HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.20100208Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 8, 2010
APWA AWARD -Main Street Sidewalk .......................................................................... 2
CITIZEN COMMENTS ..................................................................................................... 2
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS .................................................................................. 2
CONSENT CALENDAR ................................................................................................... 3
• Resolution #14, 2010 -Purchase Event Floor for Ice Facilities ............................. 3
• Resolution #9, 2010 -Burlingame Phase II Contract Owner's Agent -Rider
Levett Bucknall ............................................................................................................... 3
• Resolution #15, 2010 -Extending the 211 W. Hopkins Ordinance #48 Negotiation
3
• Minutes -January 11, 25, 2010 ...................................................:.......................... 3
RESOLUTION #8, 2010 -Burlingame Phase II Architect - Oz ........................................ 3
ORDINANCE #2, SERIES OF 2010 -Aspen Club SPA/PUD ....................................... 10
1
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 8, 2010
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Ireland moved to adopt the consent calendar as amended taking off Resolution #8,
2010, Oz Architect contract, Burlingame; seconded by Councilman Torre. The consent
calendar is:
• Resolution #14, 2010 -Purchase Event Floor for Ice Facilities
• Resolution #9, 2010 -Burlingame Phase II Contract Owner's Agent -Rider
Levett Bucknall
• Resolution #15, 2010 -Extending the 211 W. Hopkins Ordinance #48 Negotiation
• Minutes -January 11, 25, 2010
Al] in favor, motion carried.
RESOLUTION #8, 2010 -Burlingame Phase II Architect - Oz
Mayor Ireland stated as the last Council meeting, Council asked questions about the
equivalence of the two bids. Chris Everson, asset department, requested Council approve
the integrated project delivery design contract for Oz architecture for $814,759. Everson
went through the clarification of Oz proposed public meetings; their proposal includes 26
public meetings rather than 16 meetings. This is not a change in proposals but a
clarification. Everson said there was concern on whether Oz was low balling the
proposal with the intent of asking for change orders. Everson presented a letter from the
Broadmoor hotel refuting that claim.
Councilman Romero disclosed that Oz architecture has an existing lien against a project
on which work was stopped by the company for which Romero works. Councilman
Romero stated there is no personal or financial gain for him and he has consulted with the
city attorney's office and it is not a conflict.
Everson said there is a perception that the RFP might not have been specific enough and
open to interpretation. Everson noted the RFP was a 22 page document and incorporated
by reference conceptual plans, AIA guide to integrated project delivery, contracts and the
RFP asked firms they were willing to sign the contract as is. Everson pointed out the
RFP solicited for fixed price- bids based on a fixed scope of services. The RFP provided
details abut the design effort requirements including the building program, the conceptual
plans, the required consultants, the detailed description of services, schedule and public
process. The RFP included the scope of work being requested of the other integrated
project team members so that everyone was aware of where their responsibilities lie.
Everson told Council the proposing firms based their fixed fees on an estimated amount
of effort and the firms committed to the whole project as defined in the scope of work for
a fixed price. The RFPs become part of the contract and define the scope of work.
Everson noted if a firm uses fewer hours than estimated, the city does not get money back
Regular Meetin¢ Aspen City Council February 8, 2010
and if the project requires more hours than estimated, the city does not pay more unless
they have asked for more services. Everson said the RFP contained information about
the building program, which was developed over a long process of negotiation and
working with the Burlingame HOA.
Everson said the original conceptual plans for Burlingame had 6 different building types.
Everson said in working with the HOA, it became clear that only 4 different building
types were needed. The building program has 20 buildings with only 4 different types.
Everson noted the RFP does not have a lot of room for architectural creativity; the RFP
defined the basis of the plan should be based on the conceptual plan and made clear the
general site layout.. Everson told Council there are no existing building plans for phase
II.
Everson noted the RFP provided the conceptual plans that were a result of the CEG
effort, including the site plan. Everson noted the RFP required consultants in certain
disciplines, like structural and mechanical engineer, electrical, civil engineer, land
planner, landscape architect, acoustics consultant, water proofing consultant, interior
designers. Everson told Council all 3 finalists comprised teams that met the RFP
requirements. Everson went over the proposed consultants from Poss Architects and Oz
Architects.
Everson went through the description of services as provided in section 4.2.1, 4.2.2,
4.2.3, 4.2.5. Everson said staff did not receive a lot of questions about what should be in
the scope of work when the architects were putting their proposal together. Everson told
Council firms were to put together a detailed schedule based on milestones and
constraints. The city asked each firm participate in the integrated delivery process. The
firms were asked to provide a sustainable project that would be in harmony with the
existing phase I. Everson noted the proposers were asked to present a schedule and to
what extent the community and its feedback would be included.
Everson told Council the selection committee felt the Oz, Poss and Cunniffe proposals
were all responsive to the RFP and that the work proposed equaled the work sought. The
selection committee interviewed each of those 3 firms. In December, the city sent to
each of these 3 firms 7 questions for clarification and the 7`h question was "If you feel it
is appropriate, you may take this opportunity to clarify, adjust or otherwise enhance your
proposal". Everson said that was an opportunity for any of the firms to adjust their bid
or proposal in any way.
