HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20181210
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
December 10, 2018
5:00 PM
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Scheduled Public Appearances
IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues
NOT scheduled for a public hearing. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes)
V. Special Orders of the Day
a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments
b) Agenda Amendments
c) City Manager's Comments
d) Board Reports
VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion)
a) Resolution #149, Series of 2018 - Debt Issuance for Purposes of Funding
Construction for New City Municipal Office Building
b) Resolution #151, Series of 2018 - Wheeler Marketing & PR Services Contract
c) Resolution #152, Series of 2018 - King St Infrastructure Improvements
d) Resolution #145, Series of 2018 -2019 Mill Levies
e) Resolution #153, Series of 2018 - SHIFT Partnership Agreement
f) Minutes - December 3, 2018
VII. Notice of Call-Up
VIII. First Reading of Ordinances
IX. Public Hearings
a) Lift One Corridor Project (Continued public hearing from 12-3-2018)
(a 1) Ordinance #38, Series of 2018 - Lift One Lodge - Major Amendment
(a 2) Ordinance #39, Series of 2016 - Gorsuch Haus - Planned Development
X. Action Items
XI. Adjournment
Next Regular Meeting January 14, 2019
COUNCIL’S ADOPTED GUIDELINES
· Make Decisions Based on 30 Year Vision
· Tone and Tenor Matter
· Remember Where We’re Living and Why We’re Here
P1
COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M.
P2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Pete Strecker, Finance Director
MEETING DATE: December 10, 2018
RE:
Resolution #149, Series of 2018 - Debt Issuance for Purposes of Funding
Construction for New City Municipal Office Building
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests Council approval of a reimbursement resolution to
allow the City to move forward with plans for new municipal offices at the site adjacent to the
parking garage, and prior to the formal securitization of outside financing. This action would be
consistent to past Council adoption of a reimbursement resolution for the recent construction of
the new Aspen Police Department.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council adopted the 2019 budget with an understanding
that there were at least two possible sites for constructing new municipal offices. The new
budget included a $10 million placeholder for a portion of design, permitting and construction
costs, but until voter sentiment was obtained, no further action could occur.
DISCUSSION: Upon the November election results being confirmed, staff anticipates
proceeding with the eventually construction of new municipal offices at the “Galena Option” site
adjacent to the parking garage. As discussed with Council during past budget discussions around
city offices, the need for financing exists as City coffers do not have enough cash on hand to
fully fund the combination a new office building plus the renovation of the existing City Hall
within the Armory.
To ensure that work can begin as quickly as possible following voter confirmation of the
preferred site (as construction inflation has led to significant growth in the overall project
budget), given that a formal debt issuance typically takes a few months to prepare and close, staff
recommends Council approve the proposed reimbursement resolution to allow project costs
incurred up to 60 days prior to the adoption of this resolution, and forward, as reimbursable
expenses from financing proceeds that will ultimately become available. Staff concurrently
recommends moving forward with the formal debt issuance in early 2019 to ensure that
financing is secured reasonably soon after the initial Council approval to spend is received.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff proposes that City Council approve the financing for the
new municipal office building through the use of certificates of participation, and prior to that
official public offering, to adopt a reimbursement resolution.
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to adopt Resolution #149, Series of 2018, to authorize the use
of future debt proceeds, once obtained, to be applied toward related project expenses associated
with new municipal offices at Galena.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
P3
VI.a
RESOLUTION NO. 149
SERIES OF 2018
A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE INTENT OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO TO BE REIMBURSED FOR
CERTAIN EXPENSES RELATING TO CERTAIN CAPITAL
EXPENDITURES ASSOCIATED WITH THE FINANCING
OF NEW ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES.
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen, Colorado (the "City") is a legal and regularly created, established,
organized and existing municipal corporation under the provisions of Article XX of the Constitution of
the State of Colorado and the Charter; and
WHEREAS, the members of the City Council of the City (the "Council") have been duly elected and
qualified; and
WHEREAS, it is the current intent of the City to make certain capital expenditures for the construction of
new City administrative offices (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to finance the Project by
the execution and delivery of a lease purchase agreement pursuant to Section 10.8 of the City Charter (the
"Financing"); and
WHEREAS, the Council has determined that it is necessary to make capital expenditures in connection
with the Project prior to the time that the City arranges for the financing of the Project; and
WHEREAS, it is the Council's reasonable expectation that when such Financing occurs, the capital
expenditures will be reimbursed with the proceeds of the Financing; and
WHEREAS, in order to comply with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended
(the "Code"), it is the Council's desire that this resolution shall constitute the "official intent" of the
Council to reimburse such capital expenditures within the meaning of Treasury Regulation § 1.150-2.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by City Council:
Section 1. All action (not inconsistent with the provisions of this resolution) heretofore taken by the
Council and the officers, employees and agents of the City directed toward the Financing is hereby
ratified, approved and confirmed.
Section 2. The City intends to finance up to $28,732,000 to pay the costs of the Project, including the
reimbursement of certain costs incurred by the City prior to the receipt of any proceeds of a Financing,
upon terms acceptable to the City, as authorized in an ordinance to be hereafter adopted and to take all
further action which is necessary or desirable in connection therewith.
Section 3. The officers, employees and agents of the City shall take all action necessary or reasonably required
to carry out, give effect to and consummate the transactions contemplated hereby and shall take all action
necessary or desirable to finance the Project and to otherwise carry out the transactions contemplated by the
resolution.
P4
VI.a
Section 4. The City shall not use reimbursed moneys for purposes prohibited by Treasury Regulation § l. l 50-
2(h). This resolution is intended to be a declaration of "official intent" to reimburse expenditures within the
meaning of Treasury Regulation § 1.150-2.
Section 5. If any section, paragraph, clause or provision of this resolution shall for any reason be held invalid
or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of such section, paragraph, clause or provision shall not
affect any of the remaining provisions of this resolution.
Section 6. All acts, orders and resolutions of the Council, and parts thereof, inconsistent with this resolution
be, and the same hereby are, repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be
construed to revive any act, order or resolution, or part thereof, heretofore repealed.
Section 7. The resolution shall in full force and effect upon its passage and approval, this 10th day of
December 2018.
___________________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk of the City of Aspen, Colorado, do hereby certify that
the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of the Resolution adopted by the City Council at its meeting held on
the 10th day of December 2018.
___________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P5
VI.a
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Gena Buhler, Wheeler Executive Director
Nicole Levesque, Wheeler Audience Services Manager
THRU: Sara Ott, Assistant City Manager
DATE OF MEMO: December 2, 2018
MEETING DATE: December 10, 2018
RE: Resolution #151, Series of 2018 - Approval of Contract #2018-119:
Wheeler Marketing, Advertising, PR/Communication Services
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Approval of professional services contract between the City of
Aspen/Wheeler Opera House and SoloShoe Communications (Soloshoe) for annual marketing,
advertising, PR/communication services. Contract is in the amount of $83,520.00 (plus reimbursable
expenses), with annual contracted escalations over the preceding years should parties exercise options
to renew (contract includes 4 one-year renew options).
BACKGROUND: In Fall 2015, the Wheeler Opera House changed the departmental structure to
retain services from an outside marketing/PR firm. SoloShoe Communications was awarded the
contract and has been working successfully on behalf of the Wheeler. Over the terms of the previous
contract, Soloshoe managed a full rebranding effort of the venue – Aspen Show Tix community box
office services, Wheeler Presents series, festivals (Aspen Laugh Festival & Mountainfilm in Aspen) social
media, video presence, and two website platforms.
Continuing work with a professional marketing/PR firm that has experience with performing and
cultural arts clientele is both productive and effective for promoting programming and audience growth
into the future. It is also more economical than hiring this staff directly, as the firm resources span
many different disciplines (strategy, copy writing, video editing, graphic design, project management,
social media, etc).
DISCUSSION: Upon expiration of the current professional services agreement, an RFP was issued for
Wheeler Marketing/PR services in October 2018. Four qualified applicants submitted proposals:
· Celtis Ventures
· Heinrich Marketing
· SoloShoe Communications
· ZIV
P6
VI.b
Page 2 of 3
The RFP review committee consisted of five members:
· Wheeler Opera House Board of Directors Vice Chairperson (Christine Benedetti)
· Wheeler Executive Director (Gena Buhler)
· City of Aspen Director of Special Events & Marketing (Nancy Lesley)
· Wheeler Audience Services Manager (Nicole Levesque)
· Wheeler Community Events Manager (Sarah Sanders)
SoloShoe received the top score among all proposals and the committee recommends that they be
awarded the contract. No proposals were received from applicants local to, or with offices in, the
Roaring Fork Valley.
RFP Committee Decision
The extensive industry experience of SoloShoe within the performing and cultural arts, as well as the
competitive pricing for services and previous work in Aspen and similar markets, was key to the
committee’s recommendation. Soloshoe will bring expertise to the Wheeler that will continue
elevating the venue and festival brands, increase audience development and bring recognition to the
contributions the City of Aspen/Wheeler makes to the cultural landscape of the community, both
locally and regionally.
Committee statements in support of SoloShoe Communications included:
· Experience with like venues and office
locations in mountain west.
· Competitive pricing for services
offered, ability to provide all services
requested in house, extensive team
experience, dedicated account support
and active communication.
· Willingness to travel to Aspen and
industry conferences.
· Proven track record with Wheeler Opera
House.
· Good financial value and video
production a plus.
Upon review of final scores, there was a significant divide in scoring among the proposals with
SoloShoe Communications as definitive leader.
