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
:~ -