Everson presented a chart of hourly estimates presented by Poss and Oz used as a basis
for their fixed fee proposal. Councilman Skadron noted one line item, landscape
architect, the number of hours proposed in the two bids differs by 4 times and for civil
engineer, the number of hours proposed differs by 2. Councilman Skadron noted the
distribution of hours varies by 36% between the two proposals. Councilman Skadron
said from his perspective, an inconsistency exists leaving him unsettled that the lower
bidder may not be as familiar with the intricacies of developing in Aspen. Councilman
Skadron said $ I million is a large difference for a fiscally conservative Council.
Regular Meeting Aspen Citv Council February 8, 2010
Mayor Ireland asked if staff feels the project needs 2800 hours of landscape architecture
and how does that relate to phase I. Everson told Council the city did not have that level
of detail for phase I. The selection committee did not resolve why one proposer had so
much involvement by landscape architects or civil engineers. Mayor Ireland pointed out
each proposer chose the same Acoustics firm, yet the proposed average hourly rate is
$14/hour higher in one proposal.
Councilman Romero said the city will enter into a fixed fee contract with a defined scope
of work. How one firm delivers on the scope and how efficient they are, the fee is fixed
and they do not get more money because a task would take more hours. Scott Miller,
asset manager, pointed out any changes have to be mutually agreed upon in writing by
both parties.
Everson told Council this RFP has been issued twice; once in the spring of 2008 and in
the fall of 2009. The first RFP was different because the exact building program was not
known. Everson noted that Oz's quote for the earlier RFP was $1.54 million and the
proposal for this scope of work is $1.46 million, fairly consistent. Everson said Poss's
quote for the earlier RFP was $3.38 million and their proposal today is $2.5 million. The
budget for the IPD process was issued in between.
Mayor Ireland asked if the question to the bidders requesting clarification or adjustment
was sent out a8er the bids. Everson said it was sent out after the interviews with the
bidders to a113 finalists. Mayor Ireland asked if any of the firms responded and altered
their bids. Everson said Cunniffee lowered his fee by $16,000. Everson pointed out after
the January 19"' work session, Oz Architecture submitted more detailed information.
Councilman Romero asked what staff feels is the reasons for the difference in estimated
hours from each design team 11,000 versus 15,000. Miller said one team may be more
efficient than the other in certain areas; however, both teams are fully prepared to do
what the city requires and to do what the contract specifies.
Councilman Romero asked if there is enough flexibility in the proposal to absorb the
changes and variations through the public process. Miller said yes, plus there is an entire
IPD public team shared by the owner's representative and by staff. Barry Crook,
assistant city manager, reminded Council there have already been many public meetings
and an agreement reached with the Burlingame HOA. Councilman Romero said staff
should keep this in mind when any partners in the development are brought in.
Councilman Romero asked about the time line to get to a November 2010 election.
Miller reminded Council it was one of their top ten goals, to be ready for a November
election. Miller said staff is prepared for November 2010 or later, if Council so directs.
Councilman Johnson agreed staff and Council own the public outreach piece of phase II.
Councilman Johnson asked if there is any hesitation or more time required for staff on the
architect choice. Everson said there is no hesitation.
Bill Poss said his team would like a chance to present. Stephen Holly, Poss Architecture,
addressed two issues; the first is insinuations against Poss Architecture from phase I,
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 8, 2010
which was part of the Council's packet. The other issue is perceived discrepancy of fees
in the absence of detailed comparisons of scope. Holly said there is a slide is about
change orders attributable to Poss Architecture and each of these can be addressed by the
Poss team. The first change order was added access to attic spaces, $70,000 in
construction costs. Holly stated the architectural plans included access panels for each
attic space as required by code. During a walk through with city staff, Shaw was directed
to change out the access panels for fully sized dorm and to add switch lighting which was
done for the benefit of the homeowners. Holly said the design was to code. Holly said
rather than go through each item, he will answer Council's questions.
Holly told Council fee proposals aze based off scope, schedule and effort combined into
how one presents their fee. Holly noted the RFP specifically requested 130 weeks of
construction administration. The Oz proposal states 24 months, 20% less, and an
anticipated one site visit/month. Holly pointed out the Poss proposal is for site visits
weekly for the 2.5 years. Holly said comparing that equally brings the two projects to a
cost of $400,000, reducing the $1 million difference between the two proposals.
Holly said if the overall scopes of work are looked at, it breaks down to architecture and
interior design, landscape and planning, civil engineering, structural engineering and
mechanical, electrical and plumbing engineering and other, which is acoustical. That
shortens it to groups where one can identify the major swings in the proposals. Holly
presented a table showing the differential between the Oz and Poss proposals. Holly
pointed out in azchitecture and design, the Poss proposal has about 500 hours or 12% less
effort. The other big ones aze landscape and planning and civil engineering around 50%
more. Holly said Poss' approach to the project and the scope provided for the project and
the RFP which states please verify your understanding of the services requested in this
RFP as well as described by the contracts. Holly went through detailed design portion of
the RFP and listed what was requested of the design teams, speaking to a direction of
how to get to something, not how it is provided.