About SoloShoe Communications (SoloShoe)
With offices in Colorado, Montana, and Texas; SoloShoe Communications, LLC was founded
in April of 2000. The firm has an emphasis on performing arts marketing, public relations and
communication. SoloShoe represents performing and cultural arts clients across the nation and has
experience managing campaigns for performing arts events/venues (including festivals) and developing
brands for performing arts entities in a variety of key markets including New York, New York; Dallas-
Fort Worth Metroplex, Texas; Aspen, Colorado, just to name a few. SoloShoe is currently the agency
of record for two national tours - The Choir of Man and The Soweto Gospel Choir.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: This contract is competitive within all applications. The full
contract will be paid out of the Wheeler Base Operations budget as approved for the 2019 cycle, with
no additional funding increase being requested.
P7
VI.b
Page 3 of 3
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approval of the professional services contract with SoloShoe
Communications, LLC (SoloShoe).
ALTERNATIVES: Alternatives are limited. Should Council not choose to approve this contract,
staff would issue another RFP to search for a new qualified candidate.
PROPOSED MOTION: Approval of Contract #2018-119, Resolution #151 (Series of 2018).
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
P8
VI.b
RESOLUTION #151
(Series of 2018)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND SOLOSHOE COMMUNICATIONS
LLC AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a professional
services agreement for marketing and PR services between the City of Aspen and
SoloShoe Communications LLC, a true and accurate copy of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit “A”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that
professional services agreement for marketing and PR services between the City of
Aspen and SoloShoe Communications LLC a copy of which is annexed hereto and
incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the 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 10th day of December 2018.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Linda Manning, 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 December 10th, 2018.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P9
VI.b
P10
VI.b
P11
VI.b
P12
VI.b
P13
VI.b
P14
VI.b
P15
VI.b
P16
VI.b
P17
VI.b
P18
VI.b
P19
VI.b
P20
VI.b
P21
VI.b
P22
VI.b
P23
VI.b
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM : Michael Horvath, P.E., Civil Engineer II
THROUGH: Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer
Pete Rice, P.E., Senior Project Manager
April Long, P.E., Stormwater Manager
DATE OF MEMO: December 3, 2018
MEETING DATE: December 10, 2018
RE: Resolution #152, Series of 2018 - King St. Infrastructure Improvements -
Construction Approval
SUMMARY: Staff recommends Council approve the King St Infrastructure Improvement construction
contract with Aspen Digger, Inc. in the amount of $458,413.72.
BACKGROUND: There is a low point in the middle of King Street that has created a drainage
problem for some years. The low point threatens flooding of one downstream property during storm
events as well as snow melt events. Low temperatures after snow melt events also creates an icing issue
on King Street. In the winter of 2017-2018, the City’s Streets Department regularly responded to
requests from adjacent property owners to remove ponding to prevent downstream flooding. Drainage
improvements were noted as necessary in the Smuggler Hunter Drainage Masterplan completed in 2015.
King Street construction, proposed in this memo, would include improvements to King Street, including:
storm sewer infrastructure installation and sidewalk installation. Construction documents are described
in Attachment A.
DISCUSSION: The King St Infrastructure Improvements project was advertised for competitive bid on
August 2, 2018. One bid was received and opened on August 23, 2018.
Qualifying bids were received from one (1) Contractor as summarized below:
Aspen Digger, Inc. $424,965.45
Staff evaluated the bid in the best interests of the City of Aspen. In making that evaluation, total price,
key project staffing, project experience, specialty work experience, subcontractor’s experience and
criteria set forth in bidding documents were used to make the decision. Staff determined that Aspen
Digger, Inc. was responsive to the evaluation criteria and could complete the scope of work outlined for
this project.
However, staff determined it was in the best interest of the City to reschedule the construction from fall
2018 until spring 2019. Staff felt the fall schedule presented time and possible weather constraints. Staff
recommends that Council secure this contract, with the proposed schedule amendment (Attachment C)
for work to be performed in the Spring of 2019.
P24
VI.c
Page 2 of 3
There have been differing opinions expressed by the neighborhood regarding the addition of sidewalk in
this area. A work session has been scheduled for January 8, 2019 to discuss Critical Pedestrian
Connections. During this session, staff, council, and members of the public will finalize whether
sidewalk is incorporated into this project. This proposed contract includes sidewalk; however, it can be
removed depending on the outcome of the work session. The cost of the sidewalk is $32,290.30.
Additionally, a private development project at 936 King Street executed a Sidewalk and Curb and Gutter
Agreement as part of their redevelopment in 2016. The agreement requires the property owner to pay for
curb and gutter as well as sidewalk when the City deems necessary. As part of this project, the City
would require re-imbursement from the property owner for 195 linear feet of curb and gutter, sidewalk
and associated improvements, totaling $11,736.72.
Aspen Digger, Inc. has previous experience in various City of Aspen projects, and other municipal
infrastructure projects. Past performance associated with these projects has proven Aspen Digger, Inc. to
be a conscientious and consummate professional. Staff recommends that it is in the City’s best interests
to award the final construction contract to this vendor.
The additional $106,761.72 listed below will be requested in the 2019 Spring Supplemental from the
AMP Fund Balance. This includes a request from the AMP fund balance of $95,025.00 and a
reimbursement from the property owner of $11,736.72. See Sidewalk Agreement in Attachment D.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Funding Allocated
King St Improvements – Construction (160.328.81200.52199.50880) $ 351,652.00
Additional Supplemental (AMP Fund Balance) $ 95,025.00
936 King St Sidewalk Agreement (Reimbursement from Property Owner) $ 11,736.72
Total Funding $ 458,413.72
Expenditures
Aspen Digger, Inc. Construction Bid $ 424,965.45
Estimated Inspection & Testing $ 11,000.00
Estimated Paper Notifications & Outreach $ 1,200.00
Construction Contingency (5%) $ 21,248.27
Total City Cost $ 446,677.00
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council approve the following King St Infrastructure
Improvements construction contract with Aspen Digger, Inc. in the amount of $458,413.72.
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Resolution No. 152, Series of 2018.”
P25
VI.c
Page 3 of 3
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
__________________
ATTACHMENT A – King St Construction Drawings
ATTACHMENT B – Construction Contract – Aspen Digger, Inc.
ATTACHMENT C – Construction Contract Amendment – Aspen Digger, Inc.
ATTACHMENT D – Sidewalk Agreement - 936 King St.
P26
VI.c
RESOLUTION #152
(Series of 2018)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND ASPEN DIGGER, INC. AUTHORIZING THE 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
King Street Improvements between the City of Aspen and Aspen Digger, Inc, a
true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “B”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract
for King Street Improvements between the City of Aspen and Aspen Digger, Inc, a
copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby
authorize the 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 10th day of December, 2018.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Linda Manning, 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, December 10, 2018.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P27
VI.c
