has amended the application and is now requesting a vested property right for the proposed development plan for a standard three (3) year period. A three year period is the state's standard vesting period and Staff recommends that the vesting period be granted. SCHOOL LANDS DEDICATION: Given that the proposed development constitutes a full subdivision review, Land Use Code Section 26.620, School Lands Dedications, requires that the Applicant either dedicate lands for school function or pay acash-in-lieu payment. The Applicant has proposed to pay acash-in-lieu payment pursuant to the fee schedule established in Land Use Code Section 26.620. Staff has included a condition of approval in the proposed ordinance requiring that the Applicant pay the School Lands Dedications fee prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed development. PARK DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE The Applicant is required to pay a Parks Development Impact Fee for additional bedrooms added to the site and additional net leasable created, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, /mpact F'es. As the submitted plans do not show the number of bedrooms for the free-market units and the net leasable is an estimated figure, the Park Development Impact Fee for this project shall be calculated at the time of building permit submittal. The application for this project preceded the adoption of the new Transportation Demand Management (fllM)/Air Quality impact fee. Therefore, the TDM/Air Quality impact fee shall not be assessed. Staff has included a condition of approval in the proposed ordinance requiring that a Parks Development Impact Fee be paid at prior to building permit issuance. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMEN'T'S: The City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Water Department, Aspen Sanitation District, Housing Department, and the Parks Department have all reviewed the proposed application and their requirements have been included as conditions of approval when appropriate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the project is consistent with the goals of the AACP in providing amixed-use building that is located within the city near transit and within walking distance to the commercial core. The increased employee housing units provide a benefit to the community. The additional changes to the design of the exterior of the building from the exhibits shown in Exhibit H have affected the aesthetics of the project. Additionally, staff would recommend that parking be provided on- site for the employee units or if a hybrid alternative is favored, that a contribution to the established car share program be requested. Staff would recommend making changes to the proposal to bring the exterior back or more similar to the approved renderings in Exhibit H. The ordinance included with this memo is written in the affirmative, allowing for the private car share proposal and not requiring and changes to the current design iteration of the building. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MO"PIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE: "I move to approve Ordinance No. 25, Series of 2007, approving with conditions, the Subdivision and granting of Vested Property Rights of Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment on second reading." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -Planning and Zoning Commission minutes dated August 1, 2006 Exhibit C -Planning and Zoning Commission minutes dated August 15, 2006 Exhibit D -Resolution No. 26 (series of 2006) of the Planning and Zoning Commission Exhibit E -Application Exhibit F -Applicant's Response to June 25`h Questions, memo dated 9/24/07 Exhibit G -Updated memo from the Housing department, 1/04/08 Exhibit H -December project update submitted by the applicant's representative Exhibit I -Renderings of the building reviewed and approved by the Commission ORDINANCE NO. 25 (SERIES OF 2007) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS SUBDIVISION REVIEW AND VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR THE JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING REDEVELOPMENT AND SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 201 NORTH MILL STREET, CITY OF ASPEN, PITHIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel Nos. 2737-U73-17-010 through 2737-073-17-028 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from all of the owners and directors of the Jerome Professional Building Condominium Association, Inc., requesting of the Planning and Zoning Commission three (3) Growth Management Review approvals, Commercial Design Review approval, Special Review approval and a recommendation oC approval for Subdivision to redevelop a building known as the Jerome Professional Building located at 201 N. Mill Street; and, WHEREAS, the growth management reviews were for approval for a new mixed-use building which contains 10,750 sq. ft. of net leasable area, approval for the development of six (6) free-market residential units totaling a Floor Area Ratio of .87:1, and approval for the Development of three (3) affordable housing units with a total of 3,099 sq. ft. of net livable area; and, WHEREAS, as part of the land use review, the Applicant requested Commercial Design Review approval for the proposed mixed-use building; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant also requested Special Review approval to increase the individual floor area ratios (FAR) for both the commercial and free-market multi-family use of the property. The effective zoning at the time of application allows an overall cap of 2:1 (24,000 sq. ft.) for the entire parcel and permits an applicant to request, through Special Review, an increase in both the free-market multi-family use and commercial use of the property from .75:1 to a maximum of 1:1. For the commercial use, the Applicant requested an increase from .75:1 to .88:1 (or an additional 1,515 sq. fr. in floor area) and for the free-market multi-family use, the Applicant requested an increase from .75:1 to .87:1 (or an additional 1,442 sq. ft. in floor area); and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requested a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission of subdivision approval because the development of multi-family dwelling units requires approval of subdivision pursuant to the definition of subdivision in the City's land use code; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the application at a public hearing on August 1, 2006, and upon recommendation of the Community Development Department, continued the public heazing to August 15, 2006; and, WHEREAS, upon further review of the application at the August 15`h continuance, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and took and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, on August 15, 2006, via Resolution No. 26 (Series of 2006), the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission found that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approvals and recommendation of approval of the land use requests were consistent with the goals and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted approval of the three (3) Growth Management Review requests; the Commercial Design Review request; and the Special Review request. The Planning and Zoning Commission also recommended approval of the Subdivision request to allow for the development of a mixed-use building that contains 10,750 sq. ft. of net leasable area and a commercial F.A.R of .88:1, six (6) free-mazket units totaling a Floor Area Ratio of .87:1, and providing three affordable housing units with a total of 3,099 sq. ft. of net livable area by a vote of five to zero (5-0); and, WHEREAS, once the land use approvals and recommendation of approval were granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Applicant requested Subdivision approval and Vested Property Rights approval (for a period of five rather than three yeazs) of the City Council; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval, with conditions, of the proposed subdivision request and a three year time period for vested property rights; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on October 9, 2007, the City Council opened the hearing and continued the hearing to October 22"°; and WHEREAS, upon review of the application at the October 22nd continuance, the City Council took public testimony, considered pertinent recommendations from the Community Development Director, referral agencies and then voiced concern on the need for additional affordable housing units within the community at which point the Applicant requested a continuation of the hearing, which was granted, by the City Council to January 8, 2008; and WHEREAS, prior to the continuance, the Applicant amended the application and proposed development of a mixed-use building that contains 10,826 sq. ft. of net leasable azea and a commercial F.A.R of .802:1, five (5) free-market units totaling a Floor Area Ratio of .79:1, and providing five (5) affordable housing units with a total of 4,701 sq. ft. of net livable azea as well as two hybrid vehicles for a private car share program to the benefit of the future affordable housing occupants; and WHEREAS, upon review of the amended application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended continuation of the application due to changes to the exterior of the building from the previously approved Commercial Design Review of the building and recommended to provide on-site parking for the affordable housing units rather than hybrid cars, and WHEREAS, upon further review of the application at the January 8`" continuance, the City Council considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and took and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing; and adopted Ordinance No. 25, Series of 2007, approving with conditions, Subdivision and Vested Property Rights. WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all the applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE., BE I'I' ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: Section 1:General Development Approval Pursuant to the procedures and standazds set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council hereby approves Subdivision Review and Vested Property Rights for the Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment and Subdivision. The Commercial use F.A.R. is approved at .802: 1 and the Free-Market Multi-Family use F.A.R. is approved at .79:1 for the development of a mixed-use building containing five (5) free-market units, five (5) affordable housing units containing a minimum of 4,701 sq. ft. of net livable area, and a commercial component containing a maximum of 10,826 sq. ft. of net leasable area. The exterior design of the building shall be constructed as represented to the City Council and shown in Exhibit A of this ordinance. The Applicant shall provide two hybrid vehicles to be parked in one of the tandem parking spaces for the sole benefit of the occupants of the affordable housing units. The hybrid vehicles will be managed through a private car share program administered by the homeowners association. 1'he two hybrid vehicles shall be provided in-lieu of any off-street pazking requirements or cash-in-lieu payment fqr required off-street pazking spaces for the five (5) the affordable housing units and be purchased at the time of issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Section 2: Plat and Agreement The Applicant shall record a subdivision agreement that meets the requirements of Land Use Code Chapter 26.480, Subdivision, within 180 days of approval if City Council provides final approval of the subdivision request. The Applicant has requested and the Community Development Director has agreed, as provided for in Section 26.480.070 E., Recordation, to allow the subdivision plat to be recorded concurrently with the future condominium plat. Once construction is nearly completed but prior to an issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the developer shall file a condominium plat and associated documents for review and approval by the City Engineer and Community Development Director as outlined in land use code section 26.480.090. Condominiumiration. Section 3: Buildins Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final recorded Ordinance (Ordinance No. 25, Series of 2007) and recorded P&Z Resolution (Resolution No. 26, Series 2006). b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. d. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 5-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. Any applicable fees will be required for a storm drainage connection to the City system. e. An excavation stabilization plan, construction management plan (CMP), and drainage and soils reports pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. The CMP shall include an identification of construction hauling routes for review and approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent. Special emphasis should be directed to the CMP because of the close quarters on the lot. Material staging, parking and material handling are major concerns. A tower crane should be considered for material handling on site to minimize traffic disruptions. f A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department. g. A detailed excavation plan that utilizes vertical soil stabilization techniques, or other techniques, if appropriate and acceptable, for review and approval by the City Engineer. h. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall be addressed to satisfactorily meet adopted building codes. Section 4: Dimensional Requirements The redevelopment of the building as presented and approved by the City Council complies with the dimensional requirements of the Mixed-Use (MLJ) zone district, including the FAR limits approved by Special Review and noted in Section 1 of this ordinance. Section 5: EnEineerin~ Replacement of the sidewalks, curbs, and gutters need to be addressed with development of the project. If snow melting sidewalks are installed, the adjacent curb and gutter will also need to be heated so the runoff can go into the City of Aspen existing collection system. Permits will be required for any work within a City Right-Of-Way. No penetration, inclusive of soil nails, is allowed within the city right-oGway. Section 6: Affordable Housing a. The affordable housing requirements of the project shall be met with provision of five (5) dwelling units. The units configuration shall be two three-bedroom Category 4 units; one three- bedroom Category 3 unit, one one-bedroom category 3 unit, and one studio category 2 unit. b. Rental units aze allowed with the following conditions: 1) "the units have the ability to become ownership units at such time as the owners request this change and/or at such time as the APCHA deems one of the units out of compliance for over a period of one year. At such time, all units will be listed for sale with the Housing Office as specified in the deed restriction at the maximum sales price based upon the unit type and rental category as outlined in the Guidelines in effect at the time of final plat approval for all units and all units shall be sold through the lottery system as specified in the Guidelines. 2) Rental of the units shall be open to all qualified employees in Aspen and Pitkin County and shall not be tied to employment; however, the owner(s) of the commercial or free-market residential units may still choose qualified renters and the tenants may still be employed by the commercial component. The HOA may maintain ownership of the units. 3) The governing documents of the development shall be drafted to reflect the potential for the rental units to become ownership units; i.e., the Protective Covenants, 13y-Laws, Articles of Incorporation, etc. Since the project is a mixed free-mazkeUdeed- restricted project, the assessments shall be determined based on the price values of the free-market component compazed to the deed-restricted component. This language shall be required in the Covenants associated with the project. No changes to this restriction shall be allowed without the APCHA's approval. 4) As long as the units remain as rental units, APCHA or the applicant shall structure a deed restriction for the employee housing units only such that an undivided 1/10' of 1 percent interest in the ownership of each of the employee units is deed restricted in perpetuity to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority; or until such time the units become ownership units; or the applicant may propose any other means that the Housing Authority determines acceptable. c. The homeowners' association shall be established to reflect the potential for the units to become ownership units. The assessments shall be based on the differential between the mazket values of the free-market component compared to the deed-restricted component. This language shall be required in the Covenants associated with the project. The Covenants shall be reviewed by Housing Office staff prior to approval. No changes to this restriction shall be allowed without the APCHA's approval. d. The deed-restriction shall be recorded at the time of recordation of the Condominium Plat and prior to Certificate of Occupancy. Section 7: Fire Mititation NFPA 13 needs to be applied to the residential component of the project. Fire alarms aze required. Carbon monoxide detectors are required. Stand Pipes for fire protection need to extend into the basement. Service size needs to account for the required fire flows. The alley size needs to accommodate aerial fire truck access for a minimum width of 20 feet or as otherwise approved by the Fire Marshal Section 8: Water Department Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Each of the units within the building shall have individual water meters. Section 9: Sanitation District Requirements a. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specification's, which are on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. b. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSll. c. Oil and Grease interceptors (NO"f traps) are required for all food processing establishment; Locations of food processing shall be identified prior to building permit; even though the commercial space is tenet finish, interceptors will be required at this time if food processing establishments are anticipated for this project. d. Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance establishments. Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells. F,levator shafrs drains must flow thru o/s interceptor. e. Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. £ Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. g. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. h. The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. i. Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines and within 3 feet vertically below an ACSD main sewer line. j. Applicant's civil engineer will be required to submit existing and proposed flow calculations. Section 10: Electrical Department Requirements The Applicant shall have an electric connect load summary conducted by a licensed electrician in order to determine if the existing transformer has sufficient capacity for the redevelopment. If a new supplemental transformer is required to be installed, the Applicant shall provide for a new transformer and its location shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior to installation. The Applicant shall dedicate an easement to allow for City Utility Personnel to access the supplemental transformer for maintenance purposes, if a supplemental transformer is installed Section 11: Environmental Health Using standard Institute of 'Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Rates, this development will generate 94 additional trips per day, and 13 pounds of PM-10 per day. Thus this development will have a negative effect on the air quality if mitigation measures are not implemented. To provide such mitigation, the Applicant may consider providing free bus pass for employees, having the businesses and Homeowner's Association actively participate in the City's Transportation Options Program (TOP), and provide secure bike storage. Section 12: Exterior 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 13: School Lands Dedication Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.620, School Lands Dedication, the Applicant shall pay a fee-in-lieu of land dedication prior to building permit issuance. The City of Aspen Community Development Department shall calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submittal. The Applicant shall provide the market value of the land including site improvements, but excluding the value of structures on the site. Section 13: Impact Fees Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Impact Fees, the Applicant shall pay a Parks Development impact fee assessed at the time of building permit application submittal and paid at building permit issuance. The amount shall be calculated using the methodology and fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submittal. As the land use application was submitted prior to adoption of the Transportation Demand Management (TDM)/Air Quality impact fee, the fee shall not be required. Section 14: Parks a. Excavation: any excavation under the drip line of a tree to be preserved will need to approved and receive a drip line permit along with the tree permit. The existing foundation wall may need to remain in place at the location adjacent to a tree that is to be preserved, and vertical excavation may be required and over digging will be prohibited in such zones; work in these zones will need to be coordinated with the Parks Department. The Parks Department will require a detailed plan showing the location of the existing foundation and how it corresponds with the proposed new foundation. This note must be represented on the building permit set. b. Tree Protection: A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site and their represented drip lines. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the building permit set. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree remaining on site. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee before any construction activities are to commence. Root damage is required to be minimized by preserving the existing foundation, unless an alternative is acceptable and approved by the Parks Department, around the large Spruce Tree. c. An approved tree permit will be required before any demolition or access infrastructure work takes place. Mitigation for tree removals shall be required. d. The applicant will need to contract with a tree service, and have them on-call in order to address all roots greater than 2 inches in diameter. Roots 2" or greater shall be professionally pruned by the on-call tree service. Root trenching will be required around all trees that will be subject to excavation under the drip line or next to the drip line. This can be accomplished by an experienced tree service company or trained member of the contractor's team. e. Landscaping and Sidewalk landscaped area: Landscaping in the public right of way will be subject to landscaping in the ROW requirements, including: o Street tree plantings shall be evenly spaced a minimum of 20 foot on-center. o ROW plantings require adequate irrigation pressure and coverage. o Improvements to the soil profiles of the ROW (amending the current soils to improve air, water filtration and increase longevity of the new plantings) may be necessary and shall be reviewed by the Parks Department. o Tree trenches will need to be utilized for the street tree plantings. Bleeker Street planting can be accomplished with an attached curb and sidewalk with a brick paver accent. f Applicant should work with the developer of the adjacent property (to the west) to coordinate the access issues, tree removals and grading associated with opening of the alley. Section 15: Vested Riehts The development approvals granted pursuant to Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Number 26, Series of 2006 and herein shall be vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of the development order. No later than fourteen (14) days following the final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a vested property right, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 201 N Mill Street, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO, by Ordinance No. 25 Series of 2007, of the Aspen City Council. Section 16: 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 7.oning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fiilly set forth herein, unless amended by an authorised entity. Section 17: This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 18: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 19: A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 9's day of October, 2007, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifreen days prior to which heazing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCF,ll, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 25`" day of June, 2007. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of , 2008. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney List of Exhibits Exhibit A -Approved Exterior Elevations Exhibit A 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 provides affordable housing within the city limits which meets one of the AACP's housing goals. It also contains new development within the Urban Growth Boundary which is a goal of the managing growth section of the AACP. With the location of the development, the building supports the opportunity for choice in travel modes.• transit, walking, and bicycling. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed mixed- use is consistent with the land uses in the immediate vicinity which include commercial office uses, affordable housing uses and free-market multi family uses within the downtown area. Staff finds this criterion to be met. c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Staff Finding As the application indicates, the surrounding properties are close to fully developed. Therefore, Staff does not believe that the proposal will adversely affect the future development of the surrounding properties. Staff finds this criterion to be met. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. Staff Finding The proposed development is in compliance with dhe mixed-use zone district requirements and meets all other land use regulations. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Suitability of land for subdivision. a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. Staff Finding Staff believes that the property is suitable for subdivision. The sloped site contains no overly steep topography and no known geologic hazards that may harm the health of any of the inhabitants of the proposed development. In addition, Staff believes that there will not be a duplication or premature extension of public facilities because the property to be subdivided is already served by adequate public facilities. Therefore, Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and/or the goals of the community. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. StaffFindinQ The Applicant has consented in the application to meet the applicable improvements pursuant to Section 26.580. Stafffnds 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 affordable housing units as required by the Land Use Code and exceeds the affordable housing review standards of the GMQS system. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. Staff Finding The proposed subdivision is required to meet the School Land Dedication Standards pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630. The Applicant has proposed to pay cash-in-lieu of providing land, which will be paid prior to building permit issuance. Thus, stafffnds this criterion to be met. F. Growth Management Approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development (AH-PUD) without first obtaining growth management approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney. (Ord. No. 44-2001, § 2) Staff Finding Allotments for the proposed amended application for five free-market units, five affordable housing units, and an additiona13,276 of net leasable are available. Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meetine Minutes AuEUSt Ol, 2006 Jasmine Tygre opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission in the Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:55 p.m. Commissioners Ruth Kruger, Steve Skadron, Dylan Johns and Jasmine Tygre were present. Excused commissioners were Brian Speck, John Rowland and Brandon Marion. Staff in attendance were Joyce Allgaier, Jennifer Phelan, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST None stated. PUBLIC HEARING: TIMESHARE CONVERSION CODE AMENDMENT (PINES LODGE LLCI -WITHDRAWN - PUBLIC HEARING JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING SUBDIVISION & GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW Jasmine Tygre opened the hearing for the Jerome Professional Building. Jennifer Phelan provided the notice. Phelan explained that the applicant was the Jerome Professional Building Condominium Association represented by Mitch Haas. The property was a 12,000 square foot lot located at 201 North Mill Street in the mixes use district. Currently the existing building contains offices uses; the proposal contains demolition of the existing building and replaced with a mixed use building containing 6 free market units, 3 affordable housing units, and 10,750 square feet of net leaseable commercial office space. Phelan said as proposed this application meets the dimensional requirements of the underlying mixed use zone district with regards to setbacks and maximum height at 32 feet. This property has a fair amount of grade differential and the floor area allowance in the zone district was 2 to 1, which is 24,000 square feet. The individual uses within the building have individual caps; the proposal requests an increase in the commercial and free market housing to be reviewed under special review. Proposed were 20 underground parking spaces in a parking garage accessed from the alley, which is unimproved at this time; Council approved an application for the alley from the property adjacent to this property to improve and open the alley. 2 of the 20 spaces were in a tandem configuration so it only counts as 18 spaces. Phelan said there were growth management reviews for a new mixed use building, free-market residential units and affordable housing units. The mitigation for 2 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes August Ol, 2006 employee generation was 6.09 full time employee equivalents; as proposed there were 3 two bedroom affordable housing units, which allows for mitigation for 6.75 employees. The proposed net livable square footage was 9,000 square feet for the free-market units and 3,099 square feet for the affordable housing mitigation. The affordable housing has to meet certain design standards that being a minimum of 50% of the net livable floor area has to be above the natural or finished grade, which ever was higher; 100% of these units were above or at natural grade. Housing Guidelines require affordable housing units to be a minimum size of 950 square feet for 2 bedroom units; 2 of these proposed units were in excess of that and 1 unit was 6 square feet shy of that minimum; the housing boazd can recommend up to a 20% reduction in the net livable square footage, which was reflected in the housing referral. The applicant preferred rental units and staff recommended these be "for sale" units, which was a recent change to the land use code. Phelan said the commercial design review was a final decision at P&Z level; there were a number of basic standards that were designed to foster proper commercial scale and character. The review standards deal with the primary relationship to the street even on this difficult site. Phelan said that Special Review was a final decision for the Planning Commission and the applicant requested special review for the commercial and free-market uses on the property; the applicant can ask for up to a 1 to 1 ratio. The applicant is asking fora .88 to 1 for the commercial use, which is just over 1500 square feet in floor area and for the free-market multi-family use the applicant requested .87 to 1 at 1,142 square feet in floor area. Phelan said the standazds for Specia] Review talk about compatibility with regard to mass, height, density, configuration, open space, landscaping, setbacks and insure that the design is compatible with the character of the surrounding land uses. Staff feels that the current massing and configuration could be reworked and should be resolved a little bit more particulazly along the Mill Street pedestrian portion and some reworking of the massing of the building, which could better handle the additional square footage. Staff recommended changes to the design of the building that could accommodate the requested additional floor area and create a more compatible building with the downtown. Phelan said the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to Council on the Subdivision review. Staff believes that this application meets the applicable subdivision review standards in the land use code. 3 Aspen PlanninE & Zoning Commission Meetine Minutes Ausust Ol. 2006 Ruth Kruger asked if the "for sale" units were subject to 30% or 33% rule and requested this affordable housing rule be researched and brought back to the Commission. Kruger asked the rear height of the building. Phelan replied that the architects would clarify that. Steve Skadron asked if the wording on page 6 of the memo was correct. Phelan explained that the applicant may be allowed to pick the first purchasers of the affordable housing units by approval of the housing board. Jasmine Tygre asked if the affordable housing units mitigated for the commercial and free-market residential uses. Phelan said that the mitigation was not counted in a cumulative manner; you don't have to mitigate for the commercial and then mitigate for the free-market. Phelan said the code reads "when affordable housing units are provided on site the individual mitigation requirements are not required to be added together for a combined sum as long as the largest amount of required mitigation for any one Growth Management request is met." Tygre asked if the 3 affordable units were the mitigation for the entire project. Phelan replied that was correct. Tygre asked how different these dimensional requirements were from the previous underlying zone district. Tygre requested a table showing the proportions of the spaces being dedicated to each use. Herb Klein stated that Joe Krabacher, Car] Larsen and he were owners of the condominium units in the Jerome Professional Building and the architects were Lipkin Warner. Klein introduced Michael Lipkin, David Warner, Jeff Orsulak and Mitch Haas. Klein provided the history of the building beginning with it being 26 years old, which was the old Aspen Dairy property. They were the first or second condominimized office building in Aspen; Joe Krabacher and Herb Klein own their office spaces on the second floor and Carl Larsen owns the first floor and leases the spaces out. Klein said they looked at a renovation and to add-on to the office building and it just did not work; the only thing that made sense was to scrape and replace. Klein said they wanted the office space for their own use and the affordable housing for their employees. Klein said the Housing Authority approved these units as rentals. 