Holly noted the Poss team submission outlined for the detailed design phase a narrative
describing the phase, efficiencies and value added for the phase and broke these out to
define exactly what was being delivered to the city, including presentation drawings,
which, in the 12FP, were asked to be broken out. Holly presented tasks broken out by
phase, by consultant, PUD final drawings, architectural deliverables, etc. Each individual
item to be delivered is itemized. Holly pointed out the Oz proposal states that they
understand the scope of services in the RFP. Holly noted the Poss proposal described
the level of effort of each individual role throughout each phase of the schedule and the
billing rates associated with each person, what their roles is, how many hours a week
there are providing, the total number of hours, their hourly rate and the total effort. Holly
compared their information to that provided by Oz, which does not have description of
the actual number of hours being provided.
Holly said their bid was on a specific approach to a project and the level of service that is
being provided to the client. Holly pointed out the Burlingame site is a difficult site, it is
crowded. The Poss proposal was based on lessons learned in phase I with other team
6
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 8, 2010
members, the construction experts' group, the city, what worked and what did not work
in phase I. Holly told Council the Poss team put forth what they feel is honest and
realistic proposal for services.
Councilman Romero noted there were issues in the first phase with the engineering and
asked how similar set of conditions exist in phase II. Holly stated phase II is more
difficult; it is steeper, it is more crowded; there is an existing development abutting the
site; the drainage will have to be dealt with. Mayor Ireland said in contract law if the
contract is fixed price, the contractor cannot return for more money. Mayor Ireland said
the issue seems to be a legal matter rather than an architectural planning matter. The
contractor is responsible to fulfill the agreements in the RFP in however many hours it
takes. Mayor Ireland pointed out both responders chose the same contractor for acoustics
with different hourly charges.
Mayor Ireland asked if Poss is prepared to say it can rebid the contract at a lower amount
proposed. Holly said as long as the level of services required is discussed, they can do
that and that has been stated at the interview. Without defining the level of service, a
price would be hard to commit to. Holly said the issue is what level of work is being
proposed by Oz and does that level of work get the city the product they need to take to
the voters.
Kelly Davis, Oz architecture, reaffirmed their commitment to the city and to the
community to apply all their resources to the successful implementation of phase II of
Burlingame. Davis told Council Oz architects trust the mechanics of this process, which
included multiple iteration of responses, two opportunities to validate the fees and scope.
Davis said there was a thorough vetting by the selection committee. Davis said the
process was fair. Davis said the RFP was very detailed. Davis told Council their team
has extensive experience in public process and getting buy in. Davis told Council they
have experience in affordable housing in other mountain communities. Davis said after
review of the complete scope as defined in the RFP as well as the contract, and the
foundation of work that has been completed and applying their expertise in the IPD, and
anticipating an engaged public process, the applicants are confident their fees are fair and
appropriate and represent the equivalent amount of effort required to get the project
completed. Davis presented a detailed chart of work plan outlining each step of the way
to the public vote in November. Davis said the Oz team is ready to start tomorrow. Oz
committed all their resources and the entire team to make the project a success.
Councilman Romero asked if any of Oz' staff live at Burlingame. Davis said no but his
firm can capture the flavor of the lifestyle at Burlingame. Mayor Ireland asked about the
number of on site supervision and meetings. Davis said that was a clarification of the
contract language; they signed the contract with the full scope of construction services as
stipulated by staff, and are bound by weekly visits. Davis said they also had the full
scope of public meetings in the proposal. Mayor Ireland said Poss Architects presented a
list of services to be provided and asked if Oz was willing to use that list as a description
of the scope of services. Davis deferred to the scope of services outlined in the contract.
Mayor Ireland asked if the Oz team agrees if it takes more hours to complete some of the
7
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 8, 2010
services that the cost is borne by Oz and not the city. Davis stated this is a fixed fee
contract; the scope is outlined and spelled out and the risk is upon the contractor to
deliver to the expectations.
Joel Sax said something that should give weight to this decision is this project is being
funded by local resident's tax money and that money should stay in Aspen. Sax said
there is a ripple effect and federal housing statistics state in this work it is 2.4 to 1. Sax
said the Poss firm has the knowledge and experience and did the first Burlingame. David
Schoenberger said there should be a pause and suggested the city go back and get more
detailed proposal from each of the companies as there seems to be too much variance in
the prices.
Yancy Nichol, Sopris Engineering, told Council he had been involved in many projects in
Aspen and had a lot of data of how many hours he spent on each of those projects.
Nichol told Council he has walked this site and has interviewed previous contractors.
Nichol noted he added things like complete management of crushing on site rather than
hauling through the community. Nichol said he did not fee it was appropriate to cut any
services out of the contract for Burlingame and the challenges in phase II. Rick
Ballentine told Council he feels they would be doing the community a disservice by not
using a local architect, even if it costs more money. Ballentine said the money should be
put back into the community.
Councilman Johnson asked how long the contract would be valid without adjusting
prices; Everson said the initial contract only takes the city though the delivery of the
GMP so no other work ever gets done on Burlingame that is the end of the contract.