1.ALL WORK SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CDOT AND THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE, CITY OF ASPEN WATER DISTRIBUTION STANDARDS, ENGINEERING DIVISION, GENERAL PROVISIONS, SPECIAL PROVISIONS, ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS, REVISIONS TO STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND SUPPLEMENTALSPECIFICATIONS, CDOT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, LATEST REVISION.2.IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THAT ALL WORK IS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS AS SET FORTH BY THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (O.S.H.A.).3.NO FIELD CHANGES SHALL BE MADE WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER.4.SUBMITTALS SHALL BE MADE FOR ALL MATERIALS TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT.5.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN AN APPROVED TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN AND PERMIT PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.6.THE PHYSICAL FEATURES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE PROJECT HAVE BEEN SHOWN BASED ON THE BEST AVAILABLE INFORMATION AT THE TIME OF DESIGN. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW AND VERIFY EXISTING PHYSICAL FEATURES AND ELEVATIONS THEMSELVES OF THE CONDITIONS TO BE ENCOUNTERED DURING THECONSTRUCTION.7.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL LIMIT ALL WORK AND STORAGE AREAS TO THE APPROVED PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAYS, THE PROJECT SITE, AND EASEMENTS. USE OF ANY PRIVATE AREAS FOR THIS PROJECT BY THE CONTRACTOR MUST BE APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE PROPERTY OWNER WITH A COPY OF THIS APPROVAL PROVIDED TO THEENGINEER PRIOR TO USAGE.8.ALL CONSTRUCTION IS TO INCLUDE COMPACTION AND FINISH GRADING IN THE UNIT PRICE RELATED WORK ITEM.9.ALL WORK SHALL BE DONE TO THE LINES, GRADES, SECTIONS, AND ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THE PLANS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED OR APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.10.ALL MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP SHALL BE SUBJECT TO INSPECTION AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF ASPEN AND THE ENGINEER.11.THE ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED WITHIN 48 HOUR PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY CONSTRUCTION.12.DIMENSIONS AND RADII ARE SHOWN TO THE FLOW LINE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.13.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL LIMIT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES TO THOSE AREAS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE AND/OR TOES OF SLOPE AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. ANY DISTURBANCE BEYOND THESE LIMITS SHALL BE RESTORED TO ORIGINAL CONDITIONS BY THE CONTRACTOR AT HIS/HER OWN EXPENSE.14.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT REMOVE AND SHALL PROTECT FROM DAMAGE ALL TREES, BUSHES, AND EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF WORK. SPECIFIC PROVISIONS ARE SHOWN ON THE PLANS.15.NO TREES SHALL BE REMOVED OR TRIMMED WITHOUT PRIOR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE CITY FORESTER, PROPERTY OWNER AND/OR PROJECT ENGINEER.16.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT THE EXISTING DRAINAGE STRUCTURES AND REROUTE ANY RUNOFF AS NECESSARY DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES TO PREVENT EROSION AND DAMAGE.17.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE SAFE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AT ALL TIMES DURING THE PROJECT.18.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CLOSELY MONITOR ACCESS FOR HEAVY CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT THROUGH THE PROJECT.19.WHERE PAVEMENT IS TO ABUT EXISTING PAVEMENT, THE EXISTING PAVEMENT SHALL BE REMOVED TO A NEAT VERTICAL LINE BY FULL DEPTH SAWING. SAWING WILL NOT BE PAID FOR SEPARATELY BUT SHALL BE INCIDENTAL TO “REMOVAL OF ASPHALT PAVEMENT”. THE CONTRACTOR WILL REQUIRED TO PAINT THE EDGE OF CUTPAVEMENT WITH DILUTED EMULSIFIED ASPHALT (SLOW SETTING) PRIOR TO PAVING OPERATIONS. VERTICAL EDGES SHALL NOT REMAIN OVERNIGHT. DILUTED EMULSIFIED ASPHALT FOR TACK COAT SHALL CONSIST OF ONE PART EMULSIFIED ASPHALT AND ONE PART WATER.20.A DUST PALLIATIVE SHALL BE UTILIZED WHERE REQUIRED. LOCATIONS SHALL BE AS ORDERED. THE COST SHALL BE INCIDENTAL TO OTHER BID ITEMS.21.THE PHYSICAL FEATURES REQUIRING REMOVAL OR OBLITERATION WITHIN THE PROJECT SHALL BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND BE DISPOSED OF OFF-SITE.22.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PRESERVING ANY MONUMENT, RANGE POINTS, TIES, BENCHMARKS AND/OR SURVEY CONTROL POINTS WHICH MAY BE DISTRIBUTED OR DESTROYED BY CONSTRUCTION. SUCH POINTS SHALL BE REFERENCED AND REPLACED WITH APPROPRIATE MONUMENT BY A REGISTEREDPROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR AUTHORIZED TO PRACTICE LAND SURVEYING IN THE STATE OF COLORADO.23.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE A COPY OF ALL APPLICABLE STANDARDS ON SITE FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT.24.ANY LAYER OF BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT THAT IS TO HAVE SUCCEEDING LAYER PLACED THEREON SHALL BE COMPLETED FULL WIDTH BEFORE SUCCEEDING LAYER IS PLACED.25.BEFORE PLACEMENT OF THE TACK COAT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CLEAN THE PRESENT ROADWAY AS DIRECTED. CLEANING WILL NOT BE PAID FOR SEPARATELY, BUT SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE COST OF THE PROJECT.26.A TACK COAT OF EMULSIFIED ASPHALT (SLOW SETTING) IS TO BE APPLIED BETWEEN PAVEMENT COURSES TO IMPROVE BOND. DILUTED EMULSIFIED ASPHALT FOR TACK COAT SHALL CONSIST OF 1 PART EMULSIFIED ASPHALT AND 1 PART WATER.27.STORM INLET STATIONING AND ELEVATION REFERENCE CENTER OF BOX. STORM MANHOLE STATIONING REFERENCE CENTER OF MANHOLE.28.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH, INSTALL, AND MAINTAIN TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES NECESSARY THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION.29.ANY DISCREPANCY WITHIN THESE PLANS SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO THE IMMEDIATE ATTENTION OF THE ENGINEER AND WORK SHALL STOP UNTIL THE DISCREPANCY IS DISCUSSED AND DECISIONS/AGREEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE.30.ALL USES AND CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF ASPEN WATER DISTRIBUTION STANDARDS.TREE PROTECTION:1.A CONSTRUCTION FENCE MUST BE ERECTED ALONG THE ENTIRE DRIPLINE OF ALL TREES ON SITE. THIS FENCE IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN SUCH A MANNER THAT THE AREA INSIDE THE DRIPLINE IS PROTECTED. AN INSPECTION OF THIS FENCE MUST BE PERFORMED BEFORE ANY CONSTRUCTION OR DEMOLITION ACTIVITIES BEGIN.PLEASE ARRANGE THIS INSPECTION WITH THE CITY FORESTER AT 429-2034.2.NO MATERIALS MAY BE STORED WITHIN THIS PROTECTION AREA, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, CONSTRUCTION BACKFILL, CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC, OR ANY OTHER CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS.3.NO EXCAVATION WITHIN THIS AREA MAY BE PERFORMED WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE CITY OF ASPEN FORESTER OR HIS DESIGNEE.EARTHWORK:1.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LEGAL DISPOSAL OF ANY EXCESS SOIL, DEBRIS AND WASTE MATERIAL OFF OF THE PROJECT SITE.2.ANY MATERIAL NOT SUITABLE FOR BACKFILL SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE AND DISPOSED OF, BY AND AT THE EXPENSE OF THE CONTRACTOR.BENCHMARK AND SURVEY CONTROL:1.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSTRUCTION STAKING OF BOTH HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL LAYOUT ON THIS PROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH THE PROJECT ENGINEER FOR INTERPRETATION AND INFORMATION IN STAKING OF THE PROJECT FOR CONSTRUCTION.2.PRIOR TO PROJECT COMPLETION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF ANY PROPERTY MONUMENTATION DISTURBED OR REMOVED BY CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS. THIS WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A LAND SURVEYOR LICENSED IN THE STATE OF COLORADO. PROPERTY CORNERS WHICHFALL WITHIN NEW CONCRETE FLATWORK SHALL BE DURABLE AND SET FLUSH. THIS SHALL BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO THE PROJECT.TRAFFIC GENERAL NOTES:1.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL NEW, TEMPORARY AND EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNS FROM THE START OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECT UNTIL ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER.2.ALL TRAFFIC SIGNS, PAVEMENT MARKINGS, AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS SHALL MEET OR EXCEED MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (M.U.T.C.D.) STANDARDS.3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE A DETAILED TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN, SUBMIT TO THE TOWN FOR APPROVAL, AND OBTAIN APPROPRIATE PERMITS.4.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL WORK ZONE TRAFFIC CONTROL. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FURNISHING, INSTALLING, AND MAINTAINING THE TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT.STRIPING AND SIGNAGE GENERAL NOTES:1.INSTALLATION OF ALL STRIPING, SIGNS AND PAVEMENT MARKING SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR.2.