4 Asnen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes August Ol 2006 Klein said that there were 20 parking spaces and only 1$ would count so they will pay cash-in-lieu and may come back for a special review to show those tandem spaces do work. Klein noted they were hiring a parking consultant to see about the possibility of adding more parking maybe another sub-grade level. Jeff Orsulak set up a slide show that included rotation of the building and Michael Lipkin presented a town site depicting the Jerome, Obermeyer, this site and the surrounding areas. Lipkin said there were many opportunities along Mill Street for this building with the likelihood of redevelopment down Mill Street for a more desirable pedestrian experience from Puppy Smith Street up to Main Street. Lipkin spoke about the new building design being only 7 feet taller than the existing building. Lipkin stated that there were really no expansion possibilities but with the new mixed use change in the code there were possibilities for the redevelopment of this building. Lipkin said the street frontage on Mill Street became quite active and a change in the walking experience down to the Post Office or Clarks Market. Dave Warner spoke about the way the building looks in detail from the slides; the view from Main Street down to Puppy Smith. Warner said that all the floors can be accessed from the comer; the base of the building greets the pedestrian; the alley contains the trash azea and opening to the garage; the west side has open space. Warner said an important part of the massing was breaking the building up into different masses and layers. Warner went though the floors of the building pointing out [he residential and commercial uses with the building stepping back from Mill Street. Allgaier asked for the height dimensions. Warner stated the current site had a planter on the Mill Street side but it wasn't user friendly along the sidewalk. Tygre asked if the bottom of the staircase to the top of the building was 32 feet. Warner responded the top of the staircase was at grade. Klein explained that the existing sidewalk on 131eeker was lower than the natural pre-existing grade of the property. Allgaier restated that the steps follow the finished grade; the measurements were taken from the existing grade or preexisting or finished grade, whichever is lower. Ruth Kruger asked if the alley has been vacated. Wamer replied that it was platted but not active. Herb Klein said that the alley was not vacated. Tygre asked how far from the western property line the building was located. Warner said it was 15 feet setback to create the green space. Tygre asked how high the staircase was. Warner replied about 6 feet at the highest point. Warner said that changes were made to the Mill Street side after meeting with staff including storefront windows and canopies to create continuity for the places. 5 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes August Ol, 2006 Mitch Haas said that the only changes were the special review requests were for the affordable housing units to be rental units; the condition on rental units were if they were out of compliance for a year then it becomes a for sale unit in the housing lottery or if the owners choose to make the units for sale then the units go to the housing lottery. Haas said the housing board recommended the units be rental units and the growth management review stays with the housing authority at its sole discretion. Haas said the commercial special review was modest at 1455 square feet of additional commercial floor area and netted out it was only 293 square feet of actual commercial space because of the pro rata shares attributed to circulation and they asked for an additional 1442 square feet for the free market, 101 S of that number was in circulation and common areas so it was only 424 square feet of actual free market space. Haas said they suggested parking passes for the parking garage across the street for the affordable units during the week so that parking spaces could be used during the day for the office and commercial spaces. Haas said that they were a live work situation with rental units and have a lot less need to use their cars. Haas said there were items in the resolution that needed to be cleaned up with staff. Dylan Johns asked if there would be a cars shuttling back and forth to the municipal parking garage. Haas replied potentially yes. Allgaier said this parking issue needed more thought. Klein said there was sufficient parking by code for this building but they would prefer to have more parking available for short term clients; they felt it was a more efficient use of the area. Joe Krabacher said the current parking for the building included 13 or 14 spaces and people angle park. Haas noted that residential units in the building will be entitled to residential street parking permits Johns asked about the alley being opened. Phelan said that the alley would be a dead end alley and the first person to want to use the alley would be required to make those improvements with the Blue Vic application. Steve Skadron asked if 7 feet was a significant increase in height. Lipkin replied that there was a drawing showing the change in height. Tygre asked how much commercial space the existing building has. Klein replied that it was all office with a gross area at 9275 square feet and net leasable was at 7550. 6 Ashen Planning & Zonin¢ Commission Meetine Minutes AuQUSt Ol, 2006 Public Comments: Bert Myrin said that he lives in the neighborhood; the cars have to go into the crosswalk to see around the current planter. Myrin said the parking was tight in the neighborhood and there was a municipal garage across the street. Myrin said for someone to have to move their car into the Rio Grande garage and walk back to work in that building and then at night move their car again seemed rather silly. Myrin asked if there was room in the code to vary the parking for the affordable units. Jennifer Phelan submitted letters into the record from Don Dixon and Wyley Hodgson. Kruger said that she asked for clarification of the rules but she did not think that it would change her position or vote; she asked if the commission could vote on this tonight. Johns said that he had a couple of unanswered questions. Skadron asked if there were sufficient answers on the pakking matter. Kruger said they were within their rights to present the parking as it was and were not outside of the rules although you may have questions as to whether or not you like it or not. Allgaier said that she wasn't clear on the parking for the employee housing as recommended by Housing and staff would like to review this aspect along with the Parking Department. Kruger said that she was considering a condition for assigned parking and did not know whether the applicants were interested in or not. Tygre said that rather than give any of the items a short shrift that she would like to see the parking ironed out prior voting on the project; the rest of the commission agreed. Klein said that if it troubles the commission about the movable spaces, it was not a do or die situation; if the commission was not comfortable with that then the assigned spaces would work. Tygre said that it would be helpful to get the opinion from staff on the use of the public garage; she noted that in other municipalities there were vouchers given by businesses for their patrons to use in a municipal gazage, this might be a better option to consider that might be beneficial to the businesses and staff might have other ideas. Allgaier agreed that staff would like to do that as well. Johns said that as Ruth said they do comply with the parking requirements but it was a very congested azea for parking. Allgaier said that staff would like to work on clarification for the percentage mix of uses in a mixed use development and to work with the applicant regarding fixing the resolution to bring it back to P&Z. 7 Aspen Plannin¢ & Zoning Commission Meetine Minutes August Ol, 2006 Kruger requested clarification on the employee housing at 30% or the first round and there was a balance to remembering the new rules and making sure that the commission applies the law properly. Haas stated that the 30% doesn't apply any more and it was under the Growth Management Rules on Affordable Housing. Allgaier said staff would clarify in the next staff report. Johns said the project was designed within the parameters and the special request for more floor area, which was not a great deal and had the incentives for on-site affordable housing. Johns said that the rental units make a lot of sense especially in a commercial building. Skadron complimented the applicant and appreciated the pedestrian friendly character of the building and liked the way it broke into different masses and stepped back. Tygre said that her concern was the mix of uses and the building was more than doubling in size; the free-market residential use was troubling in, terms of the proportion of the mix. Tygre said that this did not seem to get to what she felt the mixed use should be and instead free-market residential was being subsidized. Tygre said there were a lot of good things about this project and liked the employee housing on site and agreed that the rental made sense. Tygre voiced concern for the mass of the building and the fapade of the staircase because looking at the building upward from the bottom of the steps to the roof the building it looked gigantic even though she knew that it was measured within the height limit at grade. Tygre showed concern for the regulations and the way this project was proposed that the request for additional FAR does not fulfill the criteria in the review section of special review. Kruger agreed that the staircase was troubling but the site constraints were very difficult beginning at the westerly south corner and dropping down in every direction. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the Jerome Professional Building Subdivision & Growth Management public hearing to August I5`~'; seconded 6y Steve Skadron. Roll call vote: Johns, yes; Skadron, yes; Kruger, yes; Tygre, yes. All in favor, APPROVED. Meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m. Ja a Lothian, eputy City Clerk 8 ~~~iT ~ Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - August 15.2006 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (08/01/06): JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING MIXED USE REDEVELOPMENT Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on the Jerome Professional redevelopment. Joyce Allgaier stated the three areas of concern from the previous meeting. 1. Clarify who determines whether the affordable housing units are ownership or rental units. Also are there regulations that allow the developer to pick qualified purchasers. If the applicant can pick the purchasers then they agree to for sale units otherwise the applicant prefers that they be rental units. Allgaier said that the Planning Commission was the final review on this Grow Management Review. 2. Clarify the use percentages within the building and whether any standards within the Land Use Code address use percentage. Allgaier said the development contains 10,515 square feet in Commercial Floor Area; 3,000 square feet in Affordable Housing Floor Area and 10,442 square feet in Free-Market Multi- family Floor Area with a total for the building of 23,957 square feet. Calculated as percentages the commercial component was 43.89%; affordable housing component was 12.52% and the free-market residential component was 43.58% of the total floor area. Allgaier said that Ordinance # 12-06 provided a maximum cap on the size of the free-market residential unit of 2,000 square feet of net livable area and a116 of the units meet that size limitation. 3. Review the parking requirements. Allgaier said that there were 20 parking spaces proposed within the parking garage; 4 spaces are in tandem configuration resulting in 2 spaces so there were a total of 18 spaces in the garage. Required were I parking space per residential unit so there were a total of 9 spaces for the residential component and for the commercial office it was one space per 1,000 square feet or 11 spaces required. Staff was not in favor of the proposed affordable housing units parking in the Rio Grande garage during the day instead there should be 3 dedicated spaces to the affordable housing units in the parking garage. Allgaier said that staff s position was to recommend in favor of this land use application with minor changes to the resolution for typographical reasons. Ruth Kruger asked the current square footage of the office building. Mitch Haas responded the net leasable now was 7,550 square feet. Mitch Haas said that they have responded to some of the concerns from the last meeting with regards to the architecture. Haas said that 3 parking spaces would be 3 Asnen Planning & Zoning Commission ReEUlar Meetine Minutes - August 15, 2006 dedicated to the affordable housing units so there would not be shuffling of the cars. David Warner and Jeff Orsulak presented a slide show of the proposed building in context with some vegetation and different ways of dealing with the corner of the building. Warner noted the visor was lowered. Warner said that the steps were at grade and wanted the steps to be a nice balance to be able to be utilized. Public Comments: 1. Letter from Mark Richards, Comfort Products, 225 North Mill Street. 2. Sherry Michaels said that she worked with the building owner of 225 North Mill Street and brought the letter from Mark Joseph. Michaels said that she was more concerned with the alley than anything else and whoever improves the alley (either the Blue Vic or this group) that was not cleaz at this point. Michaels said the Blue Vic agreed to try to do a 4 foot greenbelt between 225 North Mill and the alley when the alley was improved and hoped that would be considered at this point as well. Steve Skadron asked if the application as it was currently written addressed the concerns of Mark Joseph. Allgaier asked if Steve shared these concerns. Haas said there was a 5 foot setback off the alley and would like to maintain a 4 foot greenbelt also if the fire marshal would allow it; that would make the alley 16 feet wide instead of 20 feet wide. Haas said the idea of a 6 to 8 foot high wall was not a good idea from the building next door's perspective; they would be looking directly at a wall rather than the 4 feet plus the alley and the 5 foot setback before the wall. Haas said that by moving the building closer to Mill Street would not allow them to take advantage of the slope and there would be more garage door showing; this would also impact the whole floor plan of the building. David Warner stated that the city required the alley entrance for the garage. Kruger asked if the sidewalks would be snow melted. Haas said that there were conditions addressing if they were but the sidewalks were currently not snow melted but the applicant has not decided on that one way or another with energy calculations to consider. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #26, series of 2006, approving with conditions the 3 Growth Management Reviews, the Commercial Design Review and the Special Review under the purview of the Planning Commission and recommending that City Council approve with conditions, the subdivision request for the Jerome Professional Building to construct a mixed use 4 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Meetin¢ Minutes - August 15.2006 structure on the property on the property known as Jerome Professional Building Condominiums (Lots P, Q, R and S, Block 78, Town site of Aspen). Seconded by Dylan Johns. Roll call vote: Johns, yes; Speck, yes; Skadron, yes; Kruger, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED S-0. Discussion: Dylan Johns said that bringing the comer down was good. Jasmine Tygre stated her concern was not with this application because it followed the rules that were in place but was with the way the regulations were written. Tygre said that she felt that this was not was intended in the Special Review Criteria and found it contrary to the spirit of what the commission thought that they were getting in terms of mixed use projects when the greatest increase in the use was the free market residential, which is allowed under the rules in place at this time. Joyce Allgaier clarified what the applicants sought through this application through Special Review was to have the free market component go from a .75 to 1 ratio to a .87 to 1 ratio, which adds about 1400 extra square feet split amongst the units. Allgaier said the commercial component was going from .75 though Special Review to .88 to 1. Mitch Haas said that the corridors added the square footage. PUBLIC HEARING: 625 EAST MAIN STREET -STAGE III -REDEVELOPMENT Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the Stage III redevelopment, subdivision, commercial design review, growth management review for affordable housing and free market units and expansion/new constmction, lodge or mixed use development. Jessica Garrow provided the proof of notice and mailing. Jessica Garrow distributed the revised resolution with some minor changes and criteria sheets. Garrow stated this was an application for a mixed use project in the C 1 Zone District; the property was commonly known as Stage III located at 625 East Main Street. The existing 2 story building has a 3 screen movie theatre and provides 3off-street parking spaces; the existing structure has a deficit 4off-street parking spaces. The lot is 10,000 square feet and currently includes less than 10% pedestrian amenity; the land use code states that if an existing site provides less than 10% pedestrian amenity space acash-in-lieu payment was permitted without further review and the applicant proposed that for this case. Garrow stated the proposed 3 story building includes a subgrade level with a parking lift; 14 parking spaces and storage areas. The street level contains 2 commercial spaces, the top end of the auto lift, which has access from the alley and 3 parking spaces along the alley. The second level has 2 office spaces, 1 free market residence and 4 affordable housing units. The third level has 4 free market 5 ~~R~ Resolution No. 26 (SERIES OF 2006) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING THREE GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW APPROVALS, COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL REVIEW, AND RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL GRANT SUBDIVSION APPROVAL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AMIXED-USE BUILDING CONTAINING THREE AFFORDABLE .HOUSING UNTI'S, SIX FREE-MARKET MULTI-FAMILY UNITS, AND COMMERCIAL NET LEASBLE AREA KNOWN AS THE JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING AND LOCATED AT 201 NORTH MILL STREET, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel Nos. 2737-073-17-010 through 2737-073-17-028 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from all of the owners and directors of the Jerome Professional Building Condominium Association, Inc., requesting three (3) Growth Management Review approvals, Commercial Design Review approval, Special Review approval and a recommendation of approval for Subdivision to develop amixed-use building known as the Jerome Professional Building located at 201 N. Mill Street; and, WHEREAS, the growth management reviews are for approval for a New Mixed-Use Building which contains 10,750 sq. ft. of net leasable azea, approval for the Development of six (6) free-mazket residential units totaling a Floor Area Ratio of .87:1, and approval for the Development of three (3}affordable housing units with a total of 3,099 sq. ft. of net livable area; and, WHEREAS, as part of the land use review, the Applicant is requesting Commercial Design Review approval for the proposed mixed-use building; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant is requesting Special Review approval to increase the individual floor azea ratios (FAR) for both the commercial use and free-mazket multi-family use of the property. The current zoning allows an overall cap of 2:1 (24,000 sq. ft.) for the entire parcel and permits an applicant to request, through Special Review, an increase in both the free- mazket multi-family use and commercial use of the property from .75:1 to a maximum of 1:1. For the commercial use, the Applicant is requesting an increase from .75:1 to .88:1 (or an additional 1,515 sq. ft. in floor azea) and for the free-market multi-family use, the Applicant is requesting an increase from .75:1 to .87:1 (or an additional 1,442 sq. ft. in floor azea); and, WHEREAS, the Applicant is requesting subdivision approval because the development of multi-family dwelling units requires approval of subdivision pursuant to the definition of subdivision in the City's land use code; and, IIIIIII IIIIII~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 528466 ez:e, JRNICE K VOS CRUD]LL PITKIN COUNTY 00 R 41.08 D 0.80 Page 1 of 8 1 1528466 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII VIII IIIIIIIIIIII III VIII IIII III1009911 DZ0 00 2.07 dRNIC WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standazds, the Community Development Department recommended continuance (pending architectural design revisions) of the Special Review request, but approval of the Growth Management Review requests, the Commercial Design Review (with additional design changes to the building), and the Subdivision request; and, WHEREAS, Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the application and upon recommendation of the Community Development Department, continued the public hearing to August 15, 2006; and, WHEREAS, upon further review of the application at the August 15t° continuance, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered the development proposal 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 duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standazds and that the approval and recommendation of approval of the land use requests is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission grants approval of the three (3) Growth Management Review requests; the Commercial Design Review request; and the Special Review request; and, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the Subdivision request, all for the development of a mixed-use building that contains 10,750 sq. ft. of net leasable area and a commercial F.A.R of .88:1, six (6) free-mazket units totaling a Floor Area Ratio of .87:1, and pro~tiding three affordable housing units with a total of 3,099 sq. ft. of net livable azea by a vote of+~/e to ~e~'~~ - ~; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission fmds that this Resolution furthers 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 Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves Growth Management Review for Expansion/New Commercial, Lodge, or Mixed-Use Development; Growth Management Review for Free-Market Residential Units within aMixed-Use Project; Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing; Commercial Design Review; and Special Review to increase the Commercial use F.A.R. to .88: ]and the Free-Mazket Multi-Family use F.A.R. to .87:1 for the development of a mixed-use building containing six free-market units, three affordable housing Page 2 of 8 units containing a minimum of 3,099 sq. ft. of net livable azea, and a commercial component containing a maximum of 10,750 sq. ft. of net leasable azea as shown in the floor plans of Exhibit D of the staff report dated August 1, 2006. The Planning and Zoning Commission also recommends approval of the subdivision request for the development of a mixed-use building containing six free-market units, three affordable housing units containing a minimum of 3,099 sq. ft. of net livable area, and a wmmercial component containing a maximum of 10,750 sq. ft. of net leasable azea as shown in the floor plans contained within Exhibit D of the staff report dated August 1, 2006. Section l: Plat and Aereement The Applicant shall record a subdivision plat and agreement that meets the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision, within 180 days of approval if City Council provides final approval of the subdivision request. ''NII I IIIIII VIII II III III VIII IIIIII IIIIII III VIIIIIIIIII 0D~381 2 0066 02:071 SCCtIOn 3: BUlldlne Permit ADpheatlOn JPNICE K VOS CQUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 41.00 D 0.00 The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final Ordinance and recorded P&Z Resolution. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. d. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 5-yeaz stomt frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. Any applicable fees will be required for a storm drainage connection to the City system. e. An excavation stabilization plan, construction management plan (CMP), and drainage and soils reports pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. The CMP shall include an identification of construction hauling routes for review and approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent. Special emphasis should be directed to the CMP because of the close quarters on the lot. Material staging, pazking and material handling aze major concerns. A tower crane should be considered for material handling on site to minimize traffic disruptions. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department. g. A detailed excavation plan that utilizes vertical soil stabilization techniques, or other techniques, if appropriate and acceptable, for review and approval by the City Engineer. Page 3 of 8 II I 528466 I IIIIIIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVIIIIIIIIIII 09 9911D200e® 2.071 h. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall be addressed to satisfactorily meet adopted building codes. Section 4: Dimensional Requirements The redevelopment of the building as presented complies with the dimensional requirements of the Mixed-Use (MU) zone district, including the FAR limits approved by Special Review. Section 5: EaPineerina Replacement of the sidewalks, curbs, and gutters need to be addressed with development of the project. If snow melting sidewalks aze installed, the adjacent curb and gutter will also need to be heated so the runoff can go into the City of Aspen existing collection system. Permits will be required for any work within a City Right-Of--Way. No, penetration, inclusive of soil nails, is allowed within the city right-of--way. Section 6: Affordable Housine a. The affordable housing requirements of the project shall be met with provision of three (3) two-bedroom Category 4 units. b. Rental units area allowed with the following conditions: 1) The units have the ability to become ownership units at such time as the owners request this change and/or at such time as the APCHA deems one of the units out of compliance for over a period of one year. At such time, all units will be listed for sale with the Housing Office as specified in the deed restriction at the Category 4 maximum sales price based on the Guidelines in effect at the time of Snal plat approval for all units and all units shall be sold through the lottery system as specified in the Guidelines. 2) Rental of the units shall be open to all qualified employees in Aspen and Pitkin County and shall not be tied to employment; however, the owner(s) of the wmmereial or free-mazket residential units may still choose qualified renters and the tenants may still be employed by the commercial component. The HOA may maintain ownership of the units. 3) The governing documents of the development shall be drafted to reflect the potential for the rental units to become ownership units; i.e., the Protective Covenants, By-Laws, Articles of Incorporation, etc. Since the project is a mixed free-market/deed- restricted project, the assessments shall be deterrrrined based on the price values of the free-market component compared to the deed-restricted component. This language shall be required in the Covenants associated with the project. No changes to this restriction shall be allowed without the APCHA's approval. 4) As long as the units remain as rental units, APCHA or the applicant shall structure a deed restriction for the employee housing units only such that an undivided 1/10`" of Page 4 of 8 1 percent interest in the ownership of each of the employee units is deed restricted in perpetuity to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority; or until such time the units become ownership units; or the applicant may propose any other means that the Housing Authority determines acceptable. c. The homeowners' association shall be established to reflect the potential for the units to become ownership units. The assessments shall be based on the differential between the market values of the free-mazket component compared to the deed-restricted component This language shall be required in the Covenants associated with the project. The Covenants shall be reviewed by Housing Office staff prior to approval. No changes to this restricfion shall be allowed without the APCHA's approval. d. Three off-street parking spaces within the development's parking garage shall be provided and designated for the occupants of the deed-restricted units. e. The deed-restriction shall be recorded at the time of recordation of the Condominium Plat and prior to Certificate of Occupancy. Section 7: Fire Mitigation NFPA 13 needs to be applied to the residential component of the project. Fire alarms are required. Carbon monoxide detectors aze required. Stand Pipes for fire protection need to extend into the basement. Service size needs to account for the required fire flows. The alley size needs to accommodate aerial fire truck access for a minimum width of 20 feet or as otherwise approved by the Fire Marshal. Section 8: Water Department Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable sandards 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 9: Sanitation District Requirements a. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. b. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. c. Oi] and Grease interceptors (NOT traps) are required for all food processing establishment; Locations of food processing shall be identified prior to building permit; even though the commercial space is tenet finish, interceptors will be required at this time if food processing establishments are anticipated for this project. lIIIII~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII~IIIII~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIO 9a84660mz.e, Page 5 of 8 d. Oil and Sand separators aze required for parking gazages and vehicle maintenance establishments. Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells. Elevator shafts drains must flow thru o/s interceptor. e. Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed for each building. Shazed service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Permanent improvements aze prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. f. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. g. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. h. The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and dischazge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage azeas must have approved containment facilities. i. Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines and within 3 feet vertically below an ACSD main sewer line. j. Applicant's civil engineer will be required to submit existing and proposed flow calculations. Section 10: Electrical Department Requirements The Applicant shall have an electric connect load summary conducted by a licensed electrician in order to determine if the existing transformer has sufficient capacity for the redevelopment. If a new supplemental transformer is required to be installed, the Applicant shall provide for a new transformer and its location shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior to installation. The Applicant shall dedicate an easement to allow for City Utility Personnel to access the supplemental transformer for maintenance purposes, if a supplemental transformer is installed Section 11: Environmental Health Using standard Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Rates, this development will generate 94 additional trips per day, and 13 pounds of PM-10 per day. Thus this development will have a negative effect on the air quality if mitigation measures are not implemented. To provide such mitigation, the Applicant may: a. Pay the City of Aspen's Air Quality Impact Fee (if in place at the time of building permit submittal). Or, b. Provide free bus pass for employees; and, c. Have the businesses and Homeowner's Association actively participate in the City's Transportation Options Program (TOP); and, d. Provide secure bike storage. Section 12: Exterior Liehting IIIIIII IIII III I III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III~II ~v8 ewes ez:0~i JRN[CE K VOS CRUOILL PITKIN COLWTY CO R 41.00 0 0.00 Page 6 of 8 All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. Section 13: School Lands Dedication Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School lands dedication, the Applicant shall pay a fee-in-lieu of land dedication prior to building permit issuance. The City of Aspen Community Development Department shall calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee schedule in affect at the time of building permit submittal. The Applicant shall provide the market value of the land including site improvements, but excluding the value of stmctwes on the site. 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 assessed at the time of building permit application submittal and paid at building permit issuance. Section 14• Parks a. Excavation: any excavation under the drip line of a tree to be preserved will need to approved and receive a drip line permit along with the tree permit. The existing foundation wall may need to remain in place at the location adjacent to a tree that is to be preserved, and vertical excavation may be required and over digging will be prohibited in such zones; work in these zones will need to be coordinated with the Parks Department. The Parks Department will require a detailed plan showing the location of the existing foundation and how it corresponds with the proposed new foundation. This note must be represented on the building permit set. b. Tree Protection: A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site and their represented drip lines. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the building perrnit set. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree remaining on site. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee before any construction activities are to commence. Root damage is required to be minimized by preserving the existing foundation, unless an alternative is acceptable and approved by the Parks Department, around the large Spruce Tree. c.. An approved tree permit will be required before any demolition or access infrastructure work takes place. Mitigation for tree removals shall be required. d. The applicant will need to contract with a tree service, and have them on-call in order to address all roots greater than 2 inches in diameter. Roots 2" or greater shall be professionally pruned by the on-call tree service. Root trenching will be required around all trees that will be subject to excavation under the drip line or next to the drip line. This can be accomplished by an experienced tree service company or trained member of the contractor's team. III IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII 528466 oz:e~i JRN]CE K VOS CRUOILL P]TKIN COUNTY CO R 41.00 D 0.00 Page 7 of 8 e. Landscaping and Sidewalk landscaped azea: Landscaping in the public right of way will be subject to landscaping in the ROW requirements, including: o Street tree plantings shall be evenly spaced a minimum of 20 foot on-center. o ROW plantings require adequate irrigation pressure and coverage. o Improvements to the soil profiles of the ROW (amending the current soils to improve air, water filtration and increase longevity of the new plantings) may be necessary and shall be reviewed by the Pazks Deparnnent. o Tree trenches will need to be utilized for the street tree plantings. Bleeker Street planting can be accomplished with an attached curb and sidewalk with a brick paver accent. f. Applicant should work with the developer of the adjacent property (to the west) to coordinate the access issues, tree removals and gading associated with opening of the alley. SeMion 15: 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 he complied with as if fully set forth herein, utiless amended by an authorized entity. Section 16• This resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 17• 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 sepazate, 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 1 Ss' day of August, 2006. APPROVED AS TO FORM: C Attorney ATTEST: ckie Loth n, Deputy City Clerk PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: ~~ l~`7~ Jasmine Tygre, Chair IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIII3IIIIIII1IlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINry~II~ ~8866ez:e~i .00 Page 8 of 8 i r i i ~~~~ti_ ~~~~ ~ GROwr~f M~IN~I~M~Nr, COMM~RCI~IL 1~~SIC~N R~1/.I~w, S~''fCI~,4L R~1/.I~W ~1N1~ SLI~~IVISION ~4~LIC,4rION suBMrrrE~ 8Y x4fl~ 1,~4N~' ~~NNIN~ 201 NORrff MILL STR£fT, SL(IT'f 108 ~lS~'fIV, COLOR~4~0 81611 ~han,~i (970) 925-7819 ~a~cr. (970) 925-7395 ~ma~',u n~-~aa~~~apri~. net' ~t~'RIL, 2006 AN APPLICATION FOR GMQS ALLOTMENTS, COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL REVIEW AND SUBDIVISION APPROVALS FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF THE JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING Submitted by: Jerome Professional Building Condominium Association, Inc. c/o B. Joseph Krabacher, President 201 North Mill Street, Suite 201 Aspen, CO 81611 (970)925-6300 Prepared by: HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC Planning Consultant 201 North Mill Street, Suite 108 Aspen, CO 81611 Phone: (970) 925-7819 Fax: (970) 925-7395 Email: mhaas@sopris.net PROJECT CONSULTANTS PT . A NNFR Mitch Haas, AICP Haas Land Planning, LLC 201 North Mill Street, Suite 108 Aspen, CO 81611 (970)925-7819 SURVEYOR Sopris Engineering, LLC Mark S. Beckler, L.S. #28643 502 Main Street, Suite A3 Carbondale, CO 81623 (970) 704-0311 ARCHITECTURE Lipkin Warner Design & Planning 701 East Valley Road, Suite 201 P.O. Box 239 Basalt, CO 81621 (970)927-8473 LEGAL Klein Cote & Edwards Herbert S. Klein, Esq. 201 North Mill Street, Suite 203 Aspen, CO 81611 (970)925-8700 Krabacher ~ Sanders, P.C. B. Joseph Krabacher, Esq. 201 North Mill Street, Suite 201 Aspen, CO 81611 (970)925-6300 JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING REDEVELOPMENT APPLICATION ---TABLE OF CONTENTS --- PAGE I. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................1 II. PROJECT SITE & SURROUNDING AREA (Existing Conditions)............2 • Vicinity Map .......................................................................2 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .........................................................4 • Table One: Dimensional Requirements Comparison ....................6 IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS ..............................................................8 A. P&Z Reviews ...........................................................................8 1. GMQS Allocations ...............................................................8 a. New Mixed Use Development, Section 26.470.040(C)(2)...........8 b. Free-Market Residential Units within a Mixed-Use Project, Section 26.470.040(C)(6) .........................14 c. Affordable Housing, Section 26.470.040(C)(7) .......................15 2. Commercial Design Review ..................................................16 3. Special Review ...................................................................17 4. Subdivision .......................................................................20 B. City Council Review ..................................................................23 V. VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS .........................................................23 EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Proof of Ownership & Authorization for the Applicant Exhibit 2: Land Use Application & Dimensional Requirements Forms Exhibit 3: Pre-Application Conference Summary Exhibit 4: Authorization for Applicant Representatives Exhibit 5: List of Property Owners within 300 Feet of the Subject Property Exhibit 6: Executed Application Fee Agreement I. INTRODUCTION: This application seeks approvals for the redevelopment of the Jerome Professional Building (hereinafter "the JPB") located at the 201 North Mill Street (corner of N. Milt and E. Bleeker Streets). The property is in the Mixed-Use (MU) zone district. In accordance with the zoning, the redevelopment will include a mix of commercial and office space, free-mazket residences, affordable housing, and subgrade parking. The proposed development involves a mix of commercial uses and multiple residences to be divided into separate legal interests; accordingly, subdivision approval is required pursuant to Section 26.480.050 of the Code even tho~igh it is not a traditional subdivision in the sense of dividing land areas into sepazate interests. Growth management review is necessary to obtain allocations for the incremental increase in net leasable commercial area, the free-market residential units, and the affordable housing units to be included within the redevelopment. Since the proposal includes office and commercial space, Commercial Design Review approvals are required as well. Finally, special review approvals are needed to allow commercial and free-market residential FAR (floor area-to-lot azea ratios) of between 0.75:1 and 1:1 each. Accordingly, this submittal has been prepared pursuant to Aspen Land Use Code Sections 26.304, 27.710.180, 26.470.040(C)(2), (6), and (7), 26.430.040(A), 26.480.050, and 26.412.050, and 26.515 by the Jerome Professional Building Condominium Association, Ina (hereinafter "applicant") and all of the owners of the property (see proof of ownership in Exhibit 1). The Land Use Application and Dimensional Requirements Forms are attached hereto as Exhibit 2, and a copy of the Pre-Application Conference Summary prepared by Senior Planner, James Lindt, is attached as Exhibit 3. Permission for Haas Land Planning, LLC, planning consultant, Lipkin Wamer Design & Planning, LLC, architects and the law firms of two of the owners, Klein, Cote and Edwards, LLC and Krabacher and Sanders, P.C., to represent the applicant is attached as Exhibit 4. A list of property owners located within three-hundred feet of the property and an executed application fee agreement are attached as Exhibits 5 and 6, respectively. This application is divided into five sections: Section I provides a brief introduction; Section II delivers an overview of the subject site and surrounding area (existing conditions); Section III describes the proposed development; Section IV addresses the proposed development's compliance with the applicable review criteria of the Code; and, Section V is a request for vested property rights. For the reviewer's convenience, all pertinent supporting documents relating to the project (i.e., proof of ownership, etc.) are provided in the various exhibits attached at the end of the application. While the applicant has attempted to address all relevant provisions of the Code and provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of the application, questions may arise which require further information and/or clarification. Such additional information will be provided upon request. Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment Application Page 1 IL PROJECT SITE & SURROUNDING AREA (Existing Conditions: The JPB is located on the edge of the commercial core, one block north of Main Street at 201 North Mill Street. The site is the northwest comer of the North Mill Street and East Bleeker Street intersection, behind the Hotel Jerome and across from Community Banks of Aspen and the entrance to the City's Rio Grande Pazking Structure. For a graphic and accurate depiction of the existing conditions, refer to the Improvement Location Survey/Topographical Map prepared by Sopris Engineering, LLC (copy attached). The vicinity map below shows the approximate location of the property. _ ,y " ~°S'n r ~~ i ~, - {ate ~ U~ SA, ~; ~k~ a i ~5~ ~ ~ z ~a t ~rfa~ - ; , ' n ` s $ ~ ei ~~ 20T N Mill St; Aspe ` ~ > ~ wrtya~~ `ryc~- 7t;Sr; CO 81611 5 'Ol W ~` ` ~ A Ve r ~~YR7a~,~R E.k~~~ •. ~, ~ ~ _ ~ ~~~-4~'~ ~- » ~ tr Q'~ ~'^b~,~a(yw ` `~ ~ ~ '~Y+tsn qte _ ~_ -- ~ Aspen 82 ~- ,~& ~ '~` ~ While Riper ~~ gationsl ~ - :. ; ``~ -- E C ~, ~etA ~ ~ • Forest y _ ~an,~ _ ' v ~ , ~ .. I Ait?--.-. f-~Ar r arg 4 ~ - .. qve--.._ d, 7 ~-~- n ®2006 Mltrozoft[Olp @1004 NGViE0,an0~oYG0i lnt. j - "'-_~ Vicinity Map -Jerome Professional Building The subject site is zoned Mixed-Use (MU) and has a lot area of 12,000 square feet. It is not historically designated (was built in 1980) and is not within a historic district. The property is generally described as Lots P, Q, R, and S, Block 78, City and Townsite of Aspen, although the existing building has been condominiumized into nineteen ownership interests with Parcel Identification Numbers of 2737-073-17-010 through 2737-073-17-028: five condominium units are owned by Herbert S. and Marsha L. Klein; five condominium units are owned by B. Joseph and Susan S. Krabacher; seven units are owned by Karl G. Larson with one additional unit owned by Karl G. and M. Madeleine Lazson; and, one unit is owned by S&A Equipment Company. The existing JPB is a brick structure over a partial basement pazking area. Due to the slope along Mill Street, the building has atwo-story south elevation and athree-story north elevation. The gross area of the existing building is 9,275 square feet of which 7,550 square feet are net leasable. The first floor includes seven office spaces, 3,775 net leasable square feet, and 875 square feet of circulation and common area; the second floor Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment Application Page 2 includes two office spaces, 3,775 net leasable square feet, and 850 square feet of circulation and common area. The site and structure are presently served by all major utilities, including water, sewer, electric, telephone, television and natural gas. The paved asphalt parking azea is accessed directly from North Mill Street via a curb cut serving only the subject property. The curb cut is located less than fifteen (15) feet from the platted Block 78 alley right-of--way and the retaining wall holding up the pazking area encroaches into the alley. The parking area includes a total of eighteen off- street spaces, of which eight are covered (tucked under the building). The resulting parking ratio is 2.38 off-street spaces for every 1,000 square feet of net leasable azea. The slope of the adjacent Mill Street right-of--way drops approximately nine feet from the southeast comer to the northeast corner of the subject site (approximately a 9% grade). Similazly, the adjacent Bleeker Street right-of--way climbs approximately eight feet from the southeast corner to the southwest corner of the subject site (approximately a 6.6% grade). While these slopes make for significant design challenges, they are not steep enough to require any Lot Area reductions. Immediately surrounding properties include: o To the north and across the Block 78 alley, the two-story brick Moss EntertainmenUold KSPN office building (225 N. Mill Street); o To the west, the so-called Blue Vic property, for which a lot split was recently approved to create a 6,000 square foot, Mixed-Use zoned parcel immediately adjacent to the subject property; o To the south and across East Bleeker Street, the rear side of the five-story brick Hotel Jerome and its parking garage and trash area for which a fourth story addition was recently approved to add a spa on the west wing of the existing hotel; and, o To the east and across N. Mil] Street, the two-story brick Community Banks building, the side entrance to the public parking gazage, and the three-story brick Children's Library side of the Pitkin County Library. The two-story, brick Moss Entertainment building resides just across the platted but not yet opened Block 78 alley right-of--way from the subject property, and at a substantially lower grade than the existing JPB. A retaining wall separates the existing the JPB parking area from the platted alley right-of--way. Similarly, a taller retaining wall separates the JPB parking area from the Blue Vic property. The recent approvals for the Blue Vic lot split provided for opening of the Block 24 alley off North Mil] Street to provide access to the Mixed-Use parcel of said lot split. Absent the proposal described in the next section of this application, the result of opening this alley will be two curb cuts/vehicular access points to North Mill Street within ten feet of each other. Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment Application Page 3 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: As mentioned in the Introduction, this application seeks approvals for the, redevelopment of the JPB located at the northwest comer of N. Mill and E. Bleeker Streets. The property is in the Mixed-Use (MU) zone district. )n accordance with the zoning, the redevelopment will include a mix of commercial and office space, free- market residences, affordable housing, and subgrade parking. The subgrade parking garage will be accessed from the to-be-opened Block 78 alley right-of--way. The existing parking area access from the curb cut on North Mill Street will be closed to restore and enhance the streetscape. More specifically, the redeveloped building will include: • A completely subgrade parking garage with twenty (20) parking spaces, drive aisles, mechanical space, resident and tenant storage, and access (stairs and elevators); an enclosed trash/utility/service area will be located outside, along the alley; • The next level includes commercial/office space and the lower level portions of two (2) affordable housing units. Along all of the East Bleeker frontage and most of the building's west side, this level is below grade but, along all of the alley frontage and most of the Mill Street frontage, this level is above grade. A pedestrian entry to the commercial/office space is provided at the northeast comer of this level, off the North Mill Street sidewalk. • The third level is above grade on all four sides and includes commercial/office space and the upper portions of the two (2) affordable housing units that extend into the level below. This is the ground level along the Bleeker Street frontage and includes a prominent entrance to the commercial/office space from the intersection of the North Mill Street and East Bleeker Street sidewalks. About half-way along the Bleeker Street frontage is an entrance providing access to the commercial/office space on this level and to residences on the floors above. Access to the two affordable housing units on this level comes from a walkway along the west side of the building. The west side setback is increased to almost sixteen (16) feet for this and the levels above. • The fourth level (second story on the Bleeker Street side) contains a mix of three (3) free-market residences, one (1) affordable dwelling unit, circulation corridors and deck spaces. On this level, the first seventeen (17) feet or so closest to the alley is deck space; therefore, with the setbacks from the alley, the exterior walls on this level of the building sit more than twenty-two (22') feet from the property line. • The fifth level (third story on the Bleeker Street side) contains three (3) free market residences, circulation corridors and deck spaces. This level is set substantially further back from the rear property line than in the level below. At its closest, the north wall of this level is setback more than thirty (30+) feet from the property line, Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment Application Page 4 with this distance increasing as the building approaches the Mill Street side. This level is also setback from the Mill Street side facade of the levels below. In total, the project includes a subgrade pazking level; commercial/office space on the second and third levels; three (3) two-bedroom affordable housing units spread amongst the second, third and fourth levels; and six (6) free market residences on the fourth and fifth levels. Along the Bleeker Street frontage, the building reads as two-and- a-half to three stories in height. Along the North Mill Street frontage, the tallest portion of the building reads as three-plus stories in height but the top floor is setback from the front facade. Along the alley frontage, the building reads as four stories but the third and fourth stories are "wedding-caked" to decrease the perceived mass and scale. Finally, the west elevation reads as two-and-one-half stories in height. In essence, the building steps its way down the slope from south to north. While the project includes approximately 12,650 square feet of commercial/office space, it is conservatively estimated that 85% of the total commercial space will be "net leasable area" (NLA) since not yet designed tenant-driven finishes will include circulation corridors, bathrooms, and storage area that the Code excludes from NLA. By way of comparison, approximately 81% of the existing JPB commercial space is NLA per the Code definition. Therefore and for purposes of determining employee and parking mitigation requirements, the development includes 10,750 squaze feet of NLA, of which 5,590 square feet are basement and upper floors and 5,160 square feet are on the first floor. Because of the slopes adjacent to the site, a portion of level two is considered basement space while the remaining area is considered first floor space; likewise, most of level three is considered first floor space while the remaining portion is considered upper level space (see floor plans). In total, one full level is considered first floor space. The commercial/office uses will comply with the by-right use limitations of the MU zone district for properties not historically designated (i.e., no retail or restaurant uses, neighborhood commercial uses, or bed and breakfasts, unless or until the Code is amended to allow said uses). Free market and affordable multi-family housing are permitted uses in the MU zone. The proposal complies with all by-right dimensional standards of the MU zone district, as demonstrated on the provided plan sets and on Table One, below. The commercial and free market residential components of a development in the MU zone district are limited to a 0.75:1 FAR, but may be increased to 1:1 with special review approval. The proposal has a 0.871:1 commercial FAR (10,455s.f.) and a 0.87:1 free market residential FAR (10,442s.f). As required in the MU zone district, the commercial FAR exceeds the free market residential FAR and no free market residence includes more than 2,000 square feet of net livable area. The total net livable free market residential area in the project is 8,881 square feet, while 3,100 square feet of net livable affordable housing is provided on-site and above-grade; thus, the ratio of free market net livable area to affordable net livable area is 65:35 (exceeding the 70:30 minimum). Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment Application Page 5 The project provides housing for 6.75 full-time equivalents employees (FTE) in three (3) two-bedroom units, the smallest of which contains approximately 945 square feet of net livable azea. Each unit includes plenty of storage space and private laundry facilities. Two of the three units are more accurately described as two-plus bedroom units since each includes an area for office/guest use. All (100%) of the finished floor area in the affordable housing is above grade and provided with ample natural light. The existing development includes adequate off-street parking; thus, there is no deficit to maintain and the redevelopment must provide all necessary parking or payments-in-lieu thereof. The subject site is within the Aspen Infll Area as defined in Section 26.104.100 of the Code. Consequently, pursuant to Section 26.515.030 of the Code, the commercial component of the project is required to provide one (1) off-street parking space for every ],000 square feet of net leasable area (up to 100% of which may be provided through apayment-in-lieu). The nine (9) residences qualify as multi-family development with in a mixed-use building pursuant to Section 26.104.100 of the Code. Accordingly and pursuant to Section 26.515.030 of the Code, there must be one (1) off- street parking space per dwelling unit in the residential component of the project (up to 100% of which maybe provided through apayment-in-lieu). Therefore, the residential component requires nine (9) off-street parking spaces and the office component requires approximately eleven (11) off-street parking spaces, for a total requirement of twenty (20) off-street parking spaces. The proposed subgrade garage includes twenty (20) off-street parking spaces, with two residential spaces provided in a tandem configuration. The off-street parking requirements are satisfied. The dimensional requirements associated with the underlying MU zone district as compared with the proposed development are depicted in Table One, below. Square footages are rounded to the nearest ten square feet. TABLE ONE: DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS COMPARISON I. Minimum Lot Size: • In the MU Zone: 3,000 squaze feet. • The Proposal: 12,000 square feet. 2. Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit: • In the MU Zone: Not Applicable/No Requirement. 3. Minimum Lot Width: • In the MU Zone: 30 feet. • The Proposal: 120 feet. Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment Application Page 6 4. Minimum Front Yard Setback: • In the MU Zone: 10 feet, which maybe reduced to 5 feet, pursuant to Special Review, Section 26.430. • The Proposal: Comer Lot: 10 feet along North Mill Street, 7 feet along East Bleeker Street. 5. Minimum Side Yard Setback: • In the MU Zone: 5 feet. • The Proposal: 5 feet. 6. Minimum Rear Yard Setback: • In the MU Zone: 5 feet. • The Proposal: 5 feet. 7. Maximum Height: • In the MU Zone: 32 feet. • The Proposal: 32 feet. 8. Pedestrian Amenity Space: • In the MU Zone: Not applicable/No Requirement at the subject location, per Section 26.575.030(B) of the Code. 9. Allowable External Floor Area Ratio (FAR): • In the MU Zone, Cumulative Limit: 2:1. • The Proposal, Cumulative Total: 2:1. 1. In the MU Zone, Commercial; Lodge; Timeshare Lodge Exempt Timesharing: Arts, Cultural and Civic uses: Public Uses; Recreational Uses; Academic Uses:.75:1, which may be increased to 1:1 by Special Review, pursuant to Section 26.430.040.A. The Proposal, Office/Commercial Uses: 0.88:1 (10,515 square feet). 2. In the MU Zone, Affordable Multi-Family Housing: No limitation, other than the cumulative FAR limit stated above. The Proposal, Affordable Multi-Family Housing: 0.25:1 (3,015 square feet). 3. In the MU Zone, Free-Market Multi-Family Housing:.75:1, which maybe increased to 1:1 by Special Review, pursuant to Section 26.430.040.A. The total free-market residential Floor Area on the parcel shall be no greater than the total Floor Area attributed to the commercial uses located on the same parcel. The Proposal, Free-Mazket Multi-Family Housing: 0.87:1 (10,442 square feet), which is less than the office/commercial Floor Area on the parcel. Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment Application Page 7 IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS: The proposed development involves a mix of commercial uses and multiple residences to be divided into separate legal interests; accordingly, subdivision approval is required pursuant to Section 26.480.050 of the Code even though it is not a traditional subdivision in the sense of dividing land areas into separate interests. Growth management review is necessary to obtain allocations for the incremental increase in net leasable commercial area, the free-market residential units, and the affordable housing units to be included within the redevelopment. Since the proposal includes office space, Commercial Design Review approvals are required as well. Finally, special review approvals are needed to allow commercial and free-market residential FAR (floor area-to- lot area ratios) of between 0.75:1 and 1:1 each. Accordingly, this section of the application addresses Aspen Land Use Code Sections 27.710.180, 26.470.040(C)(2), (6), and (7), 26.430.040(A), 26.480.050, and 26.412.050, and 26.515. The following portions of this application address the applicable review standards in the order they will be addressed during the review process: P&Z review, and City Council review. A. P&ZRevieivs This application addresses the relevant GMQS Review standards under Section 26.470.040 of the Code, namely those of subsections (C)(2), (C)(6), and (C)(7). The GMQS reviews and allocations are carried out by the P&Z. Next, the application addresses the relevant provisions of the Section 26.412.050 Commercial Design Standards. Thirdly, this section demonstrates consistency with the review requirements of Special Review for variation of dimensional requirements. Finally, consistency with the standards for Subdivision review is provided for pursuant to Section 26.480.050. 1. GMQSAIIocations a New Mixed Use Development Section 26.470 040(C)(2) The applicable review standards (Section 26.470.040(C)(2)) are provided below in indented and italicized print and each is fol]owed by a response demonstrating consistency and/or compliance therewith, as applicable. The expansion of an existing commercial, lodge, or mixed-use building or the development of a new commercial, lodge, or mixed-use building shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a) Suffcient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the expansion, pursuant to Section 26.470.030.D, Annual Development Allotments. Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment Application Page 8 The applicant is seeking six (6) free market residential allotments. Twelve (12) such allotments are available per year, starting on March 1, without the necessity of requiring either amulti-year allotment or an exceptional project allotment; seven of these twelve allotments currently remain available. Similarly, the applicant is requesting an allotment of 3,305 squaze feet of new net leasable commercial space, and there is 25,700 square feet of such space currently available. The reductions in available free market residential and net leasable commercial allotments for the 2006 GMQS year are due to prior submittal of the 625 East Main Street Redevelopment application. There is no limit on affordable housing unit allotments. b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. As demonstrated below, the proposed development is fully consistent with the goals and objectives of the AACP. With regard to the "Managing Growth" section of the AACP, the stated community goals include: • `...limit[ing] the ultimate population in the Aspen area in order to preserve the quality of life for residents and enjoyment for visitors." The proposed development falls within the annual growth management allotments available in the Aspen Infill Area and, therefore, falls within the desired 2% growth rate of the city. • "Provide fora 'critical mass' of permanent local residents by providing a limited number of new affordable housing units within the Aspen Community Growth Boundary." The proposal includes three (3) high-quality two-bedroom affordable housing units that will house 6.75 FTE within the Aspen Infill Area. • "Contain development with the creation of an Aspen Community Growth Boundary..." As explained above, the proposed redevelopment site is not only within the Urban Growth Boundary, but also within the Aspen Inf I/ Area. • "Foster a well-balanced community through integrated design that promotes economic diversity, transit and pedestrian friendly lifestyles, and the mixing of people from different backgrounds." The proposed development includes a mix of commercial and office space with free-mazket and deed restricted/affordable residences. These uses are integrated throughout the building, often occurring on the same floors as one another. The project site, in and of itself, promotes the use of transit and a pedestrian friendly lifestyle; it includes bicycle parking and sidewalk improvements while being located one block from the Clark's Mazket complex to the north and the Main and Mill intersection to the south. The Intent of the AACP's "Transportation" section provides that, "The community seeks to provide a balanced, integrated transportation system for residents, Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment Application Page 9 visitors, and commuters that reduces congestion and air pollution. Walking, bicycling and transit use is promoted to help us reach that goal." As explained above, the project site, in and of itself, promotes the use of transit and a pedestrian friendly lifestyle; it includes bicycle parking and sidewalk improvements while being located one block from the Clark's Market complex to the north and the Main and Mil] intersection to the South. Furthermore, by opening and using the Block 78 alley (and eliminating the existing access), the number of curb cuts on North Mill Street will be decreased, thereby bettering the safety and experience of the pedestrian corridor. In fact, the entire streetscape and sidewalk experience will be improved with the redevelopment by providing vitality and visual interest in place of an existing building that greets pedestrians with little more than brick retaining walls. With regazd to the "Housing" section of the AACP, the stated community goals include several of the points included in the previous sections of the AACP (addressed above) as well as the following: • "The public and private sectors should work together to ensure success in providing affordable housing." A similar goal seeks to "Encourage greater participation by the private sector in developing affordable housing." In the current case, the private sector will be providing three (3) high-quality, new units to the affordable housing inventory. These units will house 6.75 FTE within the Aspen Infill Area. • "New affordable housing projects should reinforce and enhance a healthy social balance for our community and enhance the character and charm of Aspen." The proposal not only reinforces the social balance sought by this goal statement but enhances it as well. The proposal integrates free market residences with affordable residences within one building and even as next door neighbors. The redevelopment will enhance the character and charm of Aspen by greatly improving the entire streetscape and sidewalk experience along North Mill Street, a heavily used vehicle and pedestrian corridor. The existing building greets pedestrians with little more than brick retaining walls while the redevelopment will provide vitality and visual interest to, and engagement of, the pedestrian. The building's design is consistent and compatible with the surrounding structures and uses. With regard to the "Economic Sustainablity" section of the AACP, the stated community goals include several of the points included in the previous sections of the AACP (addressed above) as well as the following: • "Maintain a healthy, vibrant and diversified year-round economy that supports the Aspen area community..." The Jerome Professional Building supports professional office uses that help to maintain the healthy, vibrant and diversified year-round economy of the Aspen area community. The redevelopment will enhance its ability to continue supporting this vital community function. In addition, commercial uses allowable in the MU zone which are not offices can be located along N. Mill Street and vitalize this pedestrian corridor. Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment Application Page 10 • "Our economic and business decisions ... should ensure balance and integration between 'Aspen the Resort' and 'Aspen the Community'." One of the few economic sectors to receive relatively little development attention in Aspen is office use. Aspen's is awell-educated community with many professionals, yet up-to-date, appropriately located, quality office space is sorely lacking. This proposal will greatly aid in reversing this trend and filling this need. The proposed development is also consistent with the "Parks, Open Space & the Environmer:t" section of the AACP. The project will provide Park Development Impact Fees as well as improvements to the sidewalks along both North Mill Street and East Bleeker Street. The Bleeker Street sidewalk will be relocated to provide a detached walk with street trees. There are several large, mature trees on the site and these will not be removed. The project has no affect on any historic resources; therefore, the "Historic Preservation" section of the AACP is not applicable. With regard to the "Design Quality" section of the AACP, the stated community goals are largely addressed in the responses to previous sections of the AACP, above. The proposed design enhances consistency (as compared with the existing structure) in style and character with the surrounding structures, including the historic Hotel Jerome and the Pitkin County Library. c) Sixty (60) percent of the employees generated by the additional commercial/lodge development, according Section 26.470.OSO.A, Employee Generation Rates, are mitigated through the provisiora of affordable housing or cash-in-lieu thereof. Affordable housing shall be approved pursumtt to Section 26.470.040.0.7, Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen Piikin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. Mitigatioaz for Free-Market residential uaaits within amixed-use project shall be pursuant to Section 26.470.040. C.6 -Free-Market Residential Units within aMixed-Use Project. The proposed development's consistency with Sections 26.470.040.0.6 and C.7 of the Code is demonstrated in the next sub-section of this application. Pursuant to Section 26.470.OSO.A.S of the Code, 1Vhenever affordable housing is provided on-site (with actual units) ia: order to satisfy was requirement, the same on-site affordable housing may also be used to satisfy any other affordable 1lousing requirement concurrently. For example: A mixed-use project may require hvo affordable housing units to mitigate an increase in ewnmercial employee generation, and two affordable housing units to mitigate free-market residential development. In this case, providing two wa-site affordable housing units shall satisfy both requirements concurrently. Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment Application Page 11 Therefore, in the case of a mixed use project, it is necessary to analyze the affordable housing mitigation requirements attributable to each use type in the proposal and meet the higher of the two requirements. In the current case, the mixed use project includes a free market residential component as well as a commercial/office component, each with its own affordable housing requirement. The two requirements must be established and compared to determine the effective/combined requirement. With regard to the project's commercial component, Section 26.470.OSO.A of the Code provides that development in the MU zone district generates 3.7 FTE per thousand square feet of net leasable first-floor area, and 2.775 FTE per thousand square feet of upper and lower floor net leasable area (NLA). The standard above, explains that the mitigation is required only for the employees generated by "additionaP' commercial development. Given these Code provisions, in order to determine the mitigation requirement, one must calculate the employee generation of the various levels of commercial NLA in both the existing structure and the proposed structure, then calculate the difference. This difference is the number of employees generated by the redevelopment. Category 4 housing must be provided for 60% of the employees generated, and the housing must be provided in a manner consistent with the requirements of Section 26.470.040.0.7 of the Code. The existing structure contains 3,775 square feet of first floor NLA and 3,775 square feet of upper floor NLA. Therefore, the existing first floor generates 13.97 FTE ([3,775s.f./1,000s.fJ x 3.7), and the existing upper floor generates 10.48 FTE ([3,775/1,000] x 2.775). In total, then, the existing structure generates 24.45 FTE (13.97 + 10.48). While the project includes approximately 12,650 square feet of commercial/office space, it is conservatively estimated that 85% of this total will be NLA since not yet designed tenant-driven finishes will include circulation corridors, bathrooms, and storage area that the Code excludes from NLA. By way of comparison, approximately 81% of the existing JPB commercial space is NLA per the Code definition. Therefore, for purposes of determining employee mitigation requirements, the development includes 10,750 square feet of NLA, of which 5,590 square feet are basement and upper floors and 5,160 square feet are on the first floor. Because of the slopes adjacent to the site, a portion of level two is considered basement space while the remaining area is considered first floor space; likewise, most of level three is considered First floor space while the remaining portion is considered upper level space (see floor plans). In total, one full level is considered first floor space. As such, the basement and upper floor NLA generates 8.37 FTE (5.59 x 2.775), and the first floor NLA generates 19.09 FTE (5.16 x 3.7). In total, the redevelopment generates 27.46 FTE (8.37 + 19.09). The 24.45 FTE credit from the existing building is now applied, bringing the total increase in employee generation to 3.01 FTE (27.46 - Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment Application Page 12 24.45). Since 60% of the incremental increase in employee generation must be mitigated, the end requirement attributable to the commercial component of the redevelopment is housing for 1.81 FTE (3.01 x 60%). With regard to the project's free market residential component, Section 26.470.040.0.6 of the Code explains that, "Affordable housing Net livable space, for which the fnished floor level is at or above Natural or Finished Grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount egual to thirty (30) percent of the additional free- market residential net livable space, for which the fnished floor level is at or above Natural or Finished Grade, whichever is higher." The existing structure does not contain any residential square footage; thus, all free market net livable area in the proposal is "additional." The proposed development includes 8,881 net livable square feet of free market residential space, all of which is above natural and finished grade. Therefore 2,665 square feet of above-grade net livable affordable housing space (8,881 x 30%) is required. Per Section 8 of the 2006 Housing Guidelines, every 400 square feet of affordable housing is equivalent to housing for one (1) FTE; therefore, the end requirement attributable to the free market residential component of the redevelopment is housing for 6.66 FTE (2,665 _ 400). Since the proposal includes on-site provision of affordable housing (with actual units), pursuant to Section 26.470.OSO.A.S of the Code, the effective affordable housing requirement is 2,665 square feet of affordable housing net livable area, housing not less than 6.66 FTE. The proposal includes three (3) two-bedroom affordable housing units. Pursuant to Section 26.470.050(A)(2) of the Code, each of these units houses 2.25 FTE. The three proposed two-bedroom units provide housing for 6.75 FTE in 3,099 square feet of net livable area, all of which is above-grade. These units exceed the requirement. Each of the proposed affordable housing units are consistent with or exceed the 2006 Housing Guidelines requirements for minimum net livable area in a Category 4 two- bedroom unit. The units will be sold to qualifying employees, although the developer will retain the right to select the qualified initial purchasers for each unit; subsequent sales will be handled by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA). Overall, the redevelopment plan is consistent with the APCHA Guidelines, the AACP, and al] applicable Land Use Code criteria. d) 77~e project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services. The project is a redevelopment of an existing building. The property is already served with public infrastructure, services, and facilities. The additional demand Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment Application Page 13 represented by the proposal will not in any way exceed existing capacities and will be mitigated through payment of tap fees, permit fees, impact fees, and the like. b Free-Market Residential Units within a Mixed Use Project. Section 26.470.040(0)(6) Section 26.470.040.C.2.c of the Code (as addressed above), requires that mitigation for free-market residential units within amixed-use project be reviewed pursuant to Section 26.470.040.0.6 of the Code. Standards "a)", "b)" and "d)" of Sections 26.470.040.0.6 and 26.470.040.0.2 are identical, and these standards have been addressed above. As such, the lone remaining review standard of Section 26.470.040.C.6.c is provided below in indented and italicized print and followed by a response demonstrating consistency and compliance therewith. c) Affordable housing net livable space, for which the finished floor level is at or above Natural or Finished Grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to thirty (30) percent of the additional free-market residential net livable space, for which the finished floor level is at or above Natural or Finished Grade, whichever is higher. Additiozzal net livable affozdable housing space beyond this requirement may be developed below Natural or Finished Grade but shall not count towards this criterion. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.040.0.7, Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspezz Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. The existing structure does not contain any residential square footage; thus, all free market net livable area in the proposal is "additional." The proposed development includes 8,881 net livable square feet of free market residential space, all of which is above natural and finished grade. Therefore 2,665 square feet of above-grade net livable affordable housing space (8,881 x 30%) is required. Per Section 8 of the 2006 Housing Guidelines, every 400 square feet of affordable housing is equivalent to housing for one (1) FTE; therefore, the end requirement attributable to the free market residential component of the redevelopment is housing for 6.66 FTE (2,665 _ 400). The proposal includes three (3) two-bedroom affordable housing units. Pursuant to Section 26.470.050(A)(2) of the Code, each two-bedroom unit provides credit for housing 2.25 FTE. The three proposed two-bedroom units provide housing for 6.75 FTE in 3,099 square feet ofabove-grade net livable area. These units exceed the requirement. Each of the proposed affordable housing units are consistent with or exceed the 2006 Housing Guidelines requirements for minimum net livable area in a Category 4 two- bedroom unit. The units will be sold to qualifying employees, although the developer will retain the right to select the qualified initial purchasers for each unit; subsequent Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment Application Page 14 sales will be handled by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA). Overall, the redevelopment plan is consistent with the APCHA Guidelines, the AACP, and all applicable Land Use Code criteria. c. Affordable Housing Section 26.470.040(0)(7) The development of affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a) Suffcient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the new units, pursuant to Section 26.470.030.0, Development Ceiling Levels. This standard has been addressed above in response to the standards of Section 26.470.040.0.2. b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. This standard has been addressed above in response to the standards of Section 26.470.040.0.2. c) The proposed units con¢ply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A recornmendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors. The proposal includes three (3) affordable housing units: Unit 1 contains two-plus (2`) bedrooms and 1,105 square feet of net livable area; Unit Z contains two- plus (2') bedrooms and 1,050 square feet of net livable area; and, Unit 3 contains two (2) bedrooms and 944 square feet of net livable area. Two of the three units are described as two-plus bedroom units since each includes an area for office/guest use. All three units include plenty of storage space as well as private laundry facilities. All (100%) of the finished floor area in the affordable housing is above grade and provided with ample natural light. The proposed affordable housing units are consistent with or exceed the 2006 Housing Guidelines requirements for minimum net livable area in the unit-types proposed. As required by the Code, the units will be deed restricted at the Category 4 rate and will be sold to qualifying employees. This proposal is consistent with the APCHA Guidelines, the AACP, and all applicable Land Use Code criteria. d) Affordable Housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or buy-down units. Eac12 unit provided shall be designed Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment Application Page 15 such that the finished floor level of fifty (50) percent or more of the unit's net livable square footage is at or above Natural or Finished Grade, whichever is higher. Off-site units shall be provided within the City of Aspen city limits. Units outside the city limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to 26.470.040.D.2. Provision of affordable housing through a cash-in-lieu paynxent shall be at the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. The proposed affordable housing mitigation is being provided in the form of actual newly-built, 100% above-grade on-site units. The on-site units are within both the city limits and the Infill Area. e) The proposed units shall be deed restricted as `for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City of Aspen to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amerxded. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, or its Board of Directors, at its sole discretion, may authorize affordable housing units owned and associated with a lodging or conxmercial operations to be rental units if a legal instrument, in a fornx acceptable to the City Attorney, ensures permanent affordability of the units. Units ow~xed by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing. Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, or other similar governmental or quasi-nxunicipal agency shall not be subject to this mandatory "for-sale"provision. The proposed affordable housing units will either be: a) "for sale" and transferred to qualified purchasers in accordance with the APCHA Guidelines provided, however, that the applicant shall retain the right to select qualified first purchasers; or, b) owned and associated with on-site commercial operations to be rental units, provided, a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The remaining provisions of this standard are understood by the applicant. 2. Commercia[DesignReview The proposed design is consistent with all of the "Building Relationship to Primary Street" standards: the building facades are parallel to the adjoining streets; the building setbacks along both streets do not exceed the average setback of bui]dings on adjoining lots and said setbacks comply with the minimum setback provisions of the MU zone district, as such apply to comer lots; the first and second stories of the East Bleeker and North Mill Street facades maintain consistent setbacks (the second floors are not Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment Application Page 16 recessed); section 26.412.060(A)(4) applies only to "commercial buildings" while the proposed structure is a mixed-use building, and compliance with this standard would require sloped finished floors on the interior of the building since the adjoining sidewalks are sloped; finally, the building design does not include any "moats." Pursuant to Section 26.575.030(B) of the Code, the "Pedestrian Amenity Space" standards are not applicable due to the location of the subject property outside the area bounded by Main Street, Original Street, Dean Street, and Aspen Street. All of the standazds in the "Street-Level Building Elements" sub-section have been satisfied in the proposed design: the front, street-facing facades of the building are articulated; there is at least a 60% fenestration ratio on the street-level walls facing Mill and Bleeker Streets; the building entrances aze all well-defined, clearly apparent, and designed to accommodate internal airlocks. The "Parking" standazds are satisfied with the proposed design. All on-site parking is located below grade in a garage accessed from the alley. There is no above grade or surface parking proposed. The "Utility, Delivery, and Trash Service Provision" standards are all met with such facilities located along the alley and designed to the specifications required by Section 26.575.060 of the Code. All utility service pedestals will be located on the subject property and along the alley. Easements allowing service provider access will be provided, and encroachments into the alleyway will be avoided. The alley and subgrade garage provide for adequate delivery/service area. Mechanical exhaust, including the parking garage ventilation, will be vented through the roof, and the exhaust equipment will be located as far from a Street right-of--way as practical. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting will be accommodated either internally within the building or be located on the roof; such equipment and ducting, if on the roof, will be minimized and located behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it is not visible from an adjacent public right-of--way at pedestrian level. Adequate space will be reserved for future ventilation and ducting needs, as required. 3. Special Review The MU zone district establishes maximum Free-Mazket Multi-Family Housing and Commercial floor area ratios (FAR) of 0.75:1 each, but allows each of these maximums to be increased to as much as I:1 by special review. The proposed development uses: 1) aFree-Market Multi-Family Housing FAR of 0.87:1 (0.79:1 without common circulation areas); and, Z) a Commercial FAR of 0.871:1 (0.774:1 without common circulation areas). Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment Application Page 17 As such, special review approvals are necessary to allow each of these FAR. The applicable review standards are found in Section 26.430.040(A) of the Code and are provided below in indented and italicized print. The standards aze followed by response demonstrating consistency and/or compliance therewith, as applicable. 1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district. The proposed redevelopment provides amixed-use building that adds commercial and office space and integrated free-market and affordable housing in an appropriate location, on a bus route and in immediate proximity to the municipal parking garage, the public library, the Rio Grande park, Clazk's Market, Carl's Pharmacy, several banks, bars and eateries, and the entire downtown. The proposed mass, height, density, configuration, and amount of open space are consistent with the dimensional requirements of the underlying MU zone district. All of the proposed setbacks meet or exceed the requirements of the MU zone district. The pedestrian experience along both East Bleeker Street and North Mill Street will benefit from: the opportunity to provide commercial uses of benefit to the community along this heavily used pedestrian link to the commercial core, bringing interest, vitality and convenience to the pedestrian experience; sidewalk and landscape buffer improvements; increased visual interest will be created by replacing a blank brick wall along the sidewalk with an articulated building that includes windows at the pedestrian level; and, a building that simply better integrates with the pedestrian experience than does the existing structure by providing inviting entryways and a better relationship with surrounding grades. The building design is compatible with the surrounding land uses, which include the two-story brick Moss Entertainment/old KSPN office building; the "Blue Vic" property, for which a lot split was recently approved to create a 6,000 square foot, MU- zoned parcel immediately adjacent to the subject property; the rear side of the five-story brick Hotel Jerome and its parking garage and trash azea; the two-story brick Community Banks building; and, the three-story brick Children's Library side of the Pitkin County Library. The proposed structure employs brick as a primary building material to provide for consistency with adjacent structures, while integrating "softer" building materials on the upper levels to reduce the feeling of weight and mass. The comer location is accentuated, as suggested by the City's Commercial Design Standards. The mass of the proposed stmcture and its upper levels are appropriately shifted away from downhill properties and towards the five-story rear facade of the Hotel Jerome. This also serves to maintain view corridors from residential properties to the west/northwest, and reduce the effects of shading on adjacent properties. Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment Application Page 18 The commercial FAR special review request is for 1,455 square feet of additional floor area, of which some 1,162 square feet are actually in common circulation areas (non-unit spaces). Similarly, the free-market residential FAR special review request is for 1,442 square feet of additional floor area, of which some 1,018 square feet are actually in common circulation areas (non-unit spaces). In essence, therefore, special review is being requested for approximately 293 square feet of commercial space and 424 squaze feet of free-mazket residential space. These are very modest requests when considering that the Code allows an applicant to request a great deal more. 2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts including, but not limited to, the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the neighborhood, or blocking of a designated view plane. The proposed development will not adversely impact surrounding uses. As briefly explained above, the mass of the proposed structure and its upper levels are appropriately shifted away from downhill properties and towards the five-story rear facade of the Hotel Jerome. This also serves to maintain view comdors from residential properties to the west/northwest, and reduce the effects of shading on adjacent properties. Bleeker Street is impacted and shaded by the historic Hotel Jerome structure and the proposed development, located north of the Jerome Hotel building, has no effect whatsoever on the shading of Bleeker Street. Removal of the existing encroachments into the North Mill Street right-of--way will serve to enhance traffic and pedestrian safety by increasing sight distances both from the Bleeker Street stop sign and from vehicles traveling up North Mill Street to tum onto Bleeker. Removal of the vehicular access drive into the existing parking lot and replacement with alley access will also serve to ensure that there will not be two curb cuts/vehicular access points within fifteen feet of each other on North Mill Street. This will increase safety for pedestrians and drivers alike. The parking needs of the development are being satisfied on-site with a subgrade garage accessed from an alley. No designated view planes will be affected by the proposed redevelopment. To the extent that the increased development sought by special review might create any impacts relative to shading, traffic, pazking or anything else, such affects will not result from the modest amount of additional floor area requested through special review. The requested special review approvals are very modest in scope and even more modest in affect. Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment Application Page 19 4. Subdivision The purpose of Section 26.480, Subdivision, of the Code includes ensuring "the proper distribution of development" and encouraging "the well planned subdivision of land by establishing standards for the design of a subdivision." The proposed development involves a mix of commercial uses and multiple residences to be divided into sepazate legal interests; accordingly, subdivision approval is required pursuant to Section 26.480.050 of the Code even though it is not a traditional subdivision in the sense of dividing land areas into separate interests. The procedures for review of a subdivision request involve obtaining a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission before proceeding to City Council for a final decision. The standards of Section 26.480.050 of the Code are provided below in indented and italicized print, with each followed by a response demonstrating consistency and/or compliance therewith, as applicable. A. General Requirements a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. This review standard requires only that the proposed subdivision (not the proposed development) be consistent with the AACP. In the current case, subdivision approval is required only to enable division of internal spaces into separate ownership interests. The AACP is silent with respect to how ownership interests in property should be divided. While not necessary to demonstrate under this review standard, the above- provided response to the standards for Section 26.470.040(C)(2) demonstrates that the proposed development is consistent with the AACP. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. This review standard requires only that the proposed subdivision (not the proposed development) be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. Again, subdivision approval is required in the current case only to enable division of internal spaces into separate ownership interests. Division of the project into separate ownership interests is consistent with the chazacter of existing ]and uses in the area, as the predominance of properties in the immediate vicinity contain a mix of uses and/or are condominiumized. While not necessary to demonstrate under this review standard, dividing the proposed development into separate ownership interests is consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. Indeed, it is consistent with the existing use of the subject property. The proposed project is located in the MU zone, across the street from the commercial core. It is in close proximity to several mixed use structures that include Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment Application Page 20 residential uses, such as the Clazk's Market building and the Community Banks/DRACO building. The design character of the proposal is consistent with and will serve to enhance the character of the surrounding area. The project has direct access to North Mill Street, East Bleeker Street, and soori the Block 78 alley. Shopping and public transportation aze readily available via short walk. The proposed subdivision will result in a density and development pattern that is wholly consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. For additional demonstration of the development's consistency with the chazacter of existing land uses in the area, please refer to the foregoing portions of this application. c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. This review standard requires only that the proposed subdivision (not the proposed development) not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Dividing the project into separate ownership interests will have no affect whatsoever on the future development of surrounding areas. While not necessary to demonstrate under this review standard, the proposed development will not adverse]y affect the future development of the surrounding area either. The development complies with every requirement of the MU zone district and will not encroach onto any surrounding properties. Park development, school land, and other impact fees will be paid, as required, to offset any impacts of development. The surrounding road and utility systems are more than adequate to support the proposed subdivision. For additional explanation of the ways in which the proposal will not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas, please refer to the foregoing portions of this application. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in complimice with all applicable reguirements of this Title. As provided throughout this application, the proposed subdivision is and will be in compliance with all applicable requirements of the Code. B. Suitability of land for subdivision a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of~looding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harn¢ful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment Application Page 21 The land on which the proposed subdivision is to take place is already developed and subdivided/condominiumized (and has been since 1980). The site is modestly sloped but graded to accommodate an existing structure. It is surrounded by developed properties; indeed, it is within the designated Aspen bzfill Area. The existing development and that on surrounding properties are not and have not been subject to geologic or other environmental hazards. The proposed subdivision will not be harmful in any way to the health, safety, or welfare of its future residents or tenants. 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. The proposed subdivision to separate ownership interests within the mixed use building will require neither an extension of public facilities nor incurrence of unnecessary public costs. No inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities will occur as the property and surrounding area are already developed and provided by public facilities and services. In fact, opening of the Block 78 alley will serve not only the proposed development but also the mixed use development of the 6,000 square foot Blue Vic lot as well as the existing 225 N. MilUMoss Entertainment building. The cost of any necessary utility extensions or upgrades will be borne by the applicant. Dividing the project into separate ownership interests will have no affect on efficiency of spatial pattems. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See Chapter 26.430) if the following [omitted] conditions are met: The proposed subdivision will comply with the improvements set forth in Chapter 26.580. The improvements will also comply with the design standards contained in said Chapter. In the event that any variances from the engineering design standazds become necessary due to unforeseen circumstances, special review approval will then be sought. The applicant will enter into a Subdivision Improvements Agreement (SIA) with the City binding the subdivision to any conditions placed on the development order. This will be done concurrently with the preparation and recordation of the Final Subdivision Plat. All required elements of the SIA will be provided for review by the Community Development Director, the City Engineer, and the City Attorney. D. Affordable housing. Chapter 26.520, Resident Multi-Family Replacement Program, is not applicable since no multi-family dwellings will be demolished. As explained in the GMQS Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment Application Page 22 Allocations sections of~this application (above), the applicant is providing affordable housing mitigation in excess of the requirements of Chapter 26.470.' E. School land dedication. This section of the subdivision regulations requires the dedication of land or the payment of an in-lieu fee for each new residential unit in a subdivision. As the property in question is already developed and contains only 12,000 square feet of land, the dedication of land would not be appropriate and the payment of cash-in-lieu represents a more fitting option. These payments are required to be made to the City prior to and on a proportional basis to the issuance of the building permit to include the residential dwelling units. The applicant agrees to make the required payments prior to and on a proportional basis with the issuance of building permits for the project. Payments will be based on the applicable formula in effect at the time of building permit issuance. B. CityCouracilReview The proposed development involves a mix of commercial/office uses and multiple residences to be divided into sepazate legal interests; accordingly, subdivision approval is required pursuant to Section 26.480.050 of the Code even though it is not a traditional subdivision in the sense of dividing land areas into separate interests. The procedures for review of a subdivision request involve obtaining a recommendation from the P&Z before proceeding to City Council for a final decision. Please refer to the previous section of this application for responses demonstrating consistency and/or compliance with the standards for review of subdivisions. V. VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS: In order to preserve the land use approvals which may be obtained as a result of this application, the applicant hereby requests vested property rights status pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 26.308 of the Code. It is understood that final approvals of the proposed development must be granted by separate Resolution of the P&Z, and Ordinance of the City Council. It is also understood that no specific submission requirements, or review criteria other than a public hearing, are required to confer vested rights status. It is requested that each approval resolution and ordinance include vested property rights. The applicant requests vested rights be granted for five years rather than the typical three year term. The reason for this is the need to accommodate the terms of existing leases for some of the office space in the building. Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment Application Page 23 EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Proof of Ownership & Authorization for the Applicant Exhibit 2: Land Use Application & Dimensional Requirements Forms Exhibit 3: Pre-Application Conference Summary Exhibit 4: Authorization for Applicant Representatives Exhibit 5: List of Property Owners within 300 Feet of the Subject Property Exhibit 6: Executed Application Fee Agreement KLEIN, COTE & FDWARDS, LLC IIti1(ilERl S. KLEfN hsk!~A;crlaw'nel IANC'F R. COI'6. TC' Irc ~rkcda.~.uri JOSEPH F„ EDIT%diil)S, ffl, PC jee~kccluzz'.na E¢gN P. CLVtK epc(2xcclzr.n 1 \AAUHU B. KRISITYAM6R17 mhk u:+kccl:n~.nc1 A'rrbti:~ r~•s :~'r L:7,w • alu~ zLmved in Caiwmia April 19, 2006 City of Aspen Community Development Department 1.30 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 3161 I '~Il ~'ORlli'+tltL `(REF. (, STE. ?O.l AtiPF.N, COI0AAD0 S I G71 t'rLrJ'll0\'F: (9'i 0) Y25-S?00 rAC5fb1(LE: (7; 079??39?? Re: Title Certification - Proof of Ol~nership -.lerome Professional Buildin_ Condominiums. Dear Sir or?vladam: The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that title to the condominium units in tfie Jerome Professional Building Condominiums, located at 201 N. Mill Streer, ,4spen, Colorada, are held by the persons and the entity as set Forth in the artached Exhibit A. "1'he Property is described as all of the condominium units in the Jerome Professional Buildine Condominiums, eceordiug to the Plat recorded at Plat Book 9, ]'age 72 and in the Condominium Declaration recorded in Boole 393 at Page 773, of the records ofthe clerk and recorder ofPitkin County, Colorado. The condominium units otamed by Karl G. Larson are subject to the lien of a deed of trust in favor of 1P Morgan Chase Bank. The condominium units owned by B. Joseph Krabacher and Susan S. Krabacher are subject to the lien of a deed of t7vst in favor of t>v'el is Faigo Bank. N.A. All easements affecting the condominum units are shaven on the Plat and in the Condominium Ueclaraticn. attachment ~'erv truly yours. KLEIN, COTE ~ ED~L'ARDS, LLC ~~ _. By, i~lerbert S. Klein liSf:2.PER'~.IPB rctlcr''~.tiac cenilrca(inn Iv.wpd Parcel Multiple Search Results Pitkin County Assessor/Treasurer Search Results Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT A Assessor/Treasurer Property Search ~ Assessor Subset Query ~ Assessor Sales Search Clerk & Recorder Reception Search Legal Description: Subdivision Search The follo~riog parcels were selccted. The records are sorted by ParcelNumber. To display detail information for a selected parcel, click on the respective Account Number. Account Number Parcel Number Owncr Name Physical Address Le al Descri lion R009525 273707317010 S & A EQUIPMENT COMPANY 201 N MILL ST ASPEN CONDO: JEROME PROFESSIONAL UN1T:1-A R009526 273707317011 CARSON KARL G 201 N MILL ST ASPEN CONDO: JEROME PROFESSIONAL UN1T:1-B R009527 273707317012 CARSON KARL G 201 N MILL ST ASPEN CONDO: IEROME PROFESSIONAL UN IT: l -C R009528 273707317013 CARSON KARL G ~Ol N MILL ST ASPEN CONDO:JEROME PROFESSIONAL UNIT:1-D BK:0526 PG:0871 BK:OS72 PG:0019 BK:0661 PG:0490 BK:0752 PG:0106 R_009529 273707317014 CARSON KARL G 201 N MILL ST ASPEN CONDO:JEROME PROFESSIONAL UNIT:I-E BK:OS26 PG:0871 BK:0572 PG:0019 BK:0661 PG:0492 BK:0752 PG:0106 R_009530 273707317015 CARSON KARL G & M MADELEINE 201 N MILL ST ASPEN CONDO: JEROME PROFESSIONAL UN1T:1-F R009531 273707317016 CARSON KARL G 201 N MILL ST ASPEN CONDO:JEROME PROFESSIONAL UN1T:1-G BK:0618 PG:0996 BK:0661 PG:0498 BK:0393 PG:0838 BK:0712 PG:0535 BK:0752 PG:0106 R_009_>32 273707317017 CARSON KARLG 201 N MILL ST ASPEN ~ CONDO:JEROME PROFESSIONAL UNIT:I-H BK:0413 PG:0462 BK:0752 PG:0098 R009533 273707317018 CARSON KARL G http:/h~ww.pitkinassessocorg/assessor/ParcelMultipleResults.asp 3/6/2006 Parcel Multiple Search Results Page 2 of 3 1201 N MILL ST ASPEN CONDO:JEROME PROFESSIONAL UNIT:I-1 BK:0395 PG:0269 BK:0752 PG:0098 R009534 273707317019 KRABACHER B JOSEPH & SUSAN S 201 N MILL ST ASPEN CONDO: JEROME PROFESSIONAL UNIT:2-A R009535 273707317020 KRABACHER B JOSEPH & SUSAN S 20] N MILL ST ASPEN CONDO: JEROME PROFESSIONAL UNIT:2-B R009536 273707317021 KRABACHER B JOSEPH & SUSAN S 201 N M]LL ST ASPEN CONDO: JEROME PROFESSIONAL UN1T:2-C R009537 273707317022 KRABACHER B JOSEPH & SUSAN S 201 N MILL ST ASPEN CONDO: JEROME PROFESSIONAL UNIT:2-D R009538 273707317023 KRABACHER B JOSEPH & SUSAN S 201 N MILL ST ASPEN CONDO: JEROME PROFESSIONAL UNIT:2-E R009539 273707317024 KLEIN HERBERT S & MARSHA L 201 N MILL ST ASPEN CONDO: JEROME PROFESSIONAL UNIT:2-F R009540 273707317025 KLEfN HERBERT S & MARSHA L 201 N MILL ST ASPEN CONDO: JEROME PROFESSIONAL UNIT:2-G R009541 273707317026 KLEIN HERBERT S & MARSHA L 201 N MILL ST ASPEN CONDO: JEROME PROFESSIONAL UNIT:2-1 R009542 273707317027 KLEIN HERBERT S & MARSHA L 201 N MILL ST ASPEN CONDO:JEROME PROFESSIONAL UNIT:2-J BK:0507 PG:0396 BK:0510 PG:0588 BK:0540 PG:0788 BK:0752 PG:0121 R009543 273707317028 KLEIN HERBERT S & MARSHA L 201 N MILL ST ASPEN CONDO: JEROME PROFESSIONAL UNIT:2-K 19 Record(s) Displayed. Tip of Page Assesggr Database Search Options ~ Treasurer Database Search_ Options Clerk.&_R_ecor_der Database Search Options Pitkin County Flome Page The Pitkin County Assessor and Treasurer's Offices make every effort to collect and maintain accurate data. However. Good Turns Software and the Pitkin County Assessor and Treasurer's Offices are unable to warrant any ofthe information herein contained. http://www.pitkinassessocorg/assessor/ParcelMultipleResults.asp 3/6/2006 UNANIMOUS WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE SHAREHOLDERS AND DIRECTORS OF JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING CONDOMINIU7\-I ASSOCIATION, INC. The undersigned. constituting al] of the shareholders and directors of the JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION; INC. (the ' Association"), do hereby waive any notice of meeting and consent to the following resolutions to he effective as of April 1 ~, 2006: RESOLVED. that the owners hereby authorize the Association to represent the owners with respect to a Land Use Application to he submitted to the City of Aspen for growrth management allotments, special, commercial design review and subdivision_(the "Proiecf~. FURTHER RESOLVED, that the uudersigned hereby confirm that B. Joseph Krabacher is the duly elected and acting President of the Association and that the President is hereby dtrectly to execute and deliver an Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees and a letter authorizing Haas Land Plamring and Lipkin Warner Architects to represent the owner and the Association in connection with the Project. FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Association and the President are authorized to take all actions that may be necessary or advisable for the Project and the processing of the Land Use Application with the City of Aspen. IN WITNESS WHEREOR the owners, shareholders and directors have executed this Unannnous Written Consent to be effective as of the date set forth above. Tlris Unanimous Written Consent ma}t e execu[e_d in counterparts. ~~ __.. _~ B.Josep ~~bacher O(w~ner, Direc~to~r../S]hareholder and President d~.a- S• ~ Susan S.ICrabacher Owner [Signatures appear on following pages] Iti WITNESS WI IEP.EOP, the o»mers, shareho]ders a~~ddirectors have executedthis Unanimous Written Consent to ~~ effective as of the date set forth aUove.'I'his Unanimous Written Consent may he executed in cc~`tenterparts. -> Het=oert S. Klein Owner, Director an~1 SllacehAlder %' ° / f ~ f ~ Ylarsha L.. Klein O~~mer (Signatures appear on follol+~ing pages] i Pi 1 WITNESS WI-iLREOF, ~e owners, shareholders and directors have ccutcd this Unanimous Wriuen Conscntto be effective as ofthc date set forth above,'This l animous Written Consent may be executed in counterparts. Karl G. 0~~, M. Ma Owner .arson [Siptarure appears on following page] E0/EB 3~JCd 0BZ0-6EZ-LBb LZ ~£Z 90BZISr/C0 ITS W 17N~SS W7;ER C01~, the owners, shareholders and directors have ccuted this lJnanimoua Writt~n Consent to be effective as of the date set forth above. This lJ acurnous Written Consent maybe executed in counterpsTts• SSA Ry: E0/ZB 39dd 00ZB-6EZ-L0C LZ~EZ 900Z/6i/c0 LAND USE APPLICATION .SPY LICANT: Name: t~l~DP1814;rr~f~t01JAt-OtlttAlaGlpaooM~lttunRssoc+A"foa IaC cla$ .~ER~I~eA89~x4~: ids n~~~~ ~7 Q ~y~ f p-~ to - Location: ~0( ~ ~It,L ST J tttTE ~~ !'1"JrY.IA --' ~SPQ3I~r~s VICGK tU l tlYk IDU1t~CfEc~ft~.' (Indicate sheet addr-ests, lot &; blocknumber, legal/d~e}scrtphon where appropriate) Parcel /Drr(REQZ%tRED) a~~i~'-~j'}~'(S'(7LDYilftn>62~~J~-lJi?~-1~-~~Pt REP1tES EN'FATI~'E: Name: ~!~>tA5 ~l1+IpGj,,I..RSItt11 J~n,~.~i(~ Address: L/lJgl.~~,•~p(I,LJt~1~t15~d11~~1(9ll Phone #: t 1'tU~ IZrJ-~'~j~9 r Name: ~~F.,~~tyf~~ {'~ipif~.}~~tp YiL Sul Address: [~p,Il }}~pP,Z11 It11t/.t..~j Phone#: ~(~}! laej-~I~ Tvnr nr. ennn~errn~• lnhacP rhrrk all that annlvl~ ^ Conditional Use ^ Conceptual PUD ^ Conceptual Historic Dean. [~ Special Review ^ Final PUD (3; PUD Amendment) ^ Pinal Historic Deveiopment ^ Design Re~ic+n• Appeal ^ Conceptual SPA ^ Minor Historic De`2. [~ GI\IQS Allotment ^ Pina] SPA (& CPA Amendment) ^ Historic Demolition ^ GivIQS Exemption ~ Subdivision ^ Historic Designation ^ ESA - 80.10 Greer>line, Stream ^ Subdivision Exemption (includes ^ Small Lodge Conversion' Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion Momrtant View Plane ^ T U ~ n R~-" Vc~I6rJ R~+m Oth CMMF ^ Lot Split emporary se , er: • ^ Lot Line Adjustment ^ Textmla Amendment {~e'J(E,n/ EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildin!!s, uses, previous approvals, etc.) _ _ ~ ~oli:Y OF~iCf BI.flC~ ~Jt I.t t IAITO l7 Can1pE~Nltai~tA/I ltr,IG 1~, - ,~ L.~vl3.. MtY~-u,-~ 8to6 Tv tai o~ 4ti Rte PgR~:t>lr~, ~ Rs'~fvR.og4t~ ,,~ra~ t)ut-rs ~o r~-~ F~ve y'ou attached the following? ~ FEES DUE: $ 2~t ~Q _h .Pre-:lpplication Conference Summary [y~ Attachment 1#1, Signed Fee Agreement Response to Attachment ~r3, Dimensional Requir€ments Form Response to Attachment ?t4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards AIr plans that are larger than SS" s. 11'• must be foldeJ and a tlnppy dill. with an electronic copy of all written text (Microsoft 1l~'m~d Format) mast 6e submitted as part of the application. ATTACHMENT2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: Applicant: Location: Zone District: Lot Size: Lot Area: (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area maybe reduced for areas «•ithin the high ss~ater mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the D4unicipal Code.) Commercial uet leasable: Gxistirrg.• J`~~{~SF.Proposed: ~d -}~5-F. Number of residential units: Existing:_ ~ Proposed: 9 ~6fN1+3fttt Number of bedrooms: Existing.• C~ Proposed: `f'Bfl Proposed %U of demolition (Historic properties only):~~_ DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Principal bldg. height: ACCOSS. bldg. height: On-Site parking: °~a Site coverage: Open Space: Front Setback: Rear Setback: Combined FrR: Qtr~P.Side Setback: ~~'Side Setback: Combined Sides: Ex-isting:`"-I~t~~~AL1oH~able: ~,'7r2~~ Proposerl:_`1~~ Existing: ~'~'SGaF.t~iAllowable: /~ Proposed: ~~ Existing: r~lA AIlotrable:_ ryfA Proposedl.• N/A Exisling: 1 ~;eyuirerl: ~l~P,t 5 20 Yroposerl: ~(} 50tCL~ Exisling.• N q Required.• t~t /t Proposed:' rJ~A Ezisfrng'~Requirerl: ~__Pruposed: Existing:- t ~+Requn-ed: 1~}, _Proposed:~~ Esistirrg•_,~~Regrrired: 5 Proposed _~ Existing ~~ Required: rJ/q Proposed: r1~ Existing: ~'.tj~ Requirad:~Prahosed:~ Eristing:~Rerprired; ~ Proposed: S Existing: 8~2 Required: r,l <t Proposed: istine non-conformities or F~tceor~ame~r~ ~ ~['at2s taro 6 L>~ER K.o. W:; variatioirs requested: t10r.1E' ~-aPEGtRt. RSdt£u7 Fats. CoN1MtGRGr+tt.,Q Ftte,E-MhkUc"t' REStQEaTa1.. BAR CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: James Lindt, 429-2763 DATE 4;14106 1''ROJECT: Jerome Professional Building REP:RESEN"fAl'I~'E: Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning LLC. O~>r'1QER: Jerome Professional Building LLC. `fYPEUFAPPLICATION: 5ubdiv~sion, Conmaercia] Design Review, Special Review to increase allowable FAR, Growth Management Review llESCRIPTION: The Applicant would like to redevelop the Jerome Professional Building located at 201 Nt. Mill Street into a new mired use development consisting of office space, free-market residential units, and affordable Housing. As part of the redevelopment the Applicant would like to constntct the following use progrun: • 1'" Floor- Parking Garase to be accessed from alley to be opened • ?"`~ Floor-Affordable.Fiousing and Office Space. • 3`~ Floor- Affordable Housing and Office Space. 4°i Floor-Affordable Housing and Free-Market Residential Llnits • 5°i Floor- hree-Market Residential Units. Subdivision review is required far the development of multi-family residential units in a mixed use. building. Growth Maztagement review is also necessar~~ to obtain the growth nrmngement allocations for the development of tha new net leasable space, new fiee- markct residential emits, and the affordable bousing units to be constructed vvithin Che development. Since the building is also to contain an office component, the proposed development ~>ould be required to go Cluough Commercial Dasien Review to detemtine compliance with the conunercia1 design standards that are set forth in Land Use Code SeeCion 26.41? Commercial Dcricm Renew. Finally, the Applicant has indicated a desire to increase the allowable FAR for both the office and ii'ec-market residential emits in the building through speeia1 review pursuanC to Land Use Code Section 26.430.040. Spirciu! 12eriex~. The provisions adopted in Ordinance No. 12; Series of ^_006 shall apply to this application. A question was btrought up related ID hew circulation and 7ton-unit space is calculated against allowable FAR in a mixed use building. Staff is drafting up a ~}~iften policy on this subject. It was deterntitad that non-mtit space shall be allocated proportionatel}~ based on the net leasable or net livab]e square footage, as applicable. to those uses that are primarily served liy such common. non-unit space. Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.412 Commercial Design Review 2fi.430 Special Review 26.470.040{C)(2) GMQS Review: New Mixed Use Development 26.470.070(C)(6) GMQS Review: Free-Market Residential Units within a Mixed Use Development 26.470.070{C)(7) GMQS Review: Affordable Housing 26.480 Subdivision 26.515 Off-street Parking 26.610 Park Development Impact Fee 26.634 School Lands Dedications 26.710.180 Mixed Use Zone District Review by: Staff for complete application Referral agencies for technical considerations Planning and Zoning Commission (Final determination on Special Review, GMQS Reviews. Commercial Design Review, and recommendation to City Council Subdivision Review) City Council (Final review of Subdivision) Public Hearing: Yes at P & Z, Council 2"a Reading of Ordinance Planning Fees: $2700 Deposit for 12 hours of staff time (additional staff time required is billed at $225 per hour) Referral Fees: Engineering ($376). Environmental Health ($376), I-lousing ($376), Parks ($376) Total Deposit: $4,204 Total Number of Application Copies: Subdivision and associated reviews: 30 Copies To apply, submit the following information: 1. Total Deposit for review of application. 2. Applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 3. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in. the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owners right to apply for the Development Application. 4. Completed Land Use Application. 5. Signed fee agreement. 6. Completed Dimensional Requirements Fom~. 7. Pre-application Conference Summary. 8. An 3 1/2" x 1 1"vicinity map locating the subject parcels within the City of Aspen. 9. Proof of ownership. 0. Existing and proposed site plan, landscaping plan, and parking plan. 11. Existing and proposed floor plans and elevation drawings that include proposed dimensional requirements. 12. A site improvement survey that includes all existing natural and man-made site fearures. 13. A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how a proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. 14. All other materials required pursuant to the specific submittal requirements. 16. List of adjacent property owners within 300' for public hearing. The GIS department can provide this list on mailing labels for a small fee. 920.5453 17. Applications shall be provided in paper format (number of copies noted above) as well as the text only on either of the following digital formats. Compact Disk (CD)-preferred, Zip Disk or Floppy Disk. Microsoft Word format is preferred. Text format easily convertible to Word is acceptable. Disclaimer: The foregoing sununary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future. and upon factual representations that may or may no[ be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. a;.~ ,~ ~ ~T ~ ~~ ~' ~.- ~~ ~GROME PROFESSIONAL 13TIILDING CO~IDOI\-1INIIs1\9 aSSOCIATIOI~T.INC. 201 N. Mill Street, Suite 201 Aspen CO 81611 (970} 92~ 6300 (970) 92? 118] fa,: April 18, 2006 James Lindt Convnnnity Del~elopmcnt Dcpartrnent City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Su'eet 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Jerome Prof ssional Bui]ding Land list Applicatiop Dear ~Qr. Lindt: This letter will cantina that 19aas Land Planning, Lipkin \yrarner Architects, Klein Cote & Edwards, and Krabacher I Sanders, P.C., are authorized to represent the owners of the.Terome Professional Building. ~~~ith respect io the land use application for the redevvelopment ot'the Jerome Professiomil Buildine_ and all ]and use matters related thereto. If you hate any questions, please feel free to contact me at the address above. JGROME PROFESSIONt1L BUILDING CONDOMINJUR-i ASSOCIATION, INC. I3v: Cam' B. aoseph Krabacher, President ~ ~ ~ '~ il 4 '~' ~~ r #~ ~ ~t A~ ~g ' i ~ ~~ ~ ~"` } "5~~ BANKERS MORTG r 225 N MILL ST LLC ALPINE PETROLEUM LLC ~; .-~ ` ~'~= ""'' ' " 225 N idILL ST 435 E MAIN ST . _.. 420 E MAIN ST °~~~ "~ ' ' ' ASPEN, CO 61611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, Cfl 81611 BRUMDER WILLIAM G FLORIDA LAND BERGMAN CARL R & CATHERINEM BLU VIC LLC TRUST PO BOX 1365 68 TRAINORS LANDING RD C(O THOMAS FITZGERALD SEGERDAHI ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 & CO 250 E WISCONSIN AVE #800 MILWAUKEE, WI 53202 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY BANKS OF COLORADO COX SAMUEL WESLEY PUCHKOFF JULIE ELLEN 130 S GALENA ST YIO.N MILL ST 117 N MONARCH ST #1 .4SPEN. CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81617 ASPEN, CO 8161 1-14 3 9 CROSBY CAROLYNN 8 & JOHN M DRACC INC EVERHART-NELSON SYSTEMS TRUSTEES A COLORADO CORPORATION ANALYSTS LTD C.+O ROSA GETTMAN PO BOX 8904 PO 80X 10207 325 S FOREST ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612-7318 DENVER, CO 8024G GETTMAN ROSH MIGH DESERT NEWSPAPERS INC HODGSON PHILIP R 50% INT 325 S FOREST 500 DOUBLE EAGLE CT 212 N MONARCH ST DENVER, CO 80246 RENO, NV 89521 ASPEN, CO 81611 HOTEL JEROME INC LIGHT HOLDINGS LLLP MADDEN WALTER ROSS 37.5°,/0 C!O EVEREST CHRISTY G 733 13TH ST PMB 101 300 PUPPY SMITH #203 9000 fJ BROADWAY BOULDER, CO 80302 ASPEN, Cfl 81611 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73114 MATTINGLY h1ARK & ALIXE hAILL & MAIN LLC MILLENNIUM PLAZA LLC 929 CAMINO VIEJO 2900 OCEAN 6LVD C10 MEYER LOWELL SANTA BARBARA, CA 93108 CORONA DEL MAR. CA 92625 PO BOX 1247 ASPEN, CO 81612 MOORE KIMBERLY K MYRIN CUTHBERT L JR 37.5% NEV'JLON LLC PO BOX 11910 300 PUPPY SMITH ST #203-101 C/O DANFORTH A5PEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 PO BOX 1863 ASPEN. CO 81612 PACE LINDA P,IARIE PARZYBOK WILLIAM G JR TRUSTEE PITKIN COUNTY 445 N h4AIN AVE 14023 220TH AVE NE 530 E MAIN ST STE 302 SAN ANTONIO, TX 78205 WOODINVILLE, WA 98072 ASPEN, CO 81611 PUPPY SP.-0ITH LLC SGROI JEFFREY A WELLS FARGO BANK N,'EST NA 205 S MILL ST SUITE 301A 028d LIGHTHILL RD CIO EPROPERTY TAX-DEPT 303 ASPEN, CO 81611 SNU1Nh4ASS, CO 81654 PO BOX 0900 SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85261-4900 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Payment of City of Amen Deyetonment Annlication Fecs CITY OFASPEN (hereinater CIT-Y) and Jerome Prui'essional Building Condominium Association. Inc , a Colorado non-profit carooration (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOA/S: L. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for srowth management allotments, special review commercial design review. and subdivision (hereinafter; TI-IE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 (Series of 2000) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a detcrmiliation of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT' and CITY agree that because ul the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this lime to ascertain the fitll extent of dte costs involved in processing We application: APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in fire interest of the panic=_ that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT nn a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue follorying their hearings and•'or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retainiu~ greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notiticution by the CITY when xhev are necessary as costs are incurred CITY agrees it will be benefited thruu~h the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application 4. CITI' and ,APPL1Cs\N'I' further agree That it is impracticable for C1TY staff to complete processing or present sufficient iitfonuation to the Plauuing Commission mtd'or City Council to enable the Planning Commission ancUor City Council to make legally required findings fix project consitlcratioo, unless wrrent billings pre paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, .APPL7Ci\NT agrees that in consideration of the C1TY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a detenufnation of application completeness. APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of 4=4,204.00' which is for twelve l 12) hours of Communitc Development sfaff rime, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to Cl'1~5' to reimburse the CI"1'Y for the processing of the application nrentiuned nbrn•e, including post approval review at a rate of S225A0 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such period}c payments shall be made within . d days of the hillin~~ date. APPLICAN]' fiuiher agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds 'for suspension of processin„ and in no case will buildingpermits be issued until all costs associated with case processing bare been paid. CITY OF ASPEN Chris Bendon Convmutity Development Directm~ x$2,7t)0:00~>laoning dci7o5iL $; i6d1(1=tngioeering rete+raL, fU376.('16=cnviromnenurl rekrrul: $i?G.0(1=houcine_ rcfe+ral: and, S3?6.OU--parks i~ferral lees. A I'PLl Gt NT ,ICR011IE PROFESSIONAL BO7LD[1tiG CONDOA~IiNIti,11 ASSOChATION, INC. ~~ Bit B. .Joseph Krjabarh/er. President Date: ~J/&(7DO6 Billing Address and Telephone Number: 301 N. Mill Street Suite 201 .lspen CO S1C11 (970} 925 (i300 (J70) 93j 11S1 faz x ][ i ~t ® ~~,1k3Cti ~ September 24, 2007 Mayor Ireland and the Aspen City Council c/o Ms. Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Director 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 via email to: iennifen~ci.asnen.co.us RE: Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment, Subdivision Application Dear Mayor Ireland and the Aspen City Council This letter has been prepared in an effort to provide concise and direct responses to the questions raised on June 25, 2007 during first reading of the Jerome Professional Building (JPB) subdivision application. Based on our notes from that evening, seven separate information requests were presented: 1) an explanation of the special review requests and the criteria used by the Planning and Zoning Commission in reviewing and granting those approvals; 2) the criteria to be used in the review of a request for extended vested property rights; 3) a list of existing tenants in the JPB with the amount of time remaining on each lease; 4) an explanation of why the proposed affordable housing units are to be deed restricted at the Category 4 level; 5) an explanation of how rent-control legislation and the so-called Telluride case are being addressed with rental deed restrictions; 6) a description of how initial sales are to be handled in the event that the affordable housing become ownership units; 7) an explanation of how the proposed affordable housing satisfies codified mitigation requirements. 1) Special Review Criteria and Approvals The applicant had been preparing plans and an application fora 2006 GMQS submittal when, on March 28, 2006, City Council adopted Emergency Ordinance No. 12. The emergency ordinance was introduced to the public and adopted in a period of just two days, and there was no way of anticipating the code changes that resulted. With project design near completion, said ordinance changed the rules to establish for the first time a maximum residential unit size of 2,000 net livable square feet and to require that commercial Floor Area be not ~ r less than free market residential Floor Area. REC~ !~ E® 201 N. MILL STREET, SUITE 108 ASPEN, COLORADO 8 1 1'' ~~~~ PHONE: (970) 925-781 9 FAX: (970) 925-7395 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT September 24, 2007 GMQS subnuttals are a closed competition where the first submittal would be the first in line to receive a limited number of available allotments; consequently, it is imperative that submittal for an allotment be made as quickly after the start of the GMQS year as practicable. Due to the emergency adoption of the new rules, the applicant unexpectedly found themselves required to quickly complete several revisions to the proposed design. A result of the emergency ordinance limiting unit size was the originally planned units having to be split up into a greater number of smaller units. Smaller units are not as efficient as larger units in their use of floor area for circulation, corridor space and egress needs, so the overall square footage of the building had to increase. When this increase was coupled with the requirement that the square footage of the commercial space not exceed the free market residential space, the commercial space had to increase to at least equal the increase in the residential space. Virtually all the floor area approved in the special review request is necessary to provide the aforementioned circulation and egress needs. Due to the rather immediate conception and adoption of the emergency ordinance, we believe that the increases in floor area resulting from the need to provide circulation to meet building codes were unintended consequences of the emergency ordinance. A further effect of these new regulations was a need to increase the size of the affordable housing units to ensure that the additional square footages (even though in circulation space) would be fully mitigated to the level required by the Code, which we have done. Another, and possibly unintended, consequence of the emergency ordinance was an increase in our parking requirements under the Code due to the additional number of units. In reviewing our special review approval, it is worthy to note that we are providing the affordable housing units with assigned parking spaces even though we are not able to provide assigned parking to all the users of the non-deed restricted space in the building. The above-described course of events caused the need to request special review approvals. Prior to adoption of the emergency ordinance, the applicant intended to avoid the need for any special review approvals. The portion of the submitted application addressing the special review requests and applicable review standards has been excerpted and attached hereto for easy reference as Exhibit SR-1. On August 15, 2006 the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the special review request by a five-to-zero (5-0) vote as part of Resolution No. 26, Series of 2006 (recorded on September 11, 2006 as Reception Number 528466). -2- September 24. 