Mayor Ireland stated the need for Burlingame remains; the market has not corrected the
amount or cost of housing. Mayor Ireland noted one reason Aspen's economy remains
stronger than other resorts is that Aspen retains a local work force in the community and
people live here because of the affordable housing program. Mayor Ireland said the
demand for affordable housing in Aspen remains.
Mayor Ireland said the community has voted on Burlingame directly 3 times and
indirectly 5 times and the community has always voted yes; the community believes in
this project. This public process is nor an opportunity to negotiate whether or not
Burlingame is needed. Mayor Ireland reminded everyone the adjacent property owners
have agreed to this project before it went out to bid. Mayor Ireland said there has been
talk about fiscal responsibility and citizens asked the Council to drop the mil levy, which
they did. Mayor Ireland reminded everyone the city laid off 12 people, which equates to
$1 million and is the difference in the amount of the contracts. Mayor Ireland noted
people who live in Glenwood and Carbondale are not paying Aspen taxes.
Mayor Ireland said the Poss team described in detail the tasks that need to be done for
this project. Mayor Ireland suggested allowing both of the firms to submit a best and
final offer using Poss list of tasks and services in order to get an apples to apples
comparison so there is no lingering discussion that the proposals are not equal. Mayor
8
Regular Meeting Aspen City Couucil February 8, 2010
Ireland noted Aspen does have a local preference allowance, which is 5% of the contract
which would equal $85,000 in these bids.
Mayor Ireland said the primary thing the public wants to know is whether these bids are
exactly equivalent descriptions of what will be done. Mayor Ireland reiterated this is a
fixed fee contract and if one firm under estimates how long a task will take, that is not the
city's problem. Scott Miller said all 3 finalists should have the opportunity to reply.
Council agreed.
Councilman Skadron said considering the complexity, he is not confident that the
recommendation is the better one. Councilman Skadron said he would not approve
Resolution #8. Councilman Romero said if Council accepts the Mayor's suggestion, it
would be changing the rules of the RFP and would be inconsistent with the goals of
fairness in this process. Councilman Romero said Council has sufficient information to
make a decision, which hinges upon the definition of scope, upon the fixed fee concept.
Councilman Romero noted Council asked for additional information several weeks ago
and staff has answered those questions. Councilman Romero said it appears there is a
difference in the level of understanding in the site specific and community challenges that
come with Burlingame. Councilman Romero said he sees a broader and more contextual
application from Poss. Councilman Romero said the public outreach is the number #1
challenge and the Poss application is more responsive and has a better total package.
Councilman Romero said he is not just measuring the $2.7 versus the $1.65 but the
design phase with a difference of $680,000. Councilman Romero agreed there is a
multiplier effect around this issue at about 2 to 1. Councilman Romero said he would
like to invest in the predominantly local team. Councilman Romero said he feels it would
be inconsistent to the process to ask the finalists to go back and revise their numbers.
Jim True, special counsel, noted it is acceptable to ask for clarification from the bidders
in the process to make sure the discussion is apples to apples. True said at this point,
Council may accept Oz contract; deny the Oz contract and start negotiations with another
party or ask for clarifications of a113 parties to make certain it is an equal discussion.
Mayor Ireland said staff can go to a113 finalists with a set of tasks described and ask if
they are willing to do those tasks and ask if there is an adjustment to their prior
submission. Mayor Ireland said the public is confused on whether these two bids are
being compared apples to apples. Mayor Ireland stated there is a public benefit in
resolving that issue.
Councilman Johnson said the city went through an RFP process and a fixed fee contract
protects the citizens. Councilman Johnson said he feels both contractors can do the job.
Councilman Johnson stated he would prefer to go local; however, the $900,000
difference is a lot of taxpayers' money and every dollaz saved can be spent on or for
Aspen residents. Councilman Johnson noted Poss has 8 contractors, 5 of whom are local;
Oz has 9 contractors, 4 of which aze local. This give Poss 33% of the monies staying
locally and 25% going out of the valley. Councilman Johnson said it is important that the
city is preserving the competitive bid process. Councilman Johnson said he could
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 8, 2010
support the Oz proposal but is unsure about some of the line items like the landscape
azchitect. Councilman Johnson said if it would help the citizens, he would support more
time being done on the contract to make sure it is right and phased correctly.
Councilman Torre stated he supports the Oz contract with the understanding that $1
million is just too much taxpayer money to pay in difference. Councilman Torre noted
the Poss representatives have said they have bid on what is in front of them. Councilman
Tone said Council has a fiscal responsibility to show the citizens they are going to
complete Burlingame and do it in a timely fashion. Mayor Ireland said he would rather
take the time so the public understands exactly what is being bid on.
Mayor Ireland moved to direct staff to make further inquiries of a113 teams using a
uniform scope of work derived from the two submission and bring that result to Council;
Seconded by Councilman Johnson. Mayor Ireland and Councilman Johnson in favor;
Councilmembers Romero, Skadron and Torre opposed. Motion NOT carried.
Councilman Torre moved to adopt Resolution #8, Series of 2010; seconded by
Councilman Skadron. Councilmembers Tone and Johnson in favor; Councilmembers
Skadron, Romero and Mayor Ireland opposed. Motion NOT carried.