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL REMOVAL OF EXISTING PAVEMENT MARKINGS (SCARRING OF PAVEMENT IS NOT PERMITTED). AT NO TIME WILL IT BE ACCEPTABLE TO PAINT OVER EXISTING PAVEMENT MARKINGS.3.ALL STRIPING AND SIGNING SHALL CONFORM TO THE MOST RECENT ADOPTED EDITION OF THE FOLLOWING MANUALS AND THEIR SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDMENTS:a. MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (M.U.T.C.D.)4.ALL SIGNING AND STRIPING IS SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY PRIOR TO INSTALLATION AND/OR REMOVAL.5.CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL CONFLICTING STRIPING, PAVEMENT MARKINGS AND LEGENDS BY HYDROBLASTING, SANDBLASTING AND/OR GRINDING. ANY DEBRIS SHALL BE PROMPTLY REMOVED BY THE CONTRACTOR.6.ALL TRAFFIC SIGNS SHALL HAVE MINIMUM HIGH INTENSITY GRADE SHEETING.7.ANY DEVIATION FROM THE STRIPING AND SIGNING PLANS SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER OF WORK AND THE TOWN PRIOR TO ANY CHANGES BEING MADE IN THE FIELD.8.ALL SIGNS SHOWN ON THE STRIPING AND SIGNING PLANS SHALL BE NEW SIGNS PROVIDED AND INSTALLED BY THE CONTRACTOR, EXCEPT FOR EXISTING SIGNS SPECIFICALLY INDICATED TO BE RELOCATED OR TO REMAIN.9.STRIPED CROSSWALKS SHALL HAVE AN INSIDE DIMENSION OF 10 FEET AND CONTINENTAL CROSSWALKS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 9 FEET UNLESS INDICATED OTHERWISE.10.ALL LIMIT LINES/STOP LINES, CROSSWALK LINES, PAVEMENT LEGENDS, AND ARROWS (EXCEPT WITHIN BIKE LANES) SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 90MIL THICKNESS THERMOPLASTIC OR PREFORM PLASTIC TAPE.11.ALL LONGITUDINAL LINES SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 15MIL THICKNESS EPOXY.UTILITY GENERAL NOTES:1.ANY CONTRACTOR-CAUSED DAMAGE TO UTILITY AND/OR SERVICE LINES SHOWN OR NOT SHOWN ON THE PLANS, SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED AT NO COST TO THE CITY OF ASPEN AND SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY THE CONTRACTOR, SUBCONTRACTOR OR AS APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BERESPONSIBLE FOR NOTIFYING ALL UTILITY COMPANIES PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK IN THE PROJECT AREA. LIKEWISE, THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING HIS WORK AND THAT OF THE INVOLVED UTILITIES IN THE PROJECT AREA.2.UTILITY LINES SHOWN ON THE PLAN SHEETS ARE LOCATED FROM THE BEST AVAILABLE INFORMATION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VERIFICATION AND PROTECTION OF ALL UTILITIES IN PLACE.3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO AT 811 TWO BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE OF ANY EXCAVATION OR GRADING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE COA UTILITY FRONT DESK AT (970) 920-5110 FOR LOCATES AND WORK REQUESTS.4.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT AND MAINTAIN ALL UTILITY AND STRUCTURES AFFECTED BY THE WORK AND ANY DAMAGE SHALL BE REPAIRED AND RESTORED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LOCATION AND PROTECTION OF ALL UTILITIES DURING CONSTRUCTION.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL UTILITY RELOCATIONS WITH UTILITY OWNER AS NECESSARY.5.EXCAVATION AT GAS LINES: TEMPORARY COVER DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE AT LEAST 18 INCHES OVER THE GAS CONDUIT. FINISH GRADE MUST BE AT LEAST 2 FEET AND NO MORE THAN 6 FEET OVER THE GAS CONDUIT.6.EXISTING UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE, FIBER AND CABLE TELEVISION FACILITIES MAY BE LOCATED IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE WORK. THE CONTRACTOR MAY, IF NECESSARY TEMPORARILY DISPLACE THE CABLES DURING CONSTRUCTION AND REINSTALL THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROPRIATE TELEPHONE, FIBER ORCABLEVISION COMPANY'S GUIDELINES. COORDINATION WITH BOTH THE TELEPHONE AND CABLE TELEVISION COMPANY IS REQUIRED TO BE DONE BY THE CONTRACTOR.7.ALL WORK DONE ON OR AROUND WATER OR SEWER FACILITIES MUST BE INSPECTED BY A CITY OF ASPEN INSPECTOR OR DESIGNEE. THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO NOTIFY THE CITY OF ASPEN TWO WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION.8.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL AT THEIR EXPENSE, SUPPORT AND PROTECT ALL WATER MAINS SO THAT THEY WILL FUNCTION CONTINUOUSLY DURING CONSTRUCTION EXCEPT THOSE DESIGNATED TO BE TEMPORARILY SHUT DOWN. TEMPORARY WATER SERVICE DISRUPTION SHALL BE DONE TO MINIMIZE THE EFFECTS ON CITY OFASPEN UTILITY CUSTOMERS. SHOULD A WATER MAIN FAIL AS A RESULT OF THE CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS, IT WILL BE REPAIRED IMMEDIATELY BY EITHER THE CONTRACTOR OR THE WATER DEPARTMENT AT THE FULL COST OF LABOR AND MATERIALS TO THE CONTRACTOR. REPAIR SHALL BE AT THE NOTICE, INSPECTION, DIRECTIONAND APPROVAL OF THE COA WATER DEPARTMENT OPERATOR IN RESPONSIBLE CHARGE.9.ALL VALVE BOXES, CLEANOUTS, MANHOLES, GUYWIRES, SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO FINAL GRADE.10.ALL USES AND CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF ASPEN WATER DISTRIBUTION STANDARDS. 11. TWO (2) DAYS PRIOR TO WORK COMMENCEMENT A PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING SHALL BE SCHEDULED WITH THE COA WATER DEPARTMENT.NPDES DRAINAGE WATER QUALITY NOTES:1.THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR THEIR AUTHORIZED AGENTS SHALL REMOVE ALL SEDIMENTS, MUD, AND CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS THAT MAY ACCUMULATE IN THE FLOWLINES AND PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY AS A RESULT OF THIS CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. SAID REMOVAL SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN A TIMELY MANNER.2.THE DISCHARGE OF WATER CONTAINING WASTE CONCRETE TO THE STORM SEWER IS PROHIBITED.3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL STORM SEWER FACILITIES ADJACENT TO ANY LOCATION WHERE PAVEMENT CUTTING OPERATION, INVOLVING WHEEL CUTTING, SAW CUTTING OR ABRASIVE WATER JUST CUTTING ARE TO TAKE PLACE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE AND PROPERLY DISPOSE OF ALL WASTE PRODUCTSGENERATED BY SAID CUTTING OPERATIONS ON A DAILY BASIS. THE DISCHARGE OF ANY WATER CONTAMINATED BY WASTE PRODUCTS FROM CUTTING OPERATIONS TO THE STORM SEWER IS PROHIBITED.4.THE CONTRACTOR MUST KEEP ALL POLLUTANTS, INCLUDING TRENCH BACKFILL MATERIAL, FROM WASHING INTO THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM.5.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING A STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN PERMIT IF THE PROJECT MEETS MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR A PERMIT.GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES:1.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FURNISHING ALL LABOR, MATERIAL, EQUIPMENT AND INCIDENTAL ITEMS NEEDED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE CONSTRUCTION SIGNING, BARRICADES, TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES AND OTHER RELATED ITEMS FOR THE PROJECT AREAS, DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD.2.ALL SIDEWALK AND PAVED DRIVEWAY REMOVALS SHALL BE BOUNDED BY JOINTS OR SAWCUTS. SAWCUTTING IS TO BE CONSIDERED AN INCIDENTAL ITEM AND THE COST OF THIS ITEM IS TO BE INCLUDED IN OTHER PAY ITEMS.3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE SPECIAL CARE NOT TO DAMAGE TREES AND SHRUBS UNLESS SO DIRECTED BY THE PROJECT ENGINEER.4.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS PRIOR TO THE START OF WORK.5.ANY SURPLUS EXCAVATION TO INCLUDE BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE REMOVAL OF LANDSCAPING FOR SIDEWALK INSTALLATION SHALL BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE CONTRACTOR, AND DISPOSAL SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY AT NO ADDITIONAL COST.6.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL SURVEYING AND CONSTRUCTION STAKING FOR THE PROJECT. ALL GRADING AND SURFACING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAN SHEETS.7.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE AND STOCKPILE ALL SALVAGED TOPSOIL TO BE USED LATER AS BACKFILL BEHIND CURBS AND DRIVES OR IN THE RESTORATION OF DISTURBED AREAS. THIS WORK IS TO BE CONSIDERED AN INCIDENTAL ITEM AND THE COST OF THIS ITEM IS TO BE INCLUDED IN OTHER PAY ITEMS.8.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL LEVEL ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITH TOPSOIL AND HAND-RAKE TO A UNIFORM APPEARANCE. THE AREA SHALL BE SEEDED WITH PROTECTIVE STRAW MAT COVER DURING WINTER MONTHS OR SODDED ALL OTHER TIMES. THIS WORK IS TO BE CONSIDERED AN INCIDENTAL ITEM.9.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL STAKE THE ON-SITE TOILET TO THE GROUND OR WEIGHT IT APPROPRIATELY.CITY OF ASPENP28VI.c
F
l
a
g
s
t
o
n
e
GravelFlagstone Found #5 Rebar and1-1/4" Yellow Plastic CapStamping IllegibleFound Nail & Aluminum TagStamped LS #29030Found Nail &Aluminum TagStamping IllegibleFound Nail & Aluminum TagStamped LS #29030BoulderStorm GrateStorm Drain24" WellKey PadDrain24" LidBoulderLot 1Shoaf's Waterfall SubdivisionBook 13, Page 3Lot 1Benedict Cabin Subdivision ExemptionBook 100, Page 43Lot 2Benedict Cabin Subdivision ExemptionBook 100, Page 43Lot ANo Problem Jo Subdivision ExemptionBook 49, Page 83Lot BNo Problem Jo Subdivision ExemptionBook 49, Page 83Warranty DeedReception No. 637688Warranty DeedReception No. 637688Patricia CondominiumsBook 8, Page 47Belinda-Bee CondominiumsBook 57, Page 50Br
o
w
n
e
l
l
C
o
n
d
o
m
i
n
i
u
m
s
Bo
o
k
7
,
P
a
g
e
7
7 Gibson AvenueLot 1114 Neale/17 Queen Historic Lot SplitSubdivision Exemption PlatBook 45, Page 17Lot 1First Amended PlatAstor SubdivisionBook 34, Page 86Lot 2First Amended PlatAstor SubdivisionBook 34, Page 86Lot 3First Amended PlatAstor SubdivisionBook 34, Page 8620.0'
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
&
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
E
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
Boo
k
3
4
,
P
a
g
e
8
6
Area Dedicated to City of Aspenfor King Street Right-of-WayBook 34, Page 86King StreetRight-of-Way VariesGarrish ParkAs Shown in Book 13, Page 36Lot 2114 Neale/17 Queen Historic Lot SplitSubdivision Exemption PlatBook 45, Page 17Parcel 2Boundary Agreement PlatBook 13, Page 3610.