2007 2) Review Criteria for the Extended Vested Property Rights Request The Code includes review criteria for an extension of previously granted vested rights beyond a period of three years. Section 26.308.010(C), states that: 1. In reviewing a requestfor the extension or reinstatement of vested rights the City Council shall consider, but not limited to [sic], the fallowing criteria: a. The applicant's compliance with any conditions requiring performance prior to the date of application for extension or reinstatement; b. The progress made in pursuing the project to date including the effort to obtain any other permits, including a building permit, and the expenditures made by the applicant in pursuing the project; c. The nature and extent of any benefits already received by the city as a result of the project approval such as impact fees or land dedications, d. The needs of the city and the applicant that would be served by the approval of the extension or reinstatement request. Most of these standards are not directly applicable to review of the current request for a five year period of initial vested rights. That said, the request will serve the needs of and be consistent with the goals of the City, especially with respect to growth management. That is, the City of Aspen has gone to great lengths to revamp its growth management system and to limit (or at least phase to moderation) the impacts of development and construction on its citizens' and visitors' quality of life. At the same time, the last two-to-three years has seen approval of a great many redevelopment projects, some of which are quite large by local standards. Given the three year vesting period that came with such approvals, it is reasonable to anticipate this pipeline clearing by the year 2010. The recently adopted code amendments will decrease the number of approvals and, in turn, the rate of growth/development that can be approved in the coming three year period. Further, the newly adopted codes establish three years as the term of validity for new GMQS approvals. Accordingly, it follows that allowing the Jerome Professional Building redevelopment a five year vested rights period will facilitate its associated construction and growth related impacts to be phased into what figures to be a slower development period. Conversely, forcing its development within the coming three year period means the impacts of construction will be felt at a magnified level as it will have to occur within the same time period as the current backlog of approved pipeline projects. -3- September 24, 2007 3) Existing Tenants £~ Remaining Lease Periods Please refer to the attached tenant list at Exhibit T-1. As the attached list shows, existing lease options no longer extend as far out as was the case when the application was filed. At that time the tenant in space 109 had an option that had to be exercised by October 1, 2007, that would extend the lease until October 31, 2010. This tenant has terminated its lease and the space has since been taken with a termination upon renovation provision. There was also another tenant with an option to renew until November 31, 2011, but they did not exercise that option. At this point, although the longest term of an existing lease is January 31, 2011, the leases are terminable upon 90 days notice of the commencement of the redevelopment and if the redevelopment were to commence at the earliest time allowed under the lease, the latest date that a tenant has a right to remain is August 1, 2008. Therefore, the applicant no longer needs extended vesting to accommodate existing leases. However, the relocation necessities of existing businesses housed in the Jerome Professional Building and the general desire of the community to slow down the pace of construction still represent valid reasons for approving a five year term of vested rights. The law firms of Klein Cote Edwards, P.C., and Krabacher Sanders, P.C. will need to find approximately 6,000 square feet of office space during the redevelopment of the building and will relocate into the new building once it is completed. This amount of office space is very hard to find in Aspen and is likely to result in relocation to the mid valley while maintaining only small offices in town for the duration of the construction period. This burden will also fall upon the other businesses, including the law firm of Neiley and Adler, P.C., as well as on the planning offices of Haas Land Planning, LLC and Alan Richman Planning Services. Each of these small business owners contributes to the Aspen community and will need flexibility and time to find adequate spaces for relocation. 4) Reason for Category 4 Affordable Housing Deed Restrictions The affordable housing mitigation requirements of the Code are outlined in Sections 26.470.040(0)(2) and (7). The governing standard of the Code states that, Sixty (60) percent of the employees generated by the additional commercial/lodge development, according Section 26.470.OSO.A, Employee Generation Rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash-in-lieu thereof. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.040.07, -4- Seylcnrber 24, 2007 Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. Mitigation for Free-Market residential units within amixed-use project shall be pursuant to Section 26.470.040.0.6 -Free-Market Residential Units within aMixed-Use Project. [emphasis added] This adopted and codified Code provision is consistent with the AACP, which states that, "We should endeavor to bring the middle class back into our community. We should discourage spraurl and recognize its cost to tlie character of our community, our open spaces and our rural resources as zoell as the fiscal expenses associated urith the physical infrastructure of sprazol." The Housing Guidelines maintain seven (7) Categories of affordable housing; in furtherance of this AACP goal, the Code was written to require affordable housing at the middle category level, namely Category 4. The proposal provides high-quality Category 4 units in the heart of the community and thereby serves to forward all aspects of this AACP goal. 5) Rent-control and the so-called Telluride Case Over the past several years, the City has been approving rental affordable housing mitigation units pursuant to Section 26.470.040(C)(7)(e) of the Code, which states in relevant part that, The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, or its Board of Directors, at its sole discretion, may authorize affordable housing units owned and associated with a lodging or commercial operations to be rental units if a legal instrument, ire a form acceptable to the City Attorney, ensures permanent affordability of the units. In the current case, the APCHA Housing Board has approved the proposed mitigation units (owned and associated with commercial operations) to be rental units. This approval was finalized by the Planning and Zoning Commissiori s approval of the growth management requests under which the above-cited standard was considered. The legal instrument offered by the applicant and accepted by the City is identical to the method of ensuring affordability and enforceability that has been used and accepted in association with several projects over the last several years. That is, Section 6, sub-article b.4. of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Resolufion Number 26, Series of 2006 (recorded September 11, 2006 as Recepfion Number 528466) states that, -5- September 24, 2007 As long as the units remain as rental units, APCHA or the applicant shall structure a deed restriction for the employee housing units only such that an undivided 1/10th of 1 percent interest in the ownership of each of the employee units is deed restricted in perpetuity to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority; or until such time the units become ownership units; or the applicant may propose any other means that the Housing Authority determines acceptable. It has consistently been the City Attorney's position that an ownership interest vested in the Housing Authority is adequate to address rent-control and related enforceability issues. 6) Initial Sales should the Affordable Housing become Ownership Units Section 6, sub-article b.l. of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Number 26, Series of 2006 (recorded September 11, 2006 as Reception Number 528466) states that, The units have tlae ability to become ownership aanits at such time the owners would request this change and/or at such time the APCHA deems one of tlae units out of compliance over a period of more than one year. At such time, all units will be listed for sale with the Housing O~Jice as specked in the deed restriction at the Category 4 maximum sales price based on the Guidelines in effect at the time of final plat approval for all units and all units shall be sold through the lottery system as specified in the Guidelines. Thus, initial sales of the affordable housing units will be handled by APCHA through its lottery system; however, there remains one approved exception to this rule, namely that the homeowners' association (HOA) can maintain ownership of the units for rental under the terms of the APCHA Housing Guidelines. This approval and the language contained in the cited condition are consistent with the applicable Code standard found in Section 26.470.040(C)(7)(e), which states in relevant part that: The proposed units shall be deed restricted as `for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select tlae first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. -6- s~~~r~~,~e~r~ za, zom Consistent with this Code standard, the APCHA and the Planning and Zoning Commission have approved the owners' ability to select the first qualified purchasers provided said purchasers are the HOA, with subsequent rental of the units done in accordance with the APCHA Guidelines. 7) Satisfaction of Codified Affordable Housing Mitigation Requirements Satisfaction of all codified affordable housing mitigation requirements is explained in detail on pages 11-16 of the submitted application. The portion of the submitted application addressing satisfaction of all applicable affordable housing mitigation requirements has been excerpted and attached hereto for easy reference at Exhibit AH-1. While not mentioned in the attached excerpt, it is worth noting that the project's free market residences are relatively small: Unit 1 contains 1,020 square feet of net livable area; Unit 2 contains 1,701 square feet of net livable area; Unit 3 contains 1,994 square feet of net livable area; Unit 4 contains 944 square feet of net livable area; Unit 5 contains 1,575 square feet of net livable area; and, Unit 6 contains 1,647 square feet of net livable area. By comparison, the affordable housing units contain 1,050, 1,105 and 944 net livable square feet, respectively. This project's free market unit sizes average 1,480 square feet of net livable area while the affordable Housing units average 1,033 net livable square feet. The free market and affordable units are integrated within one building within shared floors/stories. The point being made is that the affordable housing units are of excellent quality and of comparable size to the free market units. Furthermore and of equal importance, the free market units of the size and location proposed herein are not going to be large employee generators like the large homes found in the peripheral areas of Aspen and Pitkin County. These apartments will not require the hiring of caretakers as an association will manage and maintain the common areas and their relatively small size, means that they will not generate the number of employees associated with their construction or long term occupancy as compared with larger free market residences which have historically been allowed to be built. Moreover, as previously mentioned, although not required by the Code, each of the affordable units will be given a designated on-site parking space within the subgrade garage. We look forward to further discussing the Jerome Professional Building subdivision application at the second reading hearing now scheduled for October 8, 2007. Should you have any additional questions or desire greater -7- Septeml,~er Zd. 2007 clarification, please do not hesitate to contact Haas Land Planning, LLC at the numbers and address provided or by email at mhaasQsopris.net. Very trul PLANNING, LLC MitchtHaas, AICP Owner/ Manager EXHIBITS: SR-1: Special Review Excerpt T-1: Tenant List AH-1: Affordable Housing Excerpt -8- Special Review \E~XHI~BI~T ~~N--~- The MU zone district establishes maximum Free-Mazket Multi-Family Housing and Commercial floor area ratios (FAR) of 0.75:1 each, but allows each of these maximums to be increased to as much as 1:1 by special review. The proposed development uses: 1) aFree-Market Multi-Family Housing FAR of 0.87:1 (0.79:1 without common circulation azeas); and, 2) a Commercial FAR of 0.871:1 (0.774:1 without common circulation azeas). As such, special review approvals are necessary to allow each of these FAR. The applicable review standards are found in Section 26.430.040(A) of the Code and are provided below in indented and italicized print. The standards are followed by response demonstrating consistency and/or compliance therewith, as applicable. 1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district. The proposed redevelopment provides amixed-use building that adds commercial and office space and integrated free-mazket and affordable housing in an appropriate location, on a bus route and in immediate proximity to the municipal parking garage, the public librazy, the Rio Grande park, Clazk's Market, Carl's Pharmacy, several banks, bars and eateries, and the entire downtown. The proposed mass, height, density, configuration, and amount of open space are consistent with the dimensional requirements of the underlying MU zone district. All of the proposed setbacks meet or exceed the requirements of the MU zone district. The pedestrian experience along both East Bleeker Street and North Mill Street will benefit from: the opportunity to provide commercial uses of benefit to the community along this heavily used pedestrian link to the commercial core, bringing interest, vitality and convenience to the pedestrian experience; sidewalk and landscape buffer improvements; increased visual interest will be created by replacing a blank brick wall along the sidewalk with an articulated building that includes windows at the pedestrian level; and, a building that simply better integrates with the pedestrian experience than does the existing structure by providing inviting entryways and a better relationship with surrounding grades. The building design is compatible with the surrounding land uses, which include the two- story brick Moss Entertainment/old KSPN office building; the "Blue Vic" property, for which a lot split was recently approved to create a 6,000 square foot, MU-zoned parcel immediately adjacent to the subject property; the rear side of the five-story brick Hotel Jerome and its parking garage and trash azea; the two-story brick Community Banks building; and, the three-story brick Children's Library side of the Pitkin County Library. The proposed structure employs brick as a primary building material to provide for consistency with adjacent structures, while integrating "softer" building materials on the upper levels to reduce the feeling of weight and mass. The comer location is accentuated, as suggested by the City's Commercial Design Standards. The mass of the proposed structure and its upper levels are appropriately shifted away from downhill properties and towards the five-story rear fagade of the Hotel Jerome. This also serves to maintain view corridors from residential properties to the westrnorthwest, and reduce the effects of shading on adjacent properties. The commercial FAR special review request is for 1,455 square feet of additional floor area, of which some 1,162 square feet are actually in common circulation areas (non-unit spaces). Similarly, the free-market residential FAR special review request is for 1,442 squaze feet of additional floor area, of which some 1,018 squaze feet are actually in common circulation areas (non-unit spaces). In essence, therefore, special review is being requested for approximately 293 square feet of commercial space and 424 square feet of free-market residential space. These aze very modest requests when considering that the Code allows an applicant to request a great deal more. Z. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts including, but not limited tq the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the neighborhood, or blocking of a designated view plane. The proposed development will not adversely impact surrounding uses. As briefly explained above, the mass of the proposed structure and its upper levels are appropriately shifted away from downhill properties and towards the five-story rear fapade of the Hotel Jerome. This also serves to maintain view corridors from residential properties to the west/northwest, and reduce the effects of shading on adjacent properties. Bleeker Street is impacted and shaded by the historic Hotel Jerome structure and the proposed development, located north of the Hotel Jerome building, has no effect whatsoever on the shading of Bleeker Street. Removal of the existing encroachments into the North Mill Street right-of--way will serve to enhance traffic and pedestrian safety by increasing sight distances both from the Bleeker Street stop sign and from vehicles traveling up North Mill Street to turn onto Bleeker. Removal of the vehiculaz access drive into the existing parking lot and replacement with alley access will also serve to ensure that there will not be two curb cuts/vehiculaz access points within fifteen feet of each other on North Mill Street. This will increase safety for pedestrians and drivers alike. The pazking needs of the development are being satisfied on-site with a subgrade garage accessed from an alley. No designated view planes will be affected by the proposed redevelopment. To the extent that the development might create any impacts relative to shading, traffic, parking or anything else, such affects will not result from the modest amount of additional floor azea requested through special review. The requested special review approvals are very modest in scope and even more modest in affect. .EXHIBIT JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING TENANT LIST Legal Property Tenant Term Size s.f. Option JPB 1-B Suite #102 Neiley & Alder 2 yrs to 501 sf No 9/30/06 JPB 1-C Suite #103 Klein, Cote & 4 yrs to 936 sf 90 day notice Edwards, LLC 1/31/2011 ifrenovation JPB 1-D Suite #103 Krabacher & 4 yrs to Share w/1-C 90 day notice Sanders, PC 1/31/2011 ifrenovation JPB 1-EF St Regis 11/19/03 1091 sf No Suite #106 Residence Club to of CO 10/31/07 JPB 1-G Alan Richman 3 yrs to 237 sf No Suite #107 Plannin Services 7/31/08 JPB 1-H Haas Land 9 yrs to 310sf No Suite #108 Planning, LLC 6/30/08 JPB 1-I Krabacher & 4 yrs to 304 sf 90 day notice Suite #109 Sanders, PC 1/31/2011 ifrenovation JPB 1-A Suite #101 Cyr & Company 2 yrs to 301 sf 90 day notice 4/30/09 after Apri] 30, 2008 EXHIBIT ~~ Affordable Housing c) Sixty (60) percent of the employees generated by the additional commercial/lodge development, according Section 26.470.OSO.A, Employee Generation Rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash-in-lieu thereof. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.040.0.7, Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. Mitigation for Free-Market residential units within amixed-use project shall be pursuant to Section 26.470.040.06 -Free-Market Residential Units within aMixed-Use Project. The proposed development's consistency with Sections 26.470.040.0.6 and C.7 of the Code is demonstrated in the next sub-section of this application. Pursuant to Section 26.470.OSO.A.S of the Code, Whenever affordable housing is provided on-site (with actual units) in order to satisfy one requirement, the same on-site affordable housing may also be used to satisfy any other affordable housing requirement concurrently. For example: Amixed-use project may require two affordable housing units to mitigate an increase in commercial employee generation, and two affordable housing units to mitigate free-market residential development. In this case, providing two on-site affordable housing units shall satisfy both requirements concurrently. Therefore, in the case of a mixed use project, it is necessary to analyze the affordable housing mitigation requirements attributable to each use type in the proposal and meet the higher of the two requirements. In the current case, the mixed use project includes a free mazket residential component as well as a commercial/office component, each with its own affordable housing requirement. The two requirements must be established and compared to determine the effective/combined requirement. With regard to the project's commercial component, Section 26.470.OSO.A of the Code provides that development in the MU zone district generates 3.7 FTE per thousand square feet of net leasable first-floor area, and 2.775 FTE per thousand square feet of upper and lower floor net leasable area (NLA). The standard above, explains that the mitigation is required only for the employees generated by "additionaP' commercial development. Given these Code provisions, in order to detenmine the mitigation requirement, one must calculate the employee generation of the various levels of commercial NLA in both the existing structure and the proposed structure, then calculate the difference. This difference is the number of employees generated by the redevelopment. Category 4 housing must be provided for 60% of the employees generated, and the housing must be provided in a manner consistent with the requirements of Section 26.470.040.0.7 of the Code. The existing structure contains 3,775 square feet of first floor NLA and 3,775 square feet of upper floor NLA. Therefore, the existing first floor generates 13.97 FTE ([3,775s.f./1,000s.fJ x 3.7), and the existing upper floor generates 10.48 FTE ([3,775/1,000] x 2.775). In total, then, the existing structure generates 24.45 FTE (13.97 + 10.48). While the project includes approximately 12,650 square feet of commercial/office space, it is conservatively estimated that 85% of this total will be NLA since not yet designed tenant-driven finishes will include circulation corridors, bathrooms, and storage azea that the Code excludes from NLA. By way of comparison, approximately 81% of the existing JPB commercial space is NLA per the Code definition. Therefore, for purposes of determining employee mitigation requirements, the development includes 10,750 square feet of NLA, of which 5,590 square feet are basement and upper floors and 5,160 square feet aze on the first floor. Because of the slopes adjacent to the site, a portion of level two is considered basement space while the remaining area is considered first floor space; likewise, most of level three is considered first floor space while the remaining portion is considered upper level space (see floor plans). In total, one full level is considered first floor space. As such, the basement and upper floor NLA generates 15.51 FTE (5.59 x 2.775), and the first floor NLA generates 19.09 FTE (5.16 x 3.7). In total, the redevelopment generates 34.6 FTE (15.51 + 19.09). The 24.45 FTE credit from the existing building is now applied, bringing the total increase in employee generation to 10.15 FTE (34.6 - 24.45). Since 60% of the incremental increase in employee generation must be mitigated, the end requirement attributable to the commercial component of the redevelopment is housing for 6.09 FTE (10.15 x 60%). With regard to the project's free market residential component, Section 26.470.040.0.6 of the Code explains that, "Affordable housing Net livable space, for which the finished floor level is at or above Natural or Finished Grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to thirty (30) percent of the additional free- market residential net livable space, for which the finished floor level is at or above Natural or Finished Grade, whichever is higher." The existing structure does not contain any residential square footage; thus, all free market net livable area in the proposal is "additional." The proposed development includes 8,881 net livable square feet of free market residential space, all of which is above natural and finished grade. Therefore 2,665 square feet of above-grade net livable affordable housing space (8,881 x 30%) is required. Per Section 8 of the 2006 Housing Guidelines, every 400 square feet of affordable housing is equivalent to housing for one (1) FTE; therefore, the end requirement attributable to the free mazket residential component of the redevelopment is housing for 6.66 FTE (2,665 - 400). Since the proposal includes on-site provision of affordable housing (with actual units), pursuant to Section 26.470.OSO.A.S of the Code, the effective affordable housing requirement is 2,665 square feet of affordable housing net livable azea, housing not less than 6.66 FTE. The proposal includes three (3) two-bedroom affordable housing units. Pursuant to Section 26.470.050(A)(2) of the Code, each of these units houses 2.25 FTE. The three proposed two-bedroom units provide housing for 6.75 FTE in 3,099 squaze feet of net livable area, all of which is above-grade. These units exceed the requirement. Each of the proposed affordable housing units are consistent with or exceed the 2006 Housing Guidelines requirements for minimum net livable area in a Category 4 two-bedroom unit. Overall, the redevelopment plan is consistent with the APCHA Guidelines, the AACP, and all applicable Land Use Code criteria. d) The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services. The project is a redevelopment of an existing building. The property is already served with public infrastructure, services, and facilities. The additional demand represented by the proposal will not in any way exceed existing capacities and will be mitigated through payment of tap fees, permit fees, impact fees, and the like. b. Free-Market Residential Units within a Mixed Use Proiect Section 26.470.040(0)(6) Section 26.470.040.C.2.c of the Code (as addressed above), requires that mitigation for free-market residential units within amixed-use project be reviewed pursuant to Section 26.470.040.0.6 of the Code. Standards "a)", "b)" and "d)" of Sections 26.470.040.0.6 and 26.470.040.0.2 aze identical, and these standards have been addressed above. As such, the lone remaining review standard of Section 26.470.040.C.6.c is provided below in indented and italicized print and followed by a response demonstrating consistency and compliance therewith. c) Affordable housing net livable space, for which the finished floor level is at or above Natural or Finished Grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to thirty (30) percent of the additional free-market residential net livable space, for which the finished floor level is at or above Natural or Finished Grade, whichever is higher. Additional net livable affordable housing space beyond this reguirement may be developed below Natural or Finished Grade but shall not count towards this criterion. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.040.0.7, Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. The existing structure does not contain any residential square footage; thus, all free market net livable azea in the proposal is "additional." The proposed development includes 8,881 net livable squaze feet of free market residential space, all of which is above natural and finished grade. Therefore 2,665 square feet of above-grade net livable affordable housing space (8,881 x 30%) is required. Per Section 8 of the 2006 Housing Guidelines, every 400 square feet of affordable housing is equivalent to housing for one (1) FTE; therefore, the end requirement attributable to the free mazket residential component of the redevelopment is housing for 6.66 FTE (2,665 - 400). The proposal includes three (3) two-bedroom affordable housing units. Pursuant to Section 26.470.050(A)(2) of the Code, each two-bedroom unit provides credit for housing 2.25 FTE. The three proposed two-bedroom units provide housing for 6.75 FTE in 3,099 square feet ofabove-grade net livable area. These units exceed the requirement. Each of the proposed affordable housing units are consistent with or exceed the 2006 Housing Guidelines requirements for minimum net livable area in a Category 4 two-bedroom unit. Overall, the redevelopment plan is wnsistent with the APCHA Guidelines, the AACP, and all applicable Land Use Code criteria. c. Affordable Housing. Section 26.470.040(0)(7) The development of affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the new units, pursuant to Section 26.470.030. C, Development Ceiling Levels. This standard has been addressed above in response to the standards of Section 26.470.040.0.2. b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. This standard has been addressed above in response to the standards of Section 26.470.040.0.2. c) The proposed units comply .with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors. The proposal includes three (3) affordable housing units: Unit 1 contains two-plus (2+) bedrooms and 1,105 square feet of net livable area; Unit 2 contains two-plus (2+) bedrooms and 1,050 square feet of net livable area; and, Unit 3 contains two (2) bedrooms and 944 square feet of net livable area. Two of the three units are described as two-plus bedroom units since each includes an area for office/guest use. All three units include plenty of storage space as well as private laundry facilities. All (100%) of the finished floor area in the affordable housing is above grade and provided with ample natural light. The proposed affordable housing units are consistent with or exceed the 2006 Housing Guidelines requirements for minimum net livable area in the unit-types proposed. As required by the Code, the units will be deed restricted at the Category 4 rate. This proposal is consistent with the APCHA Guidelines, the AACP, and all applicable Land Use Code criteria. d) Affordable Housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or buy-down units. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty (50) percent or more of the unit's net livable square footage is at or above Natural or Finished Grade, whichever is higher. Off-site units shall be provided within the City of Aspen city limits. Units outside the city limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to 26.470.040.D.2. Provision of affordable housing through a cash-in-lieu payment shall be at the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. The proposed affordable housing mitigation is being provided in the Form of actual newly-built, 100% above-grade on-site units. The on-site units are within both the city limits and the Infill Area. e) The proposed units shall be deed restricted as `for sale" units and transferred to qualifzed purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City of Aspen to own the unit and rent it to qualifzed renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, or its Board of Directors, at its sole discretion, may authorize affordable housing units owned and associated with a lodging or commercial operations to be rental units if a legal instrument, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, ensures permanent affordability of the units. Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, or other similar governmental or quasi-municipal agency shall not be subject to this mandatory `for-sale"provision. The proposed affordable housing units will either be: a) "for sale" and transferred to qualified purchasers in accordance with the APCHA Guidelines provided, however, that the applicant shall retain the right to select qualified first purchasers; or, b) owned and associated with on-site commercial operations to be rental units, provided, a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The remaining provisions of this standard aze understood by the applicant. [NOTE: this description was revised during hearings before the APCHA Board and the Planning and Zoning Commission; the resulting approvals outline the revisions to allow rental of the units and ownership by the HOA.] ~~8~ Cs- MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development DeparUnent Cindy Christensen, Housing January 4, 2008 JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING (201 N. MILL) REDEVELOPMENT Pazcel ID No. 2737-073-17-010/2737-073-17-028 ISSUE: The applicant is requesting approval of a project that was first reviewed by the Housing Boazd in July 2006 and by City Council in October 22, 2007 to redevelop the Jerome Professional Building. BACKGROUND: The property is located at 201 North Mill Street and in 2006 the development was to include a mix of commercial space and office space, six free-mazket residences, three employee housing, and subgrade pazking broken down as follows: The developer is now proposing five free-mazket residences and five employee-housing units. The number of full-time equivalent employees housed within the project has increased dramatically with the five employee-housing units from 6.75 to 12.0. The proposal now includes a mix of employee unit types and income levels whereby the previous proposal included only three Category 4 units. The five units are broken down as follows: • 3 Three-bedroom units • 1 One-bedroom unit • 1 Studio unit 2 at Category 4 and 1 at Category 3 Category 3 Category 2 Mitigation of the commercial/office component of the project would require housing 6.12 FTE's and the free-mazket residential component requires housing 6.42 FTE's for a total of 12.54 FTE's. The proposal is now mitigating at almost 100%. The applicant is requesting flexibility with respect to income restrictions in order to accommodate on-site employees. The only drawback of the proposal relates to parking for the employee housing units. The applicant is proposing an alternative to providing parking for the employee housings by offering to purchase two hybrid vehicles to be pazked in one of the tandem on-site pazking spaces and be made available to the occupants of the employee housing units through aride-shaze program overseen by the HOA. Although Staff believes this is a good idea, it is Found that most people own a vehicle and need a place to park such vehicle. Staff would suggest at least three parking spaces be provided for the employee housing units. In summary, the newly development project is to include the following: • A subgrade parking gazage with 21 parking spaces, drive aisles, mechanical space, resident and tenant storage, and access; and enclosed trash/utility/service azea will be located outside, along the alley (the previous proposal included 20 parking spaces). • The next level is to include commercial/office space and the lower level portions of two of the three-bedroom employee housing units. • The third level includes commercial/office space and the upper portions of the two aforementioned three-bedroom employee-housing units that extend into the lower level. • The fourth level is to contain a mix of three employee-housing units (a one-bedroom and studio, and athree-bedroom) and two free-market residences. • The fifrh level is to contain three of the free market residences. In total, the project is to include a subgrade parking level!~commercial/office space on the second and third levels, five employee-housing units and five free-market residences. The three-bedroom units aze proposed to contain 1,200 squaze feet of net livable area, which is the minimum square footage for a Category 3 or 4three-bedroom unit; the one-bedroom unit is to contain 701 square feet of net livable area, which the minimum for a Category 3 and 4 is 700 square feet; and the studio unit is to contain 400 squaze feet of net livable azea, which for a Category 1 and 2 is 400 squaze feet. Section 26.470.050.A.5 of the City of Aspen Land Use Codes states that whenever affordable housing is provided on-site in order to satisfy one requirement, the same on-site affordable housing may also be used to satisfy any other affordable housing requirement concurrently. Therefore, in this project, each affordable housing unit can be used to mitigate for the free-market residential requirement along with the commercial space mitigation requirement. Free-Market 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 does not contain any residential squaze footage; therefore, all free mazket net livable azea in the proposal is additional. The proposed development includes 8,558 net livable square feet of free-market residential floor azea; therefore, 2,567 square feet of above-grade net livable affordable housing space (8,558 X 30%) is required. Per Section 8 of the Guidelines, every 400 square feet of employee housing is equivalent to housing for one FTE. The requirement attributable to the free-market residential component of the development is housing for 6.42 FTE's (2,567 - 400). The floor area for the three proposed deed-restricted employee-housing units is 2 4,701, exceeding the 30% requirement. The five affordable-housing units mitigate a total of 12 FTE's. 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 calculation as shown in the application states that 10.2 FTE's are generated. Since only 60% of the employees' generated need to be mitigated, 6.12 FTE's are what is required to be mitigated under Section 26.470.050(A). If the applicant were required to mitigate at 100% for both developments, the total employees generated equal to 21.4 FTE's for the free-mazket component (8,558 - 400) and 10.2 FTE's for the commercial space, bringing a total of 31.6 FTE's. However, under the Land Use Code, an applicant only needs to mitigate for the higher of the two, which would be 6.42 FTE's. The five units proposed mitigate at 12 FTE's, which is almost what both requirements under the Code (12.54) generate. ' RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Boazd reviewed the application at their regulaz meeting on July 19, 2006 and recommended approval. Due to the increase in employee-housing units, Staff would recommend approval with the following conditions: 1. The proposed five employee-housing units more than satisfy the mitigation requirement as stated under the Land Use Code for the development. Staff also commends the applicant for providing a mix of category and type of units. 2. If the units are approved as rental units, the following conditions should apply: a. The units have the ability to become ownership units at such time the owners would request this change and/or at such time the APCHA deems one of the units out of compliance over a period of more than one year. At such time, all units will be listed for sale with the Housing Office as specified in the deed restriction at the categories that will be specified in the deed-restriction that will be recorded PRIOR to certificate of occupancy. Should the units become "for sale" units, all units shall be sold through the lottery system as specified in the Guidelines. b. Rental of the units shall be open to all qualified employees of Aspen and Pitkin County and shall not be tied to the employment for the free-market component or the commercial components; however, the owner(s) of the units may still choose qualified renters and the tenants may still be employed by the commercial component only. All tenants shall be qualified under the Guidelines as a qualified employee and the units must meet the minimum occupancy requirement. The maximum income may be waived if said tenant is an employed by one of the 3 commercial components only. Some type of Homeowners' Association must maintain ownership of the units. c. The governing documents shall be drafted to reflect the potential for the rental units to become ownership units; i.e., the Protective Covenants, By-Laws, Articles of Incorporation, etc. Since the project is a mixed free-mazket/deed-restricted project, the assessments shall be determined as stated in #3 below, based on the price values of the free-market component compared to the deed-restricted component. This language shall be required in the approval and in the Covenants associated with the project. No changes to this restriction would be allowed without APCHA's approval. d. As long as the units remain as rental units, APCHA or the applicant shall structure a deed restriction for the employee housing units only such that an undivided 1/10`h of 1 percent interest in the ownership of each of the employee units is deed restricted in perpetuity to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority; or until such time the units become ownership units; or the applicant may propose any other means that the Housing Authority determines acceptable. 3. A homeowners' association shall be established to reflect the potential for the units to become ownership units. Since the project is a mixed commercial/free-mazket/deed- restricted project, the assessments shall be based on the differential between the market values of the free-market component and commercial component compazed to the deed- restricted component. This language shall be required in the approval and in the Covenants associated with the project. The Covenants shall be reviewed by Housing Office staff prior to approval. No changes to this restriction would be allowed without APCHA's approval. 4. This project is in the Mixed Use Zone District and providing for pazking is required. Staff would recommend that the applicant provide five reserved pazking spaces in the subgrade parking structure along with the hybrid vehicle, or some other mechanism for the tenants to store/park their vehicles. 5. The deed-restriction shall be recorded at the time of recordation of the Condo Plat and prior to Certificate of Occupancy. 4 ~~~~ ~=. DECEMBER, 2007 PROJECT UPDATE Based upon the comments, concerns and input received from the Aspen City Council at the hearing of October 22, 2007, the applicants for the redevelopment of the Jerome Professional Building (hereinafter "the JPB") have made several revisions to the proposal. The following outlines the specific revisions relative to the previous version of the proposal, as well as the areas of concern addressed. Changes are highlighted in the ensuing text by use of bold italicized print. The JPB is located at 201 North Mill Street, on the northwest comer of N. Mill and E. Bleeker Streets. The property is in the Mixed-Use (MU) zone district. In accordance with the zoning, the redevelopment will include a mix of commercial and office space, free-mazket residences, affordable housing, and subgrade pazking. The subgrade pazking gazage will be accessed from the to-be-opened Block 78 alley right-of- way. The existing pazking azea access from the curb cut on North Mill Street will be closed to restore and enhance the streetscape. The most significant comments received from Council involved seeking more affordable housing. In response, the project azchitects (Lipkin Warner Design & Planning) have revised the building to eliminate one free market residence and provide significantly greater efficiency as much space was previously "wasted" on common areas and circulation. By greatly decreasing the amount of floor area dedicated to circulation and common areas, eliminating a free market residence, and making other programmatic, layout and efficiency improvements, the proposal has been revised as follows: • The project includes five free market residences and five employee units (was previously six and three, respectively) while continuing to have more commercial/office floor area than free mazket residential floor area. • The number of full-time equivalent (FTE) employees housed within the project has increased dramatically from 6.75 to 12.0. The proposal also now includes a mix of employee unit types and income levels (previous proposal included only three two- bedroom units, all at the Category 4 level; but the revisions have resulted in three three-bedroom units, aone-bedroom unit, and a studio unit at varying category designations). • While the Code cleazly states that in the case of a mixed use project, it is necessary to analyze the affordable housing mitigation requirements attributable to each use type in the proposal and meet oniv the higher of the two requirements, the current proposal comes within a hair of satisfying the combined reauirements associated with the free market residential and commerciaUoffice components. That is, mitigation of the commerciaUoffice component of the project would require housing for 6.12 FTE and the free mazket residential component requires mitigation of 6.42 FTE, for a combined sum of 12.54 FTE. The proposal provides housing for 12 FTE, and exceeds the codified employee housing mitigation requirement by approximately 187%. Haas Land Planning, LLC -Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment -December, 2007 Update Page 1 of 15 • Each of the proposed affordable housing units is consistent with or exceeds the 2007 Housing Guidelines requirements for minimum net livable azea. Furthermore, the applicant is offering to provide "lower" category deed restrictions than required by the Code, which states that it is the applicant's right to restrict mitigation units to the Category 4 level. The applicant will restrict one of the three 3-bedroom units to the Category 3 level, the 1-bedroom unit to the Category 3 level, and the studio unit to the Category 21eve1, provided that some flexibility with respect to income restrictions can be maintained to accommodate housing of on-site employees. The units will be deed restricted to the terms outlined in the staff-drafted conditions of approval,. as recommended by the Housing Board and described herein. • The project continues to be consistent with the special review approvals granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission for free mazket residenfial and commercial floor azeas, but it no longer uses as much of either floor area type as was approved. • In order to foster energy conservation and reduce traffic congestion, the applicant is proposing an alternative to the traditional method of providing pazking for the affordable housing units. The applicant is offering to purchase two hybrid vehicles (i.e., Toyota Prius or similar model) to be parked in one of the tandem on-site parking spaces and be made available to the occupants of the employee housing units through aride-sharing program overseen by the HOA (or similaz). This proposal would be in lieu of providing either one parking space per unit of affordable housing or cash-in-lieu for each such space. More specifically, the redeveloped building will include: • A completely subgrade pazking gazage with twenty-one (2I) parking spaces, drive aisles, mechanical space, resident and tenant storage, and access (stairs and elevators); an enclosed trash/utility/service area will be located outside, along the alley (the previous proposal included just 20 parking spaces); • The next level includes commerciaVoffice space and the lower level portions of two (2) three-bedroom affordable housing units (these were previously two-bedroom units). A pedestrian entry to the commercial/office space is provided at the northeast corner of this level, offthe North Mill Street sidewalk. • The third level includes commerciaUoffice space and the upper portions of the two (2) aforementioned three-bedroom affordable housing units that extend into the level below. This level is along the Bleeker Street frontage and includes a prominent entrance to the commercial/office space from the intersection of the North Mill Street and East Bleeker Street sidewalks. About half-way along the Bleeker Street frontage aze entrances providing access to the commerciaUoffice space on this level and to residences on the floors above. Access to the two affordable housing units on this level comes from a covered walkway along the west side of the building. Haas Land Planning, LLC -Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment -December, 2007 Update Page 2 of 15 • The fourth level (second story on the Bleeker Street side) contains a mix of three (3) affordable residences (a one-bedroom, a studio, and athree-bedroom) and two (2) free-market residences, circulation corridors and deck spaces (this floor was previously three free market units and one affordable residence). On this level, the first seventeen (17) feet or so closest to the alley is deck space; therefore, with the setbacks from the alley, the exterior walls on this level of the building sit more than twenty-two (22+) feet from the property line. • The fifth level (third story on the Bleeker Street side) contains three (3) free market residences, circulation corridors and deck spaces. This level is set substantially further back from the rear property line than in the level below. At its closest, the north wall of this level is setback more than thirty (30~ feet from the property line, with this distance increasing as the building approaches the Mill Street side. This level is also setback from the Mill Street side fapade of the levels below. In total, the project includes a subgrade parking level; commerciaUoffice space on the second and third levels; five (5) affordable housing units (was three (3) 2- bedroom units, but is now three (3) 3-bedroom units, a 1-bedroom unit, and a studio unit) spread amongst the second, third and fourth levels; and five (5) free market residences (was six (6) free market residences) on the fourth and fifth levels. The project previously provided housing for 6.75 FTE but now includes housing for 12.00 FTE. Along the Bleeker Street frontage, the building reads as two-and-a-half to three stories in height. Along the North Mill Street frontage, the tallest portion of the building reads asthree-plus stories in height but the top floor is setback from the front facade. Along the alley frontage, the building reads as four stories but the third and fourth stories aze "wedding-caked" to decrease the perceived mass and scale. Finally, the west elevation reads as two-and-one-half stories in height. In essence, the building steps its way down the slope from south to north. While the project includes approximately 12,735 square feet (was 12,650 square feet) of commerciaUoffice space, it is conservatively estimated that 85% of the total commercial space will be "net leasable azea" (NLA) since not yet designed tenant-driven finishes will include circulation corridors, bathrooms, and storage area that the Code excludes from NLA. By way of comparison, approximately 81% of the existing JPB commercial space is NLA per the Code definifion. Therefore and for purposes of determining employee and pazking mitigation requirements, the development includes 10,826 squae feet of NLA, of which 5,854 square feet (was 5,590 square feet) are basement and upper floors and 4,972 square feet (was 5,160 square feet) are on the first floor. Because of the slopes adjacent to the site, a portion of level two is considered basement space while the remaining azea is considered first floor space; likewise, most of level three is considered first floor space while the remaining portion is considered upper level space (see floor plans --- the same devising line from the previous proposal has continued to be used). Tn total, one full level is considered first floor space. Haas Land Planning, LLC -Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment- December, 2007 Update Page 3 of 15 The commerciaUoffice uses will comply with the by-right use limitations of the MU zone district for properties not historically designated (i.e., no retail or restaurant uses, neighborhood commercial uses, or bed and breakfasts, unless or until the Code is amended to allow said uses). Free mazket and affordable multi-family housing are permitted uses in the MU zone. The proposal complies with all by-right dimensional standazds of the MU zone district, as demonstrated on the provided plan sets and on Table One, below. The commercial and free market residential components of a development in the MU zone district are limited to a 0.75:1 FAR, but may be increased to 1:1 with special review approval. The applicant has received Planning and Zoning Commission approvals for a 0.871:1 commercial FAR (10,455sf.) and a 0.87.•1 free market residential FAR (10,442sf.); the revised proposal falls well within the limits of the approval FAR as it now includes just 9,622 square feet of commercial Floor Area (0.802:1 FAR), and only 9,484 square feet offree market residential Floor Area (0.79:1 FAR). As required in the MU zone district, no free mazket residence includes more than 2,000 squae feet of net livable azea. The total net livable free market residential area in the project is 8,558 square feet (was 8,881 square feet), while 4,730 square feet (was only 3,100 square feet) of net livable affordable housing is provided on-site and above- grade; thus, the ratio offree mazket net livable area to affordable net livable azea is 64:36 (substantially exceeding the 70:30 minimum). The project provides housing for 12.00 (was only 6.75) full-time equivalents employees (FTE) in fve (5) units and eleven (II) bedrooms (was three (3) two- bedroom units). Each unit includes plenty of storage space and private laundry facilities. The five currently proposed employee units include: three (3) three-bedroom units each containing 1,200 square feet of net livable area; a studio unit with 400 square feet of net livable area; and, aone-bedroom unit with 701 square feet of net livable area. All (100%) of the finished floor area in the affordable housing is above grade and provided with ample natural light The existing development includes adequate off-street pazking; thus, there is no deficit to maintain and the redevelopment must provide all necessary parking or payments-in-lieu thereof. The subject site is within the Aspen Infill Area as defined in Section 26.104.100 of the Code. Consequently, pursuant to Section 26.515.030 of the Code, the commercial component of the project is required to provide one (1) off-street pazking space for every 1,000 square feet of net leasable area (up to 100% of which may be provided through apayment-in-lieu). The ten (20) residences (was previously nine) qualify asmulti-family development with in a mixed-use building pursuant to Section 26.104.100 of the Code. Accordingly and pursuant to Section 26.515.030 of the Code, there must be one (1) off-street parking space per dwelling unit in the residential component of the project (up to 100% of which maybe provided through apayment-in- lieu). Haas Land Planning, LLC -Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment- December, 2007 Update Page 4 of 15 Therefore, the residential component requires ten (10) off-street pazking spaces and the office component requires approximately eleven (11) off-street pazking spaces, for a total requirement of twenty-one (21) off-street parking spaces. The proposed subgrade garage includes twenty-one (21) off-street parking spaces, with two of the residential spaces provided in a tandem configuration. The proposal includes l9 spaces meeting City requirements and, in order to foster energy conservation and reduce traffic congestion, the applicant is proposing an alternative to the traditional method of providing pazking for the affordable housing units. The applicant is offering to purchase two hybrid vehicles (i.e., Toyota Prius or similar model) to be parked in one of the tandem. on-site parking spaces and be made available to the occupants of the employee housing units through aride-sharing program overseen by the HOA (or similar). This proposal would be in lieu of providing either one parking space per unit of affordable housing or cash-in-lieu for each such space. The dimensional requirements associated with the underlying MU zone district as compazed with the proposed development aze depicted in Table One, below. Squaze footages are rounded to the neazest ten squaze feet. TABLE ONE: DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS COMPARISON L Minimum Lot Size: • In the MU Zone: 3,000 square feet. • The Proposal: 12,000 squaze feet. 2. Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit: • In the MU Zone: Not Applicable/No Requirement. 3. Minimum Lot Width: • In the MU Zone: 30 feet. • The Pronosal: 120 feet. 4. Minimum Front Yard Setback: • In the MU Zone: 10 feet, which maybe reduced to 5 feet, pursuant to Special Review, Section 26.430. • The Proposal: Corner Lot: 10 feet along North Mill Street, 7 feet along East Bleeker Street. 5. Minimum Side Yard Setback: • In the MU Zone: 5 feet. • The Proposal: 5 feet. 6. Minimum Rear Yard Setback: • In the MU Zone: 5 feet. • The Pronosal: 5 feet. Haas Land Planning, LLC -Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment -December, 2007 Update Page 5 of 15 7. Maximum Height: • In the MU Zone: 32 feet. • The Proposal: 32 feet. 8. Pedestrian Amenity Space: • In the MU Zone: Not applicable/No Requirement at the subject location, per Section 26.575.030(B) of the Code. 9. Allowable External Floor Area Ratio (FAR): • In the MU Zone, Cumulative Limit: 2:1. • The Proposal, Cumulative Total: 2:1. 1. In the MU Zone, Commercial; Lodge; Timeshaze Lode, Exempt Timesharing; Arts, Cultural and Civic uses: Public Uses; Recreational Uses; Academic Uses: .75:1, which may be increased to 1:1 by Special Review, pursuant to Section 26.430.040.A. The Proposal, Office/Commercial Uses: 0.802:1 (9,622 square feet) (was approved by P&Z at 0.88:1; 10,515 square feet). 2. In the MU Zone, Affordable Multi-Family Housing: No limitation, other than the cumulative FAR limit stated above. The Proposal, Affordable Multi-Family Housing: 0.4:I (4,742 square feet) (was previously 0.25:1; 3,015 square feet). 3. in the MU Zone, Free-Market Multi-Family Housing: .75:1, which may be increased to 1:1 by Special Review, pursuant to Section 26.430.040.A. The total free-market residential Floor Area on the parcel shall be no greater than the total Floor Area attributed to the commercial uses located on the same parcel. The Proposal, Free-Market Multi-Family Housing: 0.79:1 (9,484 square feet) (was approved by P&Z at 0.87:1; 10,442 square feet); the Free Market residential Floor Area remains less than the office/commercial Floor Area on the parcel, as required. Haas Land Planning, LLC -Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment -December, 2007 Update Page 6 of 15 N, UPDATED REVIEW REQUIREMENTS: This portion of the update addresses continued satisfaction of the relevant GMQS Review standazds under Section 26.470.040 of the Code, namely those of subsections (C)(2), (C)(6), and (C)(7). The GMQS reviews and allocations were carried out by the P&Z. 1. GMQSA[locations a. New Mixed Use Development, Section 26.470 040(C)(2) The applicable review standards (Section 26.470.040(C)(2)) aze provided below in indented and italicized print and each is followed by a response demonstrating consistency and/or compliance therewith, as applicable. The expansion of an existing commercial, lodge, or mixed-use building or the development of a new commercial, lodge, or mixed-use building shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the expansion, pursuant to Section 26.470.030.D, Annual Development Allotments. The applicant was granted siz (6) free market residential allotments, but given the proposed revisions to the project, only five (5) of the granted allotments will be used. Twelve (12) such allotments are available per yeaz, starting on Mazch 1, without the necessity of requiring either amulti-year allotment or an exceptional project allotment; seven of these twelve allotments were available at the time of allocation. Similarly, the applicant was granted an allotment of 3,305 square feet of new net leasable commercial space, but the revised proposal will use only 3,076 square feet of the allotted square footage; there was 25,700 square feet of such space available at the time of allocation. While only three (3) affordable housing units were included in the original submittal approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the currer:t revised plan includes five (5) such units, there is no limit on affordable housing unit allotments. b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. As demonstrated below, the proposed development is fully consistent with the goals and objectives of the AACP. With regazd to the "Managing Growth" section of the AACP, the stated community goals include: • "...limit[ing] the ultimate population in the Aspen area in order to preserve the quality of life for residents and enjoyment for visitors." The proposed development Haas Land Planning, LLC -Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment -December, 2007 Update Page 7 of 15 falls within the annual growth management allotments available in the Aspen Infill Area and, therefore, falls within the desired 2% growth rate of the city. • "Provide fora 'critical mass' of permanent local residents by providing a limited number of new affordable housing units within the Aspen Community Growth Boundary." The proposal includes five (5) high-quality affordable housing units that will house 12.00 X73 FTE within the Aspen Inf:ll Area. • "Contain development with the creation of an Aspen Community Growth Boundary..." As explained above, the proposed redevelopment site is not only within the Urban Growth Boundary, but also within the Aspen Infill Area. • "Foster awell-balanced community through integrated design that promotes economic diversity, transit and pedestrian friendly lifestyles, and the mixing of people from different backgrounds." The proposed development includes a mix of commercial and office space with free-market and deed restricted/affordable residences. These uses aze integrated throughout the building, often occurring on the same floors as one another. The project site, in and of itself, promotes the use of transit and a pedestrian friendly lifestyle; it includes bicycle pazking and sidewalk improvements while being located one block from the Clazk's Market complex to the north and the Main and Mill intersection to the south. In addition, on-site provision of two hybrid vehicles is proposed for use in aride-sharing program to benefit the occupants of the employee housing units. The Intent of the AACP's "Transportation" section provides that, "The community seeks to provide a balanced, integrated transportation system for residents, visitors, and commuters that reduces congestion and air pollution. Walking, bicycling and transit use is promoted to help us reach that goal." As explained above, the project site, in and of itself, promotes the use of transit and a pedestrian friendly lifestyle; it includes bicycle parking and sidewalk improvements while being located one block from the Clazk's Market complex to the north and the Main and Mill intersection to the South. Furthermore, by opening and using the Block 78 alley (and eliminating the existing access), the number of curb cuts on North Mill Street will be decreased, thereby bettering the safety and experience of the pedestrian corridor. In fact, the entire streetscape and sidewalk experience will be improved with the redevelopment by providing vitality and visual interest in place of an existing building that greets pedestrians with little more than brick retaining walls. In addition, on-site provision of two hybrid vehicles is proposed for use in aride-sharing program to benefit the occupants of the employee housing units. With regard to the "Housing" section of the AACP, the stated community goals include several of the points included in the previous sections of the AACP (addressed above) as well as the following: • "The public and private sectors should work together to ensure success in providing affordable housing." A similar goal seeks to "Encourage greater participation by Haas Land Planning, LLC -Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment- December, 2007 Update Page 8 of 15 the private sector in developing affordable housing."' In the current case, the private sector will be providing five (S) fibres-(~) high-quality, new units to the affordable housing inventory. These units will house twelve (l2) ~5 FTE within the Aspen Inftll Area. • "New affordable housing projects should reinforce and enhance a healthy social balance for our community and enhance the character and charm of Aspen." The proposal not only reinforces the social balance sought by this goal statement but enhances it as well. The proposal integrates free market residences with affordable residences within one building and even as next door neighbors. The redevelopment will enhance the chazacter and charm of Aspen by greatly improving the entire streetscape and sidewalk experience along North Mill Street, a heavily used vehicle and pedestrian corridor. The existing building greets pedestrians with little more than brick retaining walls while the redevelopment will provide vitality and visual interest to, and engagement of, the pedestrian. The building's design is consistent and compatible with the surrounding structures and uses. With regard to the "Economic Sustainablity" section of the AACP, the stated community goals include several of the points included in the previous sections of the AACP (addressed above) as well as the following: • "Maintain a healthy, vibrant and diversified year-round economy that supports the Aspen area community..." The Jerome Professional Building supports professional office uses that help to maintain the healthy, vibrant and diversified yeaz-round economy of the Aspen azea community. The redevelopment will enhance its ability to continue supporting this vital community function. In addition, commercial uses allowable in the MU zone which are not offices can be located along N. Mill Street and vitalize this pedestrian corridor. • "Our economic and business decisions ... should ensure balance and integration between Aspen the Resort' and 'Aspen the Community'." One of the few economic sectors to receive relatively little development attention in Aspen is office use. Aspen's is swell-educated community with many professionals, yet up-to-date, appropriately located, quality office space is sorely lacking. This proposal will greatly aid in reversing this trend and filling this need. The proposed development is also consistent with the "Parks, Open Space & the EnvironmenP' section of the AACP. The project will provide Park Development Impact Fees as well as improvements to the sidewalks along both North Mill Street and East Bleeker Street. The Bleeker Street sidewalk will be relocated to provide a detached walk with street trees. There aze several large, mature trees on the site and these will not be removed. The project has no affect on any historic resources; therefore, the "Historic Preservation" section of the AACP is not applicable. With regard to the "Design Quality" section of the AACP, the stated community goals are lazgely addressed in the responses to previous sections of the AACP, above. The proposed design enhances consistency (as compazed with the existing structure) in style and character with the Haas Land Planning, LLC -Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment -December, 2007 Update Page 9 of 15 surrounding structures, including the historic Hotel Jerome and the Pitkin County Library. c) Sixty (60) percent of the employees generated by the additional commercial/lodge development, according Section 26.470.OSO.A, Employee Generation Rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash-in-lieu thereof. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.040.0.7, Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. Mitigation for Free-Market residential units within amixed-use project shall be pursuant to Section 26.470.040.0.6 -Free-Market Residential Units within aMixed-Use Project. The proposed development's consistency with Sections 26.470.040.0.6 and C.7 of the Code is demonstrated in the next sub-section of this application. Pursuant to Section 26.470.OSO.A.S of the Code, Whenever affordable housing is provided on-site (with actual units) in order to satisfy one requirement, the same on-site affordable housing may also be used to satisfy any other affordable housing requirement concurrently. For example: Amixed-use project may require two affordable housing units to mitigate an increase in commercial employee generation, and two affordable housing units to mitigate free-market residential development. In this case, providing two on-site affordable housing units shall satisfy both requirements concurrently. Therefore, in the case of a mixed use project, it is necessary to analyze the affordable housing mitigation requirements attributable to each use type in the proposal and meet the higher of the two requirements. In the current case, the mixed use project includes a free mazket residential component aswell as acommercial/office component, each with its own affordable housing requirement. The two requirements must be established and compared to determine the effective/combined requirement. With regazd to the project's commercial component, Section 26.470.OSO.A of the Code provides that development in the Mil zone district generates 3.7 FTE per thousand squaze feet of net leasable first-floor azea, and 2.775 FTE per thousand square feet of upper and lower floor net leasable area (NLA). The standazd above, explains that the mitigation is required only for the employees generated by "additionaP' commercial development. Given these Code provisions, in order to determine the mitigation requirement, one must calculate the employee generation of the various levels of commercial NLA in both the existing structure and the proposed structure, then calculate the difference. This difference is the number of employees generated by the redevelopment, and the Code then requires that Category 4 housing be provided for 60% Haas Land Planning, LLC -Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment -December, 2007 Update Page 10 of 15 of the employees generated, and that the housing be provided in a manner consistent with the requirements of Section 26.470.040.0.7 of the Code. The existing structure contains 3,775 squaze feet of first floor NLA and 3,775 squae feet of upper floor NLA. Therefore, the existing first floor generates 13.97 FTE ([3,775s.f./1,000s.fJ x 3.7), and the existing upper floor generates 10.48 FTE ([3,775/1,000] x 2.775). In total, then, the existing structure generates 24.45 FTE (13.97 + 10.48). While the project includes approximately 12,735 square feet (was 12,650 square feet) of commerciaUoffice space, it is conservatively estimated that 85% of the total commercial space will be "net leasable azea" (NLA) since not yet designed tenant-driven finishes will include circulation corridors, bathrooms, and storage area that the Code excludes from NLA. By way of comparison, approximately 81% of the existing JPB commercial space is NLA per the Code definition. Therefore and for purposes of determining employee mitigation requirements, the development includes 10,826 square feet of NLA, of which 5,854 square feet (was 5,590 square feet) are basement and upper floors and 4,972 square feet (was 5,160 square feet) aze on the first floor. Because of the slopes adjacent to the site, a portion of level two is considered basement space while the remaining area is considered first floor space; likewise, most of level three is considered first floor space while the remaining portion is considered upper level space (see floor plans --- the same devising line from the previous proposal has continued to be used). In total, one full level is considered first floor space. As such, the basement and upper floor NLA generates 16.25 FTE (5.854 x 2.775), and the first floor NLA generates 18.4 FTE (4.972 x 3.7). In total, the redevelopment generates 34.65 FTE (16.25 + 18.4). The 24.45 FTE credit from the existing building is now applied, bringing the total increase in employee generation to 10.2 FTE (34.65 - 24.45). Since 60% of the incremental increase in employee generation must be mitigated, the end requirement attributable to the commercial component of the redevelopment is housing for 6.I2 FTE (10.2 x 60%). With regazd to the project's free market residential component, Section 26.470.040.0.6 of the Code explains that, "Affordable housing Net livable space, for which the finished floor level is at or above Natural or Finished Grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to thirty (30) percent of the additional free- market residential net livable space, for which the finished floor level is at or above Natural or Finished Grade, whichever is higher." The existing structure does not contain any residential squae footage; thus, all free mazket net livable azea in the proposal is "additional." The proposed development includes 8,558 net livable square feet of free market residential space, all of which is above natural and finished grade. Therefore 2,567 square feet of above grade net livable affordable housing space (8,558 x 30%) is required. Per Section 8 of the 2006 Housing Guidelines, every 400 square feet of affordable housing is equivalent to housing for one (1) FTE; therefore, the end Haas Land Planning, LLC -Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment -December, 2007 Update Page 11 of 15 requirement attributable to the free mazket residential component of the redevelopment is housing for 6.42 FTE (2,567 _ 400). Since the proposal includes an-site provision of affordable housing (with actual units), pursuant to Section 26.470.OSO.A. S of the Code, the effective affordable housing requirement is housing for not less than 6.42 FTE (the requirement attributable to the free market residential component of the project). The proposal includes five (5) employee units with eleven (11) bedrooms divided amongst three 3-bedroom units, one I-bedroom unit, and one studio unit. Pursuant to Section 26.470.050(A)(2) of the Code, these units house a total of 12.00 FTE in 4,730 square feet of net livable area, all of which is above grade. Moreover, while the Code clearly states that in the case of a mined use project, it is necessary to analyze the affordable housing mitigation requirements attributable to each use type in the proposal and meet only the higher of the two requirements, the current proposal comes within a hair of satisfying the combined requirements associated with the free market residential and commerciaUoffice components. That is, mitigation of the commerciaUoffice component of the project would require housing for 6.I2 FTE and the free market residential component requires mitigation of 6.42 FTE, for a combined sum of 12.54 FTE. The proposal provides housing for 12 FTE, and exceeds the codihed employee housing mitigation requirement by approximately I87%. Each of the proposed affordable housing units is consistent with or exceeds the 2006 Housing Guidelines requirements for minimum net livable area. Furthermore, the applicant is willing to voluntarily provide "lower" deed restrictions than required by the Code, which states that it is the applicant's right to restrict mitigation units to the Category 41eveG The applicant will restrict one of the three 3-bedroom units to the Category 3 level, the I-bedroom unit to the Category 3 level, and the studio unit to the category 2 level, provided that some flexibility with respect to income restrictions can be maintained to accommodate housing of on-site employees. The units will be deed restricted to the terms outlined in the staff-drafted conditions of approval, as recommended by the Housing Board and described below. Overall, the redevelopment plan is consistent with the APCHA Guidelines, the AACP, and all applicable Land Use Code criteria. d) The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services. The project is a redevelopment of an existing building. The property is already served with public infrastructure, services, and facilities. The additional demand represented by the proposal will not in any way exceed existing capacities and will be mitigated through payment of tap fees, permit fees, impact fees, and the like. Haas Land Planning, LLC -Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment -December, 2007 Update Page 12 of 15 b. Affordable Housing Section 26 470 O4O(C)(7) The development of affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the new units, pursuant to Section 16.470.030.0, Development Ceiling Levels. This standazd has been addressed above in response to the standazds of Section 26.470.040.0.2. b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. This standazd has been addressed above in response to the standards of Section 26.470.040.0.2. c) The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors. The proposal includes five (5) affordable housing units: Units 1 and 2 each contain three bedrooms and 1,200 square feet of net livable area; Unit 3 contains one bedroom and 701 square feet of net livable area; Unit 4 is a studio with 400 square feet of net livable area; and, Unit 5 is another three-bedroom unit with 1,200 square feet of net livable area. All five units include plenty of storage space as well as private laundry facilities. All (100%) of the finished floor azea in the affordable housing is above grade and provided with ample natural light. The proposed affordable housing units are consistent with or exceed the 2007 Housing Guidelines requirements for minimum net livable azea in the unit-types proposed. Furthermore, the applicant is willing to voluntarily provide "lower" deed restrictions than required by the Code, which states that it is the applicant's right to restrict mitigation units to the Category 4 IeveL The applicant will restrict one of the three 3-bedroom units to the Category 3 level, the I-bedroom unit to the Category 3 level, and the studio unit to the Category 2 level, provided that some flexibility with respect to income restrictions can be maintained to accommodate housing of on-site employees. The units will be deed restricted to the terms outlined in the staff-drafted conditions of approval, as recommended by the Housing Board and described below This proposal is consistent with the APCHA Guidelines, the AACP, and all applicable Land Use Code criteria. Haas Land Planning, LLC -Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment -December, 2007 Update Page 13 of 15 d) Affordable Housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or buy-down units. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty (50) percent or more of the unit's net livable square footage is at or above Natural or Finished Grade, whichever is higher. Off-site units shall be provided within the City of Aspen city limits. Units outside the city limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to 26.470.040.D.2. Provision of affordable housing through a cash-in-lieu payment shall be at the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. The proposed affordable housing mitigation is being provided in the form of actual newly-built, 100% above-grade on-site units. The on-site units are within both the city limits and the Infill Area. e) The proposed units shall be deed restricted as `for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority or the City of Aspen to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, or its Board of Directors, at its sole discretion, may authorize affordable housing units owned and associated with a lodging or commercial operations to be rental units if a legal instrument, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, ensures permanent affordability of the units. Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, or other similar governmental or quasi-municipal agency shall not be subject to this mandatory `for-sale"provision. Given the location of the proposed affordable housing units in a mixed-use building and immediately adjacent to commerciaUoffice uses, the applicant desires to retain a measure of control over who occupies the units. Not unlike affordable housing units within a lodge development, it has been recognized by the City and the APCHA that a problem occupant in an ownership unit within a mixed use building can be exceedingly difficult to address. Furthermore, the applicants own businesses that will continue to operate in the redeveloped structure and they have had difficulty in retaining employees due largely to the cost of housing. The applicants want to be able to offer on-site housing to potential employees. Accordingly, the applicants would like to retain ownership of the units and rent them under deed restricted rates and terms. All appropriate provisions will be made to ensure permanent affordability. As has been done with other recent mixed use development approvals, and in accordance with the recommendation of the Housing Board, the applicant will accept requirements such as the following: Haas Land Planning, LLC -Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment -December, 2007 Update Page 14 of 15 • The units have the ability to become ownership units at such time the owners would request this change and/or at such time the APCHA deems one of the units out of compliance over a period of more than one year. At such time, all units will be listed for sale with the Housing Office as specifted in the deed restriction at the maximum sales price based on the Guidelines in effect at the time of final plat approval for all units and all units shall be sold through the lottery system as specified in the Guidelines. In the alternative, should the affordable housing become ownership units, the APCHA or the City of Aspen can elect to purchase them for rental to qualified renters in accordance with the Guidelines; • Rental of the units shall be open to all qualified employees of Aspen and Pitkin County and shall not be tied to the employment for the free-market component or the commercial components; however, the owner(s) of the units may still choose the qualified renters and the tenants may still be employed by the commercial component The HOA or similar, as a non profit organization, may maintain ownership of the units; • The governing documents for the development (r.e., the Protective Covenants, By- laws, Articles of Incorporation, or similar) shall be drafted to reflect the potential for the rental units to become ownership units. Since the project is a mixed free-markeddeed-restricted project, the assessments shall be determined based on the price values of the free-market component compared to the deed- restricted component This language shall be required in the City's approval and in the Covenants associated with the project No changes to this restriction would be allowed without APCHA approval • As long as the units remain as rental units, the APCHA or the applicant shall structure a deed restriction for the employee housing units only such that an undivided 1/10`" of 1 percent interest in the ownership of each of the employee units is deed restricted in perpetuity to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or until such time the units become ownership units; or, the applicant may propose any other means that the Housing Authority determines acceptable. Haas Land Planning, LLC -Jerome Professional Building Redevelopment -December, 2007 Update Page 15 of 15 V~IIc MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range PlannerJ~l,1 THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director~l DATE OF MEMO: January 3, 2008 MEETING DATE: January 14, 2008 RE: Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD, Resolution 53, Series 2007 The Applicant has requested that the Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD public hearing be continued to April 14, 2008. Staff supports this continuation request. The Staff memo, findings, and information requested by City Council at first reading will be provided as part of the April 14, 2008 packet. Staff will be at the January 14`" meeting to answer any questions related to this continuation. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to continue the Public Hearing for Resolution No. 53, Series of 2007, approving a Conceptual PUD for the Smuggler Racquet Club, to April 14, 2008." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Page 1 of 1 Jessica Garrow From: John Sarpa [JohnSarpa@centurion-partners.com] Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 2:52 PM To: Jessica Garrow; vannassociates@comcast.net Subject: RE: Smuggler continuation Jessica, Please consider this our request for the Smuggler Racquet Club application to be continued until April 14. As you may know, we are in discussions with the City about the possibility of pursuing a hotel project that may or may not need off site affordable housing. Thank you and please let me know if you have any questions. John Sarpa Centurion Partners 300 South Spring Street Suite 301 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Te1.970-544-8336 Cel 1970-379-2595 Fx. 970-544-8271 Email JohnSar~aCc~Centurion-partners.com 1/3/2008 ~'~ EMORANDUM M TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council FROM: Jessica Darrow, bong Range Planner {q/~,~,y~ THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director (/Yr~' ' DATE OF MEMO: January 7, 2008 MEETING DATE: Jauuary 14, 2008 RE: Historic Lot Split Code Amendment, Ordinance 50, Series 2007 Staff requests the City Council continue this public hearing to March 24, 2008. This continuance is requested because public notice was not provided for a January 14`n heazing. Staff will be at the January 14`n meeting to answer any questions related to this continuation. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to continue the Public Hearing for Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2007, approving Code Amendments to Historic Lot Splits to March 24, 2008." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: MEMORANDUM ~xa. TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Chris Forman, City Forester Parks Department ~~ :! ~-o THRU: Stephen Ellsperman, Parks and Open Space Director /; ~/~ DATE OF MEMO: January 7, 2008 'l MEETING DATE: January 14, 2007 RE: Appeal of tree permit #2007-129 denial REQUEST OF COUNCIL: It is the request of council to determine whether or not 2 large spruce trees shall be removed in order to accommodate the expansion of an existing condominium at 935 East Hopkins Avenue. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: None BACKGROUND: The condominium association at 935 East Hopkins Avenue submitted tree removal application #2007-129 on August 14, 2007 (Exhibit A). This was done in an effort to remove trees that would be in the way of the proposed expansion of the current structure. On August 30, 2007, the City Forester performed an onsite inspection of the property and determined that 2 of the trees would not be permitted for removal due to their significance in the community forest. The City Forester contacted the applicant with this information and requested that a discussion be held regarding redesign efforts to preserve the large spruce trees. The applicant expressed to the Parks Department that their current plans for expansion would be the only viable solution. The Parks Department denied the removal of the large spruce trees on September 26, 2007 (Exhibit B). The applicant appealed the denial to the City Manager per the process outlined in the City of Aspen Municipal Code. The City Manager also denied the removals on December 10, 2007 (Exhibit C). The applicant has now appealed this decision to City Council. DISCUSSION: The condominium association at 935 East Hopkins has requested the removal of 23 trees on the property in order to expand the current structure. The expansion requested would be in a north and south direction, while the east side of the building would serve as four parking spaces. There are two blue spruce trees growing on the north side of the structure, with diameters of 20 and 22 inches at breast height. These trees were included in the removal request due to the northward expansion of the structure. The Parks Department has determined these large spruce trees to be prominent features of this neighborhood as well as their importance in providing a valuable resource for keeping a productive, contiguous community forest in the east Page I of 2 end of Aspen. The Parks Department approached Rick Boyd, the representative for the condominium association, and expressed the value of the spruce trees and that these trees would not be permitted for removal. The Parks Department and Rick Boyd then discussed the possibility of design options in order to gain the desired square footage while preserving the trees. Many trees on the east side of the structure were permitted, verbally, for removal in an effort to remedy the situation. The redesign efforts were not acceptable by the condominium association. At this point, the Parks Department denied the tree removal permit application and presented the applicant, Rick Boyd, a copy of that document. Rick appealed this denial to the City Manager's office, and a meeting between the City Manager, Rick Boyd, and the Parks Department was held. After this meeting, the City Manager explored the situation further and also denied the removal of the spruce trees. Rick Boyd has now requested a final appeal to Council. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: There are no financial/budget impacts. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: These trees add significant value to the community forest. They are prominent features of the east end landscape, and are the largest trees in this azea. They provide species and age class diversity, which is of particular interest in maintaining a healthy, and sustainable community forest. In addition, the forest has a monetary value associated with individual trees, and these two alone are valued at $26,369.72. RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is the recommendation of the Pazks Department that Council support the denial of the large spruce trees located at 935 East Hopkins Avenue. ALTERNATIVES: The alternative would be overturning the denial by the Parks Department and City Manager, permitting the two spruce trees be removed at a mitigation cost to the applicant totaling $26,369.72. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to support the Parks Department, and City Manager's denial of tree removal permit application #2007-129". CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Tree Removal Permit Application #2007-129 Exhibit B: Denial of application by Parks Department Exhibit C: Denial of appeal by City Manager's Office Page 2 of 2 m THE C[fY OF ASPEN Parks Office: 970.920.5120 Fax: 970.920.5128 FOR PARhS USN. ONLI 9 Receieed: ~. ~ ' D ~. Permit No. 2007-__ ~~/ _ Responded: Building Permit No. ~a, nr~wi,ia _~ Fees Puid: ~___ ChecUC~ ~~~ r ant TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION Please provide the information below, together with your check payable to the City of Aspen in the amount of $75.00. (Applications will not be processed until the application fee is paid.) 1) Ou[line/Sketch/Drawing of property to include: (Please attach TWO copies) a) Property address. b) Property boundaries. c) Locations of buildings on the property. d) Location, diameter, and species of trees on property and designate with arrows or circles which trees are to be removed. 2) Site 3) List trees to be re oved, species and diameter at 4.5' bove grad`~~~ 4) Reason for Removal: ; i~~ -~'/?lli ' .,~ l ~~ 5) itigation Plan [relocation of trees or replacement as r renced in Aspen Municipal Code Sec. 13.20(e)]. Please ADD to the Property Drawing. (TWO copies needed). a) Location of replacemenUrelocation trees. b) Size and species of trees to be replaced. c) Professional cost estimate of planting (nursery stock, delivery, and installation). 6) Completion Date of Project 7) Person responsible for project (applicant): i Property Owner (Please print6~Name of Architect or Constructi ~.~L~~ yr Mme" ,~-, ~/~/2 Address Company name Phone: ,'~,2Fax:92C3-3 gPhone: Fax: Owner's Si tature Da e -C Signature of Repre entativ MUST BE POSTED ON PROPERTY DURING REMOVAL Date 11~Q4~~~ (Please print) ~7 EXHIBIT 'A' MUST BE POSTED ON PROPERTY On August 3Q, 2007, Chris Forman, Aspen City Forester, performed an onsite inspection of the property located at 935 East Hopkins Avenue. The site is predominately comprised of spruce and aspen. The homeowners association for the multiple-family structure has requested the removal of all trees on the property in order to expand the structure. After meeting with the applicant's representative, he indicated that 3 aspen trees could possibly be saved, though these trees are not good candidates for preservation due to existing willow scale infestations that have reduced overall health. The building expansion would render the need to remove 2 large spruce trees, 22 and 20-inch diameters, along East Hopkins Avenue. In addition, a 16-inch diameter spruce would be removed on the Cleveland Street side as well. These trees are prominent features of this neighborhood and provide a valuable resource for keeping a productive, contiguous community forest in the east side of Aspen. The smallest of these 3 spruce trees mentioned above could be mitigated for if the other two trees are protected throughout the project. This concession was considered in order to provide alternatives for remodeling the building while keeping the large spruce trees along Hopkins Avenue. There are other methods of construction that could be explored in order to gain the desired square footage while saving the large spruce trees on the north side of this structure. A meeting on site with the applicant resulted in a discussion of all of the other trees on site outside of the spruce mentioned above. Many of the aspen trees could be removed with zero mitigation due, though some would require mitigation. The reason for this is due to the heavy infestation of willow scale in some trees resulting in certain death in the near future. The applicant has indicated that this project cannot be done without the loss of the large spruce trees. The City of Aspen Parks Department will deliver full discloser of individual tree values once a determination is made regarding the status of this project. The removal of the 2 large spruce trees along the East Hopkins Avenue side of the property is denied per the reasons listed above. The other trees on the lot can be discussed further if the project can continue azound these spruce. Pro ree In ection: Chris Forman Forester, City of Aspen .~---- te en Ells an Director Park and Open Space Permit Valid for one year after approval date. 9'ZC-c~t2 Date ~-t ~ 26~t,7 Date EXHIBIT 'B' December 10, 2007 Rick Boyd 935 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 REi Appeal of Tree Permit No. 2007-129 Dear Rick: D THE CITY OF ASPEN After reviewing all information regazding Tree Removal Permit No. 2007-129, a request to remove three Colorado blue spruce, I have decided to deny the appeal for the removal of these trees. This permit application also requested removal of other trees on the property, and they aze approved for removal as outlined in the original tree removal permit. After discussions with you and the City's Director of Community Development, I believe there aze other construction'options that could be explored in order to gain the desired square footage while protecting the large spruce trees. I understand you may not consider these other options to be as desirable or cost-efficient as your proposal, but it does appeaz possible to both redevelop and save the trees. These trees remain an important part of the community forest in this particular neighborhood. The community. forest in this azea has long been composed of mixed trees species and locations, and I feel the removal of these trees would degrade from this experience. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely,., F1 ~_ Steve Barwick City Manager CC: Stephen Ellsperman, Parks and Open Space Director Chris Forman, City Forester EXHIBIT ' C' 130 Sovrx Gn~ena STREffi ~ AsreN, GOLORA00 81611-1975 ~ Pxoue 970.920.5000 ~ Fnx 97U.920.5197 www. aspengov.com Priri~ed on Recydid Paper TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Richard Boyd, President Gavilon Condo Association RE: Appeals Process Tree Removal Permits DATE: December 17, 2007 The existing Gavilon building sits in a symmetrical configuration with the northern elevation and the southern elevation being exactly the same. Each writ has the same footprint. "the building is located in the center of the property in a northerly and southerly direction, within the north setback at 5' and the south 18' parking lot. There is room on the property for expansion on the north and south by 10' S". This would keep the building in a symmetrical configuration with all units gaining the same area of living space. The Parks Department and the City Manager have suggested that the building could be expanded in the east and west direction to gain the desired square footage. In the westerly direction we could expand only 7'. In the easterly direction we could expand 13'. The existing east and west walls are over 50% bathrooms and closets. To gain 7' in the bathrooms and closets just doesn't make any sense. This would give us 5' x 17' bathrooms and the plumbing would have to be completely recontigured. The six units on the north side would be at a huge disadvantage. This expansion would never work within the association as not all unit owners would gain equally. The expansion as proposed would give us a larger, more livable and comfortable living space changing the footprint of each unit from 565 sq. ft. to 885 sq. ft. Each unit would gain 320 sq. ft. of comfortable living space in the direction of the light and views. This would increase the size of each unit by 56°/0. The expansion plan shows a change in the parking configuration. This is a matter for City engineering. It would decrease our non-conformity from 9 spaces for 12 units to 11 spaces for 12 units. if the parking is not changed, our expansion plan could still go forward as proposed with minimum demolition to the existing building. We have a great plan to expand our units equally. This plan; however, is contingent upon tree removal and re-vegetation of the property. Please reconsider our appeal of the City's denial of our tree removal permit and give us the opportunity to mitigate for these trees. Respectfully submitted, Richard Bovd Gavilon Condominium Association 935 E. Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 8161 1 970-920-3382 ~fee'~ ~2 /off tzl!/~ ~~~c~r~ ,~ ~c . / 3 , 20. a yo ~ ~~~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~Q .~ ~ .~ ~~ ~.~ ~~ ~~ y3.5'E. 7 6/~ l 1 Y2 0 -3~ 94 ~~~.~' 2Dv~ ~ 2 y figs :~ -