Mayor Ireland moved to direct staff to provide uniform questions to all competitors based
on the annunciated standards in the 2 proposals; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in
favor, with the exception of Councilmembers Skadron and Romero. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #2, SERIES OF 2010 -Aspen Club SPA/PUD
Councilman Torre recused himself as he is employed by the Aspen Club.
Jessica Garrow, community development department, told Council this review is for final
PUD, final SPA, timeshare, subdivision, rezoning, multi-year growth management
allotments for lodge development for the timeshare component and a request fora 7 year
vesting period.
Ms. Garrow reminded Council this is part of the Callahan subdivision approved in 1976.
In this subdivision, lot 15 was designated as a recreation club with 7 tennis courts, which
is where the Aspen Club is located. Lot 14A is accessed off Ute avenue with 20 parking
spaces in the original approval Lot 14 was a residence to be converted to a Clubhouse.
There were 2 dwelling units. Lot 16, west of the property was an office building. The
rest of the lots are residential, single family and multi-family. In 1978, there was a PUD
amendment to eliminate the clubhouse located on lot 14. In 1980 there were internal
changes to the club. In 1984 there was an approval to subdivide lot 14, the clubhouse lot,
into 14E and 14W which created 2 single family lots and relocated pazking on site with
12 spaces on site. In 1996 there was a land use request to move the primary access from
Crystal lake road to Ute Avenue, removed 2 tennis courts and added 56 parking spaces
and lot 14A retained 35 parking spaces. In 1998 the landscaping on lot 14A was updated
10
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 8.2010
and in 2005 an application was submitted by the Aspen Club and was withdrawn. In
2008 Council granted conceptual approval for this project.
Ms. Garrow told Council the Aspen Club is zoned RR, rural residential because that is
the only zone district that allows a recreational club. The original approvals included a
conditional use review to allow for that use on lot 15. The Benedict Building, part of the
Callahan subdivision, is zoned RR/PUD/SPA to allow for office uses. The Silver Lining
ranch is zoned academic conservation with an SPA overlay. The Ute Park townhomes
affordable housing across the street is zoned AH/PUD. The Aspen Club townhouses
across the river to the north are zoned R-15/PUD. There are short term accommodations
along Ute avenue including the Gant and Aspen Alps.
Ms. Garrow said the Aspen Club has 5 tennis courts, 56 parking spaces on lot 15 and 35
parking spaces on lot 14A, total 91 parking spaces. The lot has varied slopes, an upper
bench with the parking area, club and tennis bubble are located and a lower bench with 4
more tennis courts. Ms. Garrow noted the site contains about 39,000 square feet of floor
area and existing gross square footage is 84,000. This proposal is for 12 affordable
housing units in a mix of categories, 20 timeshare units 14 are townhouse units in 4
separate masses; 3 of these are located on the lower bench and 1 is located on the upper
bench. There are 6 club units located in the club building. A total of 132 parking spaces
are proposed; 20 for the timeshare unit located in the parking garage; 17 spaces proposed
for the affordable housing units, 12 of which are to be located in the parking garage, 96
spaces for the club, these are between lot 14A, underground and near the club.
This request includes a subdivision to divide the property into 5 lots; lot 1 will have the
Club and underground parking; lot 2, which is an air space lot, contains the club units and
is located within the club. Lot 3 is the townhouse units on the lower bench; lot 4 is the
townhouse units on the upper bench and lot 5 is the affordable housing units. Ms.
Garrow told Council this type of subdivision is being proposed to help retain ownership
of the club separate from the timeshare/fractional owners.
Ms. Garrow noted the applicant is providing more affordable housing than is required by
code. The applicant is committing to no increase in traffic along Ute avenue and to no
increase over the existing energy use. The applicants have created a comprehensive
transportation demand management system in response to concerns raised at conceptual.
The applicants are creating new trail connections to help pedestrian conductivity as well
as safety improvement. Ms. Garrow said staff does have concerns about the mass, units 5
and 6.
Ms. Garrow said for SPA, there needs to be a finding there is a public benefit "City
Council must determine that because of `the site's unique, historic, natural or physical or
locational characteristics, it would be of great public benefit to the city for that land to be
allowed design flexibility and to be planned and developed comprehensively as a multi-
use development.". Ms. Garrow told Council the SPA allows Council to amend the
permitted uses on site. Ms. Garrow said staff believes there is a public benefit created
through this project by permitting a multifamily use not currently allowed in the RR
11
Reuular Meeting Aspeu City Couucil February 8, 2010
district which allows the affordable housing units to be built on site. Ms. Garrow said the
affordable housing units are an important part of creating the public benefit.
Another benefit is the commitment to no increase in traffic and no increase in energy use.
The project will result in less permeable surface that exists today. Safety improvements
are planned for Ute avenue. Staff feels all these create a level of benefit; however, staff
does not support the SPA because of the concerns about massing. Ms. Garrow said it is
important to retain and improve the perception of the riparian corridor from the site. The
applicant has made changes to the site plan and to the massing since the original
application but the changes to not insure the riparian area is prominent in the design.
This site is located on the urban/rnral fringe and staff feels given the location that less
massing is appropriate. Ms. Garrow said the landscaping seems formal for an urban/rnral
fringe.