0
'
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
E
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
Boo
k
3
4
,
P
a
g
e
8
6
Neale StreetRight-of-Way Varies Found Nail & Aluminum TagStamped LS #13166Found #5 Rebar andAluminum CapStamping IllegibleFound #6 RebarFound #5 Rebar and1-1/4" Yellow Plastic CapStamping IllegibleFound #5 Rebar and1-1/4" Yellow Plastic CapStamping IllegibleCMP 15" Invert7941.55CMP 15" Invert7943.0930" RPCInvert = 7924.48RPC 18" Invert7924.30Sewer Rim 7947.238" Invert in 7938.648" Invert out 7938.58Sewer Rim 7931.14'8" Invert in 7924.69'8" Invert out 7924.45'Stone PathSidewalkSidewalkElectricManholeStone PathStone PathStone PathBouldersCurbDeckDeckGaslineMarkerCenterlineCenterlineSewer Rim 7931.14'8" Invert in 7918.42'8" Invert out 7918.36'8" Invert in 7918.36''Storm Rim 7927.70'24" Invert in 7914.80'24" Invert out 7913.60'24" Invert in7916.25'S 82°19'48" W258.21'B
o
u
l
d
e
r
s Corner 11, Tract 403-1/4" 1954 BLM Brass CapYellow StripeYellow StripeSouth 1/4 Corner Section 72-1/2" BLM Brass Cap.5' Below GroundN 14°20'41" W397.60'Invert = 7923.8'Invert = 7921.1'Invert = 7926.2'(Feels like dirt)Invert = 7937.2'Sewer Rim 7901.4'8" Invert in 7895.5'8" Invert out 7895.2'Sewer Manhole 248' South OnlineLast Above Ground Waterline MarkingLEGENDBuildingConcreteElectric TransformerElectric MeterFire HydrantGas MeterMailboxRoadway SignCable TVTelephone Ped.Water ValveWater ServiceBuried ElectricFencelineBuried GasSewerBuried TelephoneBuried Telephone/Cable TVEdge of AsphaltEdge of GravelSCALE: 1"=20'SCALE: 1"=20'EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEYKing StreetSection 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M.,City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of ColoradoNOTES1.) DATE OF SURVEY WAS DECEMBER 2017.2.) CONTOUR INTERVAL FOR THIS SURVEY IS 1 FOOT.3.) BASIS OF BEARING FOR THIS SURVEY IS N22°38'16"E BETWEEN THE SOUTH 1/4CORNER OF SECTION 7, A 3-1/4" BLM BRASS CAP AND ANGLE POINT 11 OF TRACT 40, A3-1/4" BLM BRASS CAP.4.) PROPERTY BOUNDARIES, RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND EASEMENTS SHOWN HEREON AREBASED ON RESEARCH OF THE PITKIN COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER'S RECORDS.5.) HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL DATUM IS BASED ON THE CITY OF ASPEN CONTROLNETWORK.6.) UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON ARE FROM LOCATES PROVIDED BY "811"AND ARE SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY, CALL BEFORE YOU DIG.7.) WATER VALVES NOT SHOWING ELEVATIONS WERE FULL OF FROZEN SLUSH,MEASURE DOWN WAS NOT POSSIBLE AT TIME OF FIELD SURVEY.P29VI.c
CITY OF ASPEN GRAPHIC SCALE(IN FEET)1 inch = 20 ft.P30VI.c
8'4'11'34'-58' ROWParking LaneTravel Lane Sidewalk20.2'Flowline to Flowline Width17.5' (Asphalt Width)5+500+001+002+003+004+005+00L1L2L3L4L5L6L7L8L9L10L11L12C1C2C3C4C5C6C7C8C9C10C11King St CLNumberL1C1L2C2L3C4L4C5L5C6L12C7L6C8L7C9L8C10L9C11L10C3L11Radius50.0050.00200.00200.00200.00200.00200.00200.00200.00126.9050.00Length26.029.2513.4710.2428.669.158.130.6817.6013.83166.963.7665.564.1643.922.4463.069.567.369.8112.8813.4410.42Line/Chord DirectionS55° 47' 14"ES50° 29' 20"ES45° 11' 26"ES51° 03' 37"ES56° 55' 49"ES58° 14' 27"ES59° 33' 05"ES59° 27' 15"ES59° 21' 26"ES61° 20' 19"ES63° 19' 13"ES63° 51' 33"ES64° 23' 54"ES64° 59' 39"ES65° 35' 24"ES65° 14' 28"ES64° 53' 31"ES66° 15' 41"ES67° 37' 51"ES69° 50' 47"ES72° 03' 43"ES79° 45' 42"ES87° 27' 40"ECITY OF ASPEN GRAPHIC SCALE(IN FEET)1 inch = 20 ft.P31VI.c
N 14°20'41" W0+001+002+003+002.9%2.9%
1.5%
1.1%2.6%1.1%LP: 2+33.547930.50LP: 7930.32LP: 7930.321.0%
1.0%7930.926.4%7931.337931.297931.177931.677931.137931.628.2%7930.96793079307927792879297931793179317931793179317931793179317931793179317
9
31
7
93
1
7
9
31
79327930792779287929
79311.1%
1.3%
1.4%
2.1%7930792779287929
79317926.767927.447931.567931.52HP: 7931.79StationAlignment: King St CL Stations: 1+25.00 - 3+25.00Horizontal Scale: 1"= 10' Vertical Scale: 1"=2'79257940792579401+251+507931.07931.02
2+007930.8
7930.76
7930.5
7930.52
2+507930.6
7930.58
7931.0
7931.00
3+003+252.63%-1.05%-0.58%PVI STA:2+46.90PVI ELEV:7930.26K:17.00LVC:62.57BVCS: 2+15.62
BVCE: 7930.59
EVCS: 2+78.18
EVCE: 7931.08
GRADE BREAK STA = 1+51.01ELEV = 7931.16
GRADE BREAK STA = 3+00.00
ELEV = 7931.66
GRADE BREAK STA = 1+74.06ELEV = 7931.03
STA:2+33.54ELEV:7925.00STA:2+33.54ELEV:7930.50CITY OF ASPEN GRAPHIC SCALE(IN FEET)1 inch = 10 ft.P32VI.c
3+004+005+005+502.9%2.9%2.6%LP: 2+33.547930.50LP: 7930.321.0%
1.0
%
1.0
%
1.0
%7932.577932.537932.267932.317933.097933.057933.697933.737934.447934.407934.677934.717935.477935.437936.097936.138.2%4.5%8.3%4.4%7932
7933 7931793179357
9
4
0
79
3
4
79367
9
3
7
79
3
8
7
9
3
9
79
41
7942
794379447940793479377938793979417931
793279317932
7935
7940
7933
7934
7936
7937
7938
7939
7941
7942794379431.4%2.1%7931.567931.5279417942
79437942.227942.657942.657942.307942.517943.167942.097941.963.2%1
0
.
5
%1.7%2.0%1.3%7942.6379417942
79431
1
.
0%0.5%79437942.20CITY OF ASPEN GRAPHIC SCALE(IN FEET)1 inch = 10 ft.P33VI.c
793079307927792879297931793
1
7931793179327933793179317
9
3
5
794
0
7934
7936793
7
7938
7939
7941
794279437940793479377938793979417931793179317931793179327931793179317931793279357940793379347936793779387939794179427
9
4
3
7943
79307931 0+001+002+003+004+005+00 5+07L1L2L3L4L5L6L7L8L9L10L11C
1C2StationAlignment: North EOA Stations: 0+00.00 - 5+07.47Horizontal Scale: 1"= 10' Vertical Scale: 1"=2'792079407960792079407960StationAlignment: North EOA Stations: 0+00.00 - 5+07.47Horizontal Scale: 1"= 10' Vertical Scale: 1"=2'792079407960792079407960-1.02%1.31%2.86%3.14%2.73%6.51%8.59%
GRADE BREAK STA = 0+86.70ELEV = 7931.32
GRADE BREAK STA = 1+85.36
ELEV = 7930.32
GRADE BREAK STA = 2+32.96
ELEV = 7930.94
GRADE BREAK STA = 3+10.46
ELEV = 7933.16
GRADE BREAK STA = 3+40.58
ELEV = 7934.11
GRADE BREAK STA = 4+00.18
ELEV = 7935.73
GRADE BREAK STA = 4+59.18
ELEV = 7939.57
GRADE BREAK STA = 4+95.48
ELEV = 7942.690+000+501+007931.27931.19
7930.9
7930.93
1+507930.7
7930.68
7930.4
7930.42
2+007930.5
7930.51
7930.8
7930.84
2+507931.4
7931.43
7932.1
7932.15
3+007932.9
7932.86
7933.6
7933.62
3+507934.4
7934.36
7935.0
7935.05
4+007935.7
7935.73
7937.3
7937.35
4+507939.0
7938.98
7940.9
7940.93
5+005+07.47STA:0+96.02ELEV:7931.23STA:1+29.20ELEV:7930.89STA:3+15.64ELEV:7933.32STA:2+74.34ELEV:7932.13STA:3+46.57ELEV:7934.27STA:3+98.40ELEV:7935.68North EOANumberL9L10L8L6L7L11L1L2L3L4C1L5C2Radius12.008.35Length20.0114.9714.688.4328.62172.8669.9746.4069.3135.6614.571.8210.17Line/Chord DirectionS56° 15' 33"ES56° 29' 41"ES56° 16' 19"ES59° 48' 21"ES59° 28' 42"ES63° 21' 21"ES64° 23' 59"ES65° 36' 19"ES64° 53' 31"ES68° 31' 04"EN76° 41' 09"EN48° 23' 52"WN15° 29' 00"ECITY OF ASPEN GRAPHIC SCALE(IN FEET)1 inch = 20 ft.P34VI.c
7930793079277928792979317931
7931793179327933793179317
9
3
5
794
0
7934
7936793
7
7938
793
9
7941
79427943794079347937793879397941793179317931793179317932793179317931793179320+001+002+003+004+005+005+1679357940793379347936793779387939794179427
9
4
3
7943
79307931L12L13L14L15
L16L17L18L19L20L21C3StationAlignment: South EOA Stations: 0+00.00 - 5+16.41Horizontal Scale: 1"= 10' Vertical Scale: 1"=2'7920794079607920794079600.82%-1.07%1.53%3.20%1.93%7.69%5.96%6.61%GRADE BREAK STA = 0+23.19ELEV = 7931.52GRADE BREAK STA = 0+56.06ELEV = 7931.79
GRADE BREAK STA = 1+93.04
ELEV = 7930.32
GRADE BREAK STA = 2+46.31
ELEV = 7931.13
GRADE BREAK STA = 3+23.16
ELEV = 7933.59
GRADE BREAK STA = 3+92.75
ELEV = 7934.93
GRADE BREAK STA = 4+23.92
ELEV = 7936.79
GRADE BREAK STA = 4+70.96
ELEV = 7939.90
GRADE BREAK STA = 4+96.51
ELEV = 7941.86SOUTH INLETRIM: 7930.19INV OUT: 7927.02 15" Reinforced Concrete PipeSTA:0+24.64ELEV:7931.53STA:0+38.74ELEV:7931.65STA:0+76.67ELEV:7931.57STA:0+86.50ELEV:7931.46STA:2+67.34ELEV:7931.80STA:2+54.25ELEV:7931.38STA:3+84.13ELEV:7934.77STA:3+99.21ELEV:7935.320+007931.57931.530+507931.77931.747931.67931.591+007931.37931.32
7931.0
7931.05
1+507930.8
7930.78
7930.5
7930.51
2+007930.4
7930.42
7930.8
7930.80
2+507931.2
7931.25
7932.0
7932.05
3+007932.9
7932.85
7933.6
7933.63
3+507934.1
7934.11
7934.6
7934.59
4+007935.4
7935.37
7936.9
7936.86
4+507938.5
7938.51
7940.2
7940.21
5+005+16.41South EOANumberL12L13L14L15L21L16L17L18L19L20C3Radius155.04Length23.1929.4813.2325.08176.3569.5647.2669.2217.6024.8920.56Line/Chord DirectionS45° 11' 26"ES56° 55' 49"ES59° 33' 05"ES59° 21' 26"ES63° 19' 10"ES64° 23' 54"ES65° 35' 24"ES64° 53' 31"ES67° 37' 51"ES72° 03' 43"ES86° 18' 40"ECITY OF ASPEN GRAPHIC SCALE(IN FEET)1 inch = 10 ft.P35VI.c
1+002+003+00L3L4L5L6L12C2C4C5C6C70+650+750+850+951+05
1+15
1+25
1+35
1+451+551+651+751+851+952+052+152+252+352+452+552+652+752+852+953+053+153+253+353+453+553+657930793079277928792979317
9
3
1
7931793179327933793179317931793179317931793179327931793179317931793279337931
7931.567931.520+65.0079307940793079400+75.0079307940793079400+85.0079307940793079400+95.0079307940793079401+05.0079307940793079401+15.0079307940793079401+25.0079307940793079401+35.0079307940793079401+45.0079307940793079401+55.0079307940793079401+65.007920793079407920793079401+75.007920793079407920793079401+85.007920793079407920793079401+95.007920793079407920793079402+05.007920793079407920793079402+15.007920793079407920793079402+25.0079307940793079402+35.0079307940793079402+45.0079307940793079402+55.0079307940793079402+65.0079307940793079402+75.0079307940793079402+85.0079307940793079402+95.0079307940793079403+05.0079307940793079403+15.0079307940793079403+25.0079307940793079403+35.0079307940793079403+45.0079307940793079403+55.007930794079307940-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020CITY OF ASPEN
P36VI.c
5+503+004+005+00L6L7L8L9L10L11C3C7C8C9C10C112+452+552+652+752+852+953+053+153+253+353+453+553+653+753+853+954+054+154+254+354+454+554+654+754+854+955+055+155+255+3579327933793179317
9
3
5
794
0
7934
7936793
7
7938
793
9
7941
79427943794479407934793779387939794179317932793179327942.227942.657942.657942.307942.517943.167942.097941.96
3
.
2%
10.5
%
1
.
7%2.0%1.3%7942.6379357940793379347936793779387939794179427
9
4
3
11.
0
%0.5%79437931.567931.527942.203+65.0079307940793079403+75.0079307940793079403+85.0079307940793079403+95.0079307940793079404+05.0079307940793079404+15.0079307940793079404+25.0079307940793079404+35.0079307940793079404+45.0079307940793079404+55.0079307940793079404+65.0079307940793079404+75.0079307940793079404+85.0079307940793079404+95.0079307940793079405+05.007930794079507930794079505+15.007930794079507930794079505+25.007930794079507930794079505+35.007940795079407950-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020-20-1001020CITY OF ASPEN
P37VI.c
MH - 1STRUCTURE: 48" ManholeSTA: 0+06.92RIM: 7930.47INV IN:7925.90 15" Reinforced Concrete PipeINV IN:7925.90 15" Reinforced Concrete PipeINV OUT:7925.76 18" Reinforced Concrete PipeMH - 2STRUCTURE: 48" ManholeSTA: 1+72.66RIM: 7931.54INV IN:7924.42 18" Reinforced Concrete PipeINV OUT:7924.42 18" Reinforced Concrete Pipe165.74' of 18" Reinforced Concrete Pipe @ 0.81%92.45' of 18" Reinforced Concrete Pipe @ 1.29%SOUTH INLETSTA: 0+26.28RIM: 7930.19INV OUT: 7927.02 15" Reinforced Concrete Pipe11.03' of 15" Reinforced Concrete Pipe @ 10.15%NORTH INLETSTA: 0+03.11RIM: 7930.19INV OUT: 7927.01 15" Reinforced Concrete Pipe12.14' of 15" Reinforced Concrete Pipe @ 9.18%CITY OF ASPEN GRAPHIC SCALE(IN FEET)1 inch = 10 ft.P38VI.c
MH - 1STRUCTURE: 48" ManholeSTA: 0+06.92RIM: 7930.47INV IN:7925.90 15" Reinforced Concrete PipeINV IN:7925.90 15" Reinforced Concrete PipeINV OUT:7925.76 18" Reinforced Concrete PipeMH - 2STRUCTURE: 48" ManholeSTA: 1+72.66RIM: 7931.54INV IN:7924.42 18" Reinforced Concrete PipeINV OUT:7924.42 18" Reinforced Concrete Pipe165.74' of 18" Reinforced Concrete Pipe @ 0.81%92.45' of 18" Reinforced Concrete Pipe @ 1.29%0+001+002+002+71SOUTH INLETSTA: 0+26.28RIM: 7930.19INV OUT: 7927.02 15" Reinforced Concrete Pipe11.03' of 15" Reinforced Concrete Pipe @ 10.15%NORTH INLETSTA: 0+03.11RIM: 7930.19INV OUT: 7927.01 15" Reinforced Concrete Pipe12.14' of 15" Reinforced Concrete Pipe @ 9.18%Alignment: King St Storm Main Stations: 0+00.00 - 2+70.81Horizontal Scale: 1"= 10' Vertical Scale: 1"=2'7910791579207925793079357910791579207925793079350+007931.37931.267931.37931.27
0+507931.0
7930.99
7931.0
7930.98
1+007931.3
7931.31
7931.7
7931.68
1+507931.8
7931.76
7931.5
7931.52
2+007930.5
7930.52
7928.7
7928.72
2+507927.2
7927.19
2+70.817927.7
7927.68 165.74' of 18" Reinforced Concrete Pipe @ 0.81%92.45' of 18" Reinforced Concrete Pipe @ 1.29%MH - 1STRUCTURE: 48" ManholeSTA: 0+06.92RIM: 7930.47INV IN:7925.90 15" Reinforced Concrete PipeINV IN:7925.90 15" Reinforced Concrete PipeINV OUT:7925.76 18" Reinforced Concrete PipeMH - 2STRUCTURE: 48" ManholeSTA: 1+72.66RIM: 7931.54INV IN:7924.42 18" Reinforced Concrete PipeINV OUT:7924.42 18" Reinforced Concrete PipeEX MHSTRUCTURE: 48" ManholeSTA: 2+65.11RIM: 7927.70INV IN:7923.23 18" Reinforced Concrete PipeINV IN:7914.80 24" Reinforced Concrete PipeINV OUT:7913.60 24" Reinforced Concrete PipeCITY OF ASPEN GRAPHIC SCALE(IN FEET)1 inch = 10 ft.P39VI.c
MH - 1STRUCTURE: 48" ManholeSTA: 0+06.92RIM: 7930.47INV IN:7925.90 15" Reinforced Concrete PipeINV IN:7925.90 15" Reinforced Concrete PipeINV OUT:7925.76 18" Reinforced Concrete Pipe0+000+29SOUTH INLETSTA: 0+26.28RIM: 7930.19INV OUT: 7927.02 15" Reinforced Concrete Pipe11.03' of 15" Reinforced Concrete Pipe @ 10.15%NORTH INLETSTA: 0+03.11RIM: 7930.19INV OUT: 7927.01 15" Reinforced Concrete Pipe12.14' of 15" Reinforced Concrete Pipe @ 9.18%Alignment: Storm Laterals Stations: 0+00.00 - 0+29.37Horizontal Scale: 1"= 10' Vertical Scale: 1"=2'792079257930793579207925793079350+007931.5
7931.47
7931.3
7931.33
0+29.377931.6
7931.57
MH - 1STRUCTURE: 48" ManholeSTA: 0+06.92RIM: 7930.47INV IN:7925.90 15" Reinforced Concrete PipeINV IN:7925.90 15" Reinforced Concrete PipeINV OUT:7925.76 18" Reinforced Concrete PipeNORTH INLETSTA: 0+03.11RIM: 7930.19INV OUT: 7927.01 15" Reinforced Concrete Pipe12.14' of 15" Reinforced Concrete Pipe @ 9.18%SOUTH INLETSTA: 0+26.28RIM: 7930.19INV OUT: 7927.02 15" Reinforced Concrete Pipe11.03' of 15" Reinforced Concrete Pipe @ 10.15%CITY OF ASPEN GRAPHIC SCALE(IN FEET)1 inch = 5 ft.P40VI.c
7930793079277928792979317931793179317932
7933 7931793179357
9
4
0
79
3
4
79367
9
3
7
79
3
8
7
9
3
9
79417942
7943794479437930 79277928792979317926.767927.447931.567931.52CITY OF ASPEN GRAPHIC SCALE(IN FEET)1 inch = 20 ft.P41VI.c