Ms. Garrow told Council P&Z was concerned about the public benefit and the
permanency of the club and if the club were to be eliminated, the pubic benefit would be
minimal. This concern was raised by Council at first reading. Ms. Garrow pointed out
the ordinance has been amended to include language that timeshare owners cannot
restrict or eliminate the club use and that the club must be open and operating and open to
general memberships as long as timeshare is permitted on this site.
Ms. Garrow said this application meets consistency with the Aspen Area Community
Plan. The applicant is providing 145% of the required affordable housing to help the
community reach the affordable housing goals, as well as a mix of categories to include 2
and 3. The AACP contains language relating to energy efficiency and resource efficiency
and the club has made commitments that meet this section in the AACP. Ms. Garrow
told Council this project has been accepted into the LEED for design neighborhood
project and is one of the first in the country to be admitted.
Ms. Garrow noted the applicants have committed to continue to support non-profits in the
valley. There is a commitment to alternative transportation modes in the TDM plan
including car share, van pool, biking and walking. Ms. Garrow noted the applicant has
worked with the transportation and engineering departments on the plan, which provides
flexibility. Staff is not recommending approval of the PUD because of the concerns
about massing and the specific review criteria related to architectural character and
landscaping.
Ms. Garrow reiterated the existing floor azea is 39,000 square feet and this proposal
would increase floor area by 50,000 square feet fora .55:1 ratio. The existing gross
squaze footage is about 84,000 and an increase of 100,000 gross square feet is proposed.
Ms. Garrow told Council the height limit in the RR zone is 28' and because of the dip in
the site, the applicant is requesting a height variance between 32 and 41' for the
affordable housing. This request was approved conceptually. Ms. Ganow reminded
Council at conceptual presentation, the applicant requested 7.5' front yard setback off Ute
avenue and a 5' east side yard setback off the Silver Lining ranch property line. There
are other setback variances requested that are needed because of the proposed new lots,
12
Reeular MeetinE Aspen City Council February 8, 2010
which are the minimum required for building permits and these lots aze proposed to
facilitate separate ownership of the Club.
Ms. Garrow noted all the review criteria for timeshare has been met. The applicant needs
a total of 124 lodge pillow allotments from growth management. Staff recommends 112
come from the 2009 gowth management allotment and 12 come from 2010 growth
management allotments. The review criteria for multi-year growth management
allotments require a project be "exceptional" and there are a number of ways to measure
that. Staff believe elements of the project are exceptional; affordable housing
commitment, energy and transportation commitments; however, the project is not
exceptional in terms of massing and architecture.
Rezoning is needed for the SPA designation and staff finds the review criteria are met.
Subdivision is needed because of the 5 new lots; staff recommends Council approve the
subdivision request. The applicant is requesting 7 yeazs vested rights due to the state of
the economy. Ms. Garrow recommended against increasing vested rights beyond 3 yeazs
allowed by state law. The city often approves a request for extension of vested rights and
the applicant should go through that process if needed.
Staff recommends the site plan be revised before any approvals are granted and that units
5 and 6 are removed or relocated and a revised landscaping plan is submitted. P&Z voted
4 to 2 in favor of the application; their main concerns were transportation impacts and
public benefit. P&Z included a condition for a transportation demand management plan
prior to Council, which the applicant worked on into a format that staff thinks will work.
P&Z included a condition about the permanence of the club, which is in section 3 of the
ordinance. Ms. Garrow noted a site visit was conducted today which included a 3-page
site visit handout. Ms. Garrow entered 161etters into the record as exhibit W, received
after the Council packet went out. These are from Tim Reed, Richard Rabinau, Erin
Nothan, Gary Krutzer, Thomas Regan, Katrina Strucker, Steve Stephani, Don Sheeley,
Tom McFarlane, Gina Pogliana, Margot and Irwin Winkler, Peter and Nancy Menning,
Gary and Susan Rappaport, Shawn and Amy Sebastian, Tim Cooney.
Councilman Skadron asked about "the perception of a riparian corridor throughout the
site" and whether there is a riparian corridor. Ms. Garrow said there is a corridor along
the Roaring Fork river and in some places on the site, the river cannot be seen and staff
believes this is a unique site and any development proposal should enhance the river and
this has to do with too much mass on the site, which detracts from the river. Councilman
Skadron asked if approving future growth management lodge allotments for the Aspen
Club would affect other applications. Ms. Garrow noted 112 of these would come from
the 2009 lodge allotment and 12 from 2010, leaving 100 pillows for other projects.
Councilman Skadron asked about unintended consequences from allowing 7 years vested
rights. Ms. Garrow said vesting allows a project to be under the land use code in effect
when the project is approved.
Councilman Skadron asked what infrastructure public benefits will be borne by the
applicant. Ms. Garrow told Council the applicant committed to bringing the cul-de-sac to
13
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 8 2010
city standards as well as to make sidewalk improvements, including a portion across the
Benedict property. Councilman Skadron asked if there is any infrastructure required
from the city that should be borne by the applicant. Ms. Garrow said she will refer this to
the engineering department. Councilman Skadron asked if the amount of affordable
housing alleviates demand for the city's inventory or just addresses the additional need of
the Aspen Club. Councilman Skadron noted the SPA review standards need to be
satisfied to gain his approval and he would like discussion about what is the great public
benefit to the city and how that standard is met.