VARIESAA6"24"Curb ReturnVaries With Street Width24" (Max)24" (Max)Plan ViewSection A - A8'2"24" (Max)3"2" Clear Distance8"8" (Min)Scarified and RecompactedSub-baseNon-corrosive support (chair)#4 Rebar 24" O.C.NOTES:1.Steel reinforcement is #4 Grade 40 rebar placed a maximum of 24" O.C.2.Rebar splices must maintain a 12" minimum overlap.3.Base shall be either 34" crushed screened rock or ABC CL-6 compacted to 95% of maximummodified proctor density within 2% of optimum moisture as defined by ASTM 1557 Method "C".4.Sub-base must be scarified and re-compacted and pass a proof rolling by a fully loaded tandumaxle dump truck. Proof rolling must be witnessed and documented by Engineering Departmentstaff.5.Concrete must conform to CDOT class "D" (minimum 28-day compressive strength of4500psi).80% of this strength must be gained in the first 7 days.SIDEWALKCURB RAMPCROSSWALK`DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE~ SEE STANDARD PLAN F-45.103/8" EXPANSION JOINT (TYP.)~ SEE STANDARD PLAN F-30.10PEDESTRIAN CURB~ SEE STANDARD PLAN F-10.12LANDINGGRADEBREAKTOP OFROADWAYDEPRESSEDCURB & GUTTER~ SEE NOTE 6 & 44"(TYP.)2.0% MAX.DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE~ SEE STANDARD PLAN F-45.10CEMENT CONCRETEPEDESTRIAN CURB~ SEE STANDARD PLAN F-10.128.3% MAX.SLOPE IN EITHER DIRECTIONSEE CONTRACT PLANS~ 4' - 0" MINSIDEWALKCURB & GUTTER2.0% MAX.2.0% MAX.CURB RAMPCOUNTER SLOPE5.0% MAX.PEDESTRIAN CURB~ SEE NOTE 4LANDING 3/8" EXPANSION JOINT (TYP.)~ SEE STANDARD PLAN F-30.10GRADE BREAKSEE CONTRACT PLANS~ 4' - 0" MIN.FACE OF CURBSEE CONTRACT PLANS~ 4' - 0" MIN.GRADEBREAK 15' - 0" MAX. ~SEE NOTE 73" R.LANDINGVARIESSEE CONTRACT PLANS~ 4' - 0" MINProvide a separate curb ramp for each marked or unmarked crosswalk.Curb ramp location shall be placed within the width of the associatedcrosswalk, or as shown in the Contract Plans.Where "GRADE BREAK" is called out, the entire length of the gradebreak between the two adjacent surface planes shall be flush.Do not place gratings, junction boxes, access covers, or other appurte-nances in front of thre curb ramp or on any part of the curb ramp or landing.See Contract Plans for the curb design specified. See Standard PlanF-10.12 for Curb, Curb and Gutter, and Pedestrian Curb Details.1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.See Standard Plan F-30.10 for Cement Concrete Sidewalk Details.See Contract Plans for width and placement of sidewalk.The Bid Item "Cement Concrete Curb Ramp Type __" does not includethe adacent Curb, Curb and Gutter, Pedestrian Curb or Sidewalks.The curb ramp maximum running slope shall not require the ramp lengthto exceed 15 feet to avoid chasing the slope indefinitely when connectingto steep grades. When applying the 15 foot max. length, the running slopeof the curb ramp shall be as flat as feasable.Curb ramp, landing, & flares shall receive broom finish. See StandardSpecifications 8-14.DEPRESSED CURB & GUTTER4"(TYP.)ABBA8" MIN8" MIN12"6"1.5124" From Edge of Trench orAny Cracked PavementHMA Depth varies(See "Exhibit F" of ConstructionExisting PavementStructural Backfill(Including Bedding)Graded and CompactedBackfill in Lifts Not toMaximum Slope:Notes:1.Trench must be sloped as shown or braced for the safety of construction workers. Trenching will besubject to most recent Confined Space and OSHA regulations2.Existing pavement shall be sawcut and replaced to create the full depth replacement shown.3.Stress cracking of existing pavement may occur during excavation for a variety of reasons. If thisoccurs, the contractor must sawcut at leat 12" beyond the limit of visible cracks and remove all stressedpavement.4.Hot bituminous patch shall be a minimum of 5" thick and placed in two lifts as shown. Thicker patchesmay be necessary depending on the type of street.5.For a major utility project, a full set of modified proctor curves must be submitted, and backfill must becompacted to within 92%-96% of maximum density within 2% of optimum moisture as defined by ASTM1557 Method "C". If curves are not submitted, backfill for trench and base for patch shall conform toCDOT's aggregate base course class 6 (ABC CL-6) designation and shall be compacted to 92%-96%of maximum density within 2% of optimum moisture. Flow fill may be used as an alternative, but mustcontain at least 80 lbs. of cement per cubic yard and retain a 9" maximum slump. Use of flow fill mustbe approved by utility provider and City of Aspen Engineering Department.6.Bedding for flexible lines shall be 34" crushed screened rock, free of fines. Or per direction of utilityprovider.7.Trench bottom must be scarified and recompacted after excavation or after any dewatering action toensure adequate support of utility bedding.8.Patching of trenched areas within the City of Aspen Right of Way must also meet the requirements setforth in this document.9.Water lines shall be a minimum of 7 feet below the ground surface. Refer to the Water DistributionStandards for additional water line requirements.10.Milling must occur after backfilling and before paving. Milling must extend 2' beyond each side of trench.11.The depth of the milling shall be the same thickness as the top lift of asphalt (2" minimum).12.Edges of replacement asphalt shall not terminate in the wheel path.Exceed 12" (Suitable Screened Scarified and Recompacted Trench BottomScarified and Recompacted Roadway Base MaterialNative Material May be Permitted) BASE COARSE = 18" - CL6 ABC(All Edges of Trench)and Excavation Standards)Geotextile at interface24" Mill From Edge of Full AsphaltReplacement (All Edges of Trench,2" minimum depth)Varies6"ID+2(W)+6"20"8"ID + 2(W) + 22"8"HMA Depth According to Table 2.3.118"Notes:1. Concrete must conform to CDOT class "D" (minimum 28-day compressive strength of4500psi). 80% of thisstrength must be gained in the first 7 days.2. Base course under manhole must be compacted to 95% of maximum modified proctor density within 2% ofoptimum moisture as defined by ASTM 1557 Method "C".3. Steel reinforcement:·#4 rebar 9" O.C. x 9" O.C. for floor slab·#4 rebar 9" O.C. horizontally and vertically for walls·#4 rebar at opening (2 above @ 3" spacing & 1 each side)·#5 rebar 6" O.C. in both directions for top slab·#5 rebar bent rectangularly with 8" overlap to support frame and grate opening·Vertical steel shall be placed at centerline of wall. All reinforcing bars shall have a 2 IN.minimum clearance. All reinforcing bars shall be epoxy coated.·Rebar splices must maintain a 12" minimum overlap4. Inlets >5' deep shall have non-slip steps down one side a maximum of 16" O.C.5. All inlets shall have a "No Dumping, Drains to River" Notice Plate, surface mounted to the top of the curb.Typical Spacing per NotesApproved FlexibleJoint SealantNeenah R-3333-Aor EquivalentIDW8"3" CLR12" Overlap w/4" Rebar25"Concrete Band or Sidewalk6" Width Minimum10:1 (max)12% (MAX)12% (MAX)4' (min)2'Varies2% (max)Varies12:1 (max)2% (max)12:1 (max)2% (max)VariesLandscaped or Paved AreaLandscaped or Paved AreaAlley or DrivewayAAPlan:Property Line (Alley)Property Line (Alley)Property Line (Alley)Property Line (Alley)Section A - A1% (min)2% (max)Varies4' (min)6"1.5'2"Edge of Asphalt2% (max)BB4'-6" (min)2'Top of Sidewalk5% (max)Section B - B5% max12:1 (max)Side Cross Section View of CC2' O.C. (max)6" ABC CL-64"Section C - C2' OC (max)2' OC (max)#4 Grade 402' OC (max)2'4'-6" (min)2% (max)12% (max)8" ABC CL-6 (min)NOTES:1. This detail is to be used only where siteconditions prohibit installation of detachedsidwalk. Prohibitive site conditions must beverified by City Engineering Staff.2. Reinforcement is to consist of #4 Grade 40rebar placed a maximum of 24" O.C. Rebar shallbe placed a minimum of 2" above bottom of slab,clear zone, and minimum of 2" below top of slab.3. Base for sidewalk out of vehicle travel path isto consist of 6"(min) of ABC CL-6 over scarifiedand compacted subbase. Base for reinforcedsection is to consist of 8" (min) of ABC CL-6 overscarified and compacted subbase. Base is to becompacted to 95% of modified proctor density asdefined by ASTM D-1557 method "C" or 34"crushed screened rock.4. The minimum slope necessary