Councilman Romero asked for an assessment on the Club and previous commitments.
Ms. Garrow noted the 1996 approval to move the access from Highway 82 to Ute avenue
required shuttle service and parking spaces. The shuttle was supposed to run off
Highway 82. The Club has committed money to the cross town shuttle, which fulfilled
their requirement, they operated their own shuttle service. Technically the shuttle should
be running off Highway 82 but functionally it runs better of Ute avenue.
Michael Fox, applicant, noted this process has pushed the applicants to think through
what makes sense, what are the city's goals, the neighbors objectives, and the vision for
the project. The project that received 2008 conceptual approval evolved from the origin
of the project. Fox said although there is real estate as part of this project, it is not a real
estate project; it is about creating and preserving something unique in this community
and opportunities to Aspen and another reason for visitors to come to Aspen. Fox said
Aspen should be known as a national center for performance and health.
Fox said the Aspen Club has been in existence over 30 years; there are over 200
employees, there are over 1800 members, 70% are full time residents of Aspen. The
physical therapy department sees thousands of patients; non-profits are housed at the
Club. Fox said the Aspen Club adds value to the quality of life in this community. Fox
told Council the proposed 20 residential units are a critical part of the future of the Club
and add to the long term sustainability of the Club. The sale of the units will pay for the
upgrade of the Club and for the affordable housing units and help subsidize the energy
initiatives.
Fox said this proposal is in line with the goals of the community, the Aspen Area
Community Plan goals, canary initiative goals. Fox said many of these ideas in this
proposal came from previous meetings with City Council and include adding a
permanence of the club, more affordable housing on site, working with the transportation
to come up with a transportation demand management plan. The Aspen Club will tie into
the goals of the community. Fox noted the Aspen Club is a locally serving and locally
operating business. The Club has been accepted into the LEED neighborhood
development program and has been certified. The Aspen Club will be the first project to
combine sustainability with healthy living. Fox noted the Aspen Club will have a smaller
carbon footprint when it is done than they do today. Fox told Council they propose to
house 26 employees on site, which is 3 times the amount of employees the project will
generate as most employees required to run Aspen Club Living already work at the Club.
14
Reeular Meetine Aspen City Council February S, 2010
There will be 30% less surface parking on site. Fox stated their goal is to take a great
community asset and to make it better.
Chris Ridings, Poss Architecture, showed a photo looking down on the Club showing that
the Club is fully developed, pointed out the developments on site, the trails, tennis courts,
the river. Ridings noted the neighborhood development azound the Club, single family
dwellings, the Benedict building with 20 businesses. The buildings around vary from one
and two stories, the Ute Park employee housing which is 3 stories, the Silver Liming
Ranch and Aspen Club townhouses are 3 stories, from the river side. The buildings vary
in both architecture and in uses.
Ridings showed a slide of the proposed development for the Aspen Club. They propose
to maintain the riparian area running along the side of the townhouses, which are using
the footprint of the tennis courts. The pedestrian connection between the river trail and
the Club has been maintained. Ridings noted there is access to the townhouses from a
surface parking garage. The design takes advantage of the topography by locating 10 of
the townhouses along the lower bench. There are setbacks from the river and riparian
area that must be maintained. There are townhouses proposed in the Club house
footprint.
Ridings pointed out the entry to the Club is being enhanced. There will be a green roof
on the back side of the club. The pool will be replaced. The mechanical equipment will
be consolidated and cleaned up. Ridings pointed out the location for the affordable
housing, 12 units all above grade. The visual impact will be minimized. Fox noted the
upgraded TDM is included in Council's packet. The applicants have tried to create sticks
and carrots to get people out of their cars with the goal of having no increase in traffic
from this project. The plan also calls for making the street safer.
Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing.
Joel Sax said the city is fortunate in this economic climate that people are interested and
confident to put a project like this together. This project will allow people to live and
work in Aspen. Sax noted there will be sales and resale of the units; property taxes will
be paid and jobs will be created. Rob Bordon this Club proposal would be a benefit to
him personally as he enjoys living and working in Aspen. This Club will be a benefit to
Aspen's guests.
Paul McFarlane said this would add another jewel to the crown of Aspen and to the
panoply of different modalitities available. Eden Vardy told Council he has a local
ecological non-profit and the Aspen Club is important to his non-profit. Vardy said the
Aspen Club has always been pivotal part of the community. Deric Schultz, employee of
the Aspen Club, said he sees daily the benefit of the Club both to residents and to visitors.
John Corcoran, Aspen Alps, told Council he has met with the applicant and gone over the
TDM plan. Corcoran said the applicant has put a lot of time and thought into this plan
and he hopes the city will hold them to their word. Corcoran said the Aspen Club is good
for the community and visitors.
15
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 8, 2010
Kelly Lacher, Crystal Lake road, told Council she bought her home with the assumption
that it was in the rural residential zone. Fractional units will change the integrity of the
neighborhood.. Ms. Lacher said Aspen does not need another fractional project; there are
plenty of time shares. Rick Stevens said this project is important to the community, it is
an asset to the community. Stevens said the time is right for the project.
Gretchen Greenwood told Council she feels this development will be a gift to the locals.
The Aspen Club is a great place to hang out and meet friends. Ms. Greenwood noted
there are not a lot of projects where the locals benefit. Warren Klug stated he supports
this proposal; it is the right place and offers a service important to the needs in the
community. Klug said this will enhance an already important facility. Karinjo DeVore
said the Aspen Club sponsors Project Graduation, they always allow world cup athletes to
train there, sister cities exchange students are invited to use the club. Ms. DeVore said
this is a large amenity to the community and she would like to see this project approved.
Michael Paparde said this project will destroy the riparian area. Elaine Goss told Council
she is employed by the Club in sports medicine and she sees this project as both a
housing and a cazeer opportunity. The project could bring more world class
programming to Aspen and can help make sure that Aspen continues to thrive. Bruce
Fretz, Aspen Club townhomes, told Council as neighbors they will be looking at the
construction for 3 years. Fretz said there have been no objections raised to this project by
the 34 homeowners. The owners are enthusiastic about the programs, about the
enhancement of the look of the property. Fretz said the townhouses do not have much
green space between them as the proposed new project. Ifbuildings 5 and 6 aze removed,
it will look like a large green lawn.
Amanda Boxtel told Council she is in favor of the project; it combines mind, body and
spirit with a sustainable development. Affordable housing is proposed on site and there
will be a smaller carbon footprint with the new development. Ms. Boxtel said the Aspen
Club encourages people to live up to their dreams and includes new healing modalities.
The club makes available the latest technologies in physical therapy. Martha Luttrell,
Aspen Club townhouses, told Council the applicant has worked closely with them for 3
years and has resolved any problems. Ms. Luttrell said she does not want to lose the
Aspen Club; they are one of the best citizens in town.
Gazy Rappaport, owner of lot on Ute Avenue, which is zoned rural residential, said he
relied on the zoning RR to be the nature of the neighborhood. Rappaport noted since
then the entrance to the Club has been moved to Ute avenue. Rappaport pointed out there
is nothing the city can do to prevent the applicant from selling this property as soon as
this project is approved nor can the city make sure the development is linked to the
success of the club.
Eva Schulman said the plan to create the Aspen Club for more people is excellent. Ms.
Schulman told Council she appreciates the policy at the Club of admitting people over 85
for free. Bobbsie said the Aspen Club makes sure all ages of residents in Aspen are being
taken care of from babies to people over 85. Bobbsie said if this is not approved, a great
16
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 8, 2010
opportunity to keep a community asset will be lost. Chelsea VanBlee told Council she
believes this development will provide professional opportunities for young people. The
Club is an opportunity for people to meet and to enjoy being fit; the Aspen Club is a
community meeting place. Tom Sharkey noted the community earlier this evening
honored 71oca1 athletes going to the Olympics and the Aspen Club has helped most or all
of them get to where they are. The Aspen Club is an asset to Aspen and to local athletes.
Carlene Joseph told Council the Aspen Club is like a second home for her and is more of
a community than just a gym. The Aspen Club has opened its doors to youth from
outside Aspen free of charge.
Bob Hoover, representing 26 neighbors of the Aspen Club, told Council his clients like
the Aspen Club but what the Club is asking for does not fit where it is. The Club was
zoned RR because it was the only zone that allows a recreational club. Hoover said this
is a residential neighborhood except for the Benedict building, Silver Lining Ranch and
the Aspen Club. Council should focus on the standards of the zoning code and the SPA
requirements. Hoover pointed out the purpose of zoning is to protect residential
neighborhoods and to keep timeshare in the commercial core and commercial lodging
districts. Hoover said in SPA, it require the property having unique historic natural or
physical characteristics to allow a SPA designation and a great public benefit. Hoover
noted the city cannot control the programming at the Aspen club; it is a private business,
there is a letter in the packet outlining Hoover's points. Hoover stated the great public
benefit has to be demonstrated.
Jeannette Darnauer, representing Jim DeFrancia, resident at Ute Place, stated Council's
decision should be focus on land use, not the viability of the operation of the Club. The
proposed development is inappropriate in a residential district zoned rural residential.
The AACP calls for land use to be compatible with existing neighborhoods; this is not.
Pete Louras said the Club is a community asset and supports full time and part time
residents. The Club offers physical therapy, massages, has over 200 employees, supports
a healthy life style. Louras noted the Aspen Club need reinvestment. Louras said
through the process with P&Z, staff and neighbors, this is an improved project.
Marcia Goshorn said this was originally envisioned as a short term rental project. Ms.
Goshorn supports the Club proposal. Chris Klug told Council he supports the Aspen
Club; it is the premier training facility and a community asset.
Councilman Romero moved to continue Ordinance #2, Series of 2010, to February 22;
seconded by Councilman Johnson. All in favor, motion carried.
Mayor Ireland moved to continue the meeting to February 9, 2010, at 9:30 a.m.; seconded
by Councilman Romero. All in favor, motion carried. Council left Chambers at 12:15
a.m.
~ ~
KaCCt..hryn S. och, City Clerk /G/`
17