to maintaindrainage is to be used throughout. Ramplongitudinal slope is not to exceed 12:1. Sidewalkcross slope is not to exceed 2%. Street slope isnot to exceed 10%.5. Concrete conforming to CDOT class "D" is tobe used for all flatwork construction. Minimumthickness shall be 4" for sidewalk, 8" for rampand reinforced section.6. Rebar splices shall have a minimum 12"overlap.7. There must be a minimum of 12" vertical risebetween flowline of gutter and lowest point onany adjacent structure.8. Landscaping features shall be located outsidethe sight triangle, as described within the City ofAspen Design Standards.9. The slope of the gutter needs to be 1" per footor 8.3%.EXISTING WIDTHRamp and Crossing6"4' (typ)#4 Grade 40 Rebar6"1/2"-3/4"2" Clear (Min)2% (Max)8" (MIN) CL-D CONC1"/FT(max)45^ beveled edge12:1 (max)AAPart of Wing or CurbWidth of RampPart of Wing or Curb2'Cast Iron Detectible WarningPavers3"Domes(typ)4"Plan:Section A - A:Dome and Layout Details:Elevation View:.9" - 1.4"50% - 65% of Base Diameter.2"Plan View:* Shall be equal in both directionsNOTES:1. Detectible warning pad shall be installed at all curb ramps. Edge of pad shall be located 6-8" from curbflow line .2. Detectible warning pad shall be two feet in length and shall cover the width of the ramp. Pad shall be castiron, with a truncated dome surface and dimensions and layout as shown.3. Longitudinal ramp slopes (including detectible warning pad) shall not be steeper than 12:1. Cross slopesmay not be steeper than 2%.4. Detectible Warning shall be cast iron material5. Concrete jointing shall be established at each corner of the detectible warning pad, 4 total, and extend in aperpendicular or parallel direction to the pad.1.6" - 2.4"*1.6" - 2.4"*12:1 (max)24" - 30"**12"5.5"BARRIER CURB & GUTTER - TYPE A(Catch Type for Typical Edge of Street)12"18"5.5"0.5"6"BARRIER CURB & GUTTER - TYPE B(Spill Type for Raised Medians)Note: Concrete must conform to CDOT Class "D" (minimum 28-day compressive strength of4500 psi). 80% of this strength must be gained in the first 7 days.**Width of Curb and Gutter dependent on designated location for installationR=1.5"R=1.5"24" - 30"**12"6"MOUNTABLE CURB & GUTTER - TYPE A(Catch Type for Typical Edge of Street)12"18"6"12"6"MOUNTABLE CURB & GUTTER - TYPE B(Spill Type for Raised Medians)R=1.5"R=1.5"4"4"6"0.5"6"1"6"1"R=0.25"R=0.25"R=0.25"R=0.25"R=0.25"R=0.25"R=0.25"R=0.25"1"/FT or 8.3% (MAX)1"/FT OR 8.3% (MAX)1"/FT OR 8.3% (MAX)1"/FT or 8.3% (MAX)2"ÔÔÔÔÔCOMPACT EXCAVATEDSOIL ON UPSLOPE SIDE18" OR 24"
1 x 1 WOOD
STAKES SET WATTLE IN A2" - 3" DEEP TRENCHWOOD STAKEDRIVE STAKE UNTIL 2-3"REMAINS EXPOSED.INSTALL STAKEPERPENDICULAR TO SLOPE FACE.INSTALL STAKE EVERY3 - 4 FEET.1. SECURE THE WATTLE WITH 18-24” STAKES EVERY 3-4’ AND WITH A STAKE ON EACH END. STAKES SHOULD BE DRIVEN THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THE WATTLE LEAVING AT LEAST 2-3” OF STAKE EXTENDING ABOVE THE WATTLE. STAKES SHOULD BE DRIVEN PERPENDICULAR TO SLOPE FACE.2. UNLESS SPECIFIED, CONTRACTOR CAN ELECT TO USE ANY STANDARD STRAW WATTLE SIZING 8" IN DIAMETER OR LARGER.3. GUIDELINES FOR WATTLE SPACING BASED ON SLOPE GRADIENT:SLOPESPACING<6:150 FEET5:1 - 4:125 FEET4:1 - 2:120 FEET2:1 - 1:110 FEET> 1:1 5 FEETNOTE: REFER TO PROJECT DRAWINGS FOR ACTUAL WATTLE LOCATIONSTRAW WATTLEMIN 8" DIAMETER6" THICK 4500 PSI CONCRETECOMPACTED SUBGRADENOTES:EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL BE INSTALLED SUCH THATNO SINGLE DIMENSION EXCEEDS 50 FT. AREA BETWEENEXPANSION JOINTS NOT TO EXCEED 320 SQ.FT.1/2" EXPANSION PAPER SHALL BE PLACED AT ALLLOCATIONS WHERE NEW SIDEWALK ABUTSCONCRETE CURB, EXISTING SIDEWALK, LIGHT POLE BASESAND RETAINING WALLS.SNAP-CAP EXPANSION JOINT STRIPS CAN BE USED ONALL EXPANSION JOINTS.ALL EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL BE SEALED.BROOM FINISH PARALLEL TO JOINTS AND PERPENDICULARTO TRAFFIC (IF BROOMING PATTERN NOT SHOWN).6" CDOT CL 6 ROADBASECOMPACTED TO 95% OF MAXIMUM DENSITY1/2" WIDE HAND TOOLED CONTROL JOINT TOA MIN DEPTH OF 1". TOTAL DEPTH OFCONTROL JOINT MUST BE 1/4 OF SLABTHICKNESS. IF SAWCUT IS REQUIRED TOMEET THIS DEPTH, IT MUST BE COMPLETEDWITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER HAND TOOLING.8.3%3:1 SLOPE TO CATCH EXISTING GRADE3:1
SLOPE
TO
CATCH
EX
IST
ING
GRADEVARIESEXISTING3:1 SLOPE TO CATCH EXISTING GRADE3:1
SLOPE
TO
CATCH
EX
IST
ING
GRADEVARIESEXISTING1.0%8.3%3'0.75"8"8" (Min)Scarified and RecompactedSub-baseCITY OF ASPENA. T-TOP & TRENCH DETAILB. INLET BOX DETAILC. SIDEWALK DRIVEWAY CROSSING DETAILD. TRUNCATED DOMES DETAILK. ADA RAMP DETAILF. CURB & GUTTER DETAILG. DANDY SACK DETAILE. STRAW WATTLE DETAILH. MANHOLE DETAILI. SIDEWALK DETAILM. RUBBERWAY PERVIOUS SIDEWALK DETAILO. INLET OPENING DETAILL. ROADWAY VALLEY PAN DETAILJ. TYPICAL CURB AND GUTTER INSTALLATION DETAILN. FULL DEPTH ASPHALT DETAILQ. SPLICE VAULT DETAILP. DRIVEWAY VALLEY PAN DETAILP42VI.c
P43
VI.c
P44
VI.c
P45
VI.c
P46
VI.c
P47
VI.c
P48
VI.c
P49VI.c
P50VI.c
P51
VI.c
P52
VI.c
P53
VI.c
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Pete Strecker, Finance Director
MEETING DATE: December 10, 2018
RE: Resolution #145, Series of 2018 - 2019 Mill Levies
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: This memo outlines information for City Council to
consider when adopting the general purpose and Stormwater property tax mill levies for
2019. Adoption of the proposed 2019 mill levy resolution is required to be submitted to
Pitkin County no later than December 15, 2018.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council adopted the 2019 budget on November
12, 2018 which included revenue assumptions regarding property tax revenue for the
General Fund, Asset Management Plan Fund and Stormwater Fund. These estimates
were based on preliminary figures on assessed valuations from the County Assessor
published in August 2018.
BACKGROUND: The General Fund and Asset Management Plan mill levy is, by law,
subject to the TABOR restrictions. TABOR provides that the amount of revenue from
property taxes cannot grow by more than the amount attributable to inflation plus new
construction – this formula is intended to mitigate excessive fluctuation in total property
tax revenue that could otherwise result from assessed valuations rising or falling. As
assessed valuations rose in prior years, the City reduced its tax yield to the TABOR limits
by implementing a temporary mill levy credit.
In years past, the Council also applied the TABOR restriction to the separate Stormwater
mill levy. Beginning with the 2018 collection year, Council directed staff to assess the
full 0.650 mills going forward, to provide the maximum revenue from this tax source as
authorized by voters.
DISCUSSION: For 2019, the general purpose mill levy is calculated at 4.635 mills, or
0.775 mills below the maximum 5.410 mills. For the stormwater mill levy, based on
voter approval given at the inception of this taxing authority, the maximum levy of 0.650
mills will be enforced for 2019. The expected collections from the above mill levies
equate to roughly $8.6 million and are closely mirrored by the values assumed in the
2019 Budget that was adopted on November 12, 2018.
P54
VI.d
2019 Max Mills 2019 Mill Credit 2019 Mill Levy
General Property Tax 5.410 0.775 4.635
Stormwater Fund 0.650 0.000 0.650
Total 6.060 0.775 5.285
2018 AV Mill Levy Rate 2019 Taxes
General Fund $1,622,568,720 2.549 $4,135,928
Asset Management Fund $1,622,568,720 2.086 $3,384,678
Total General Mill Levy 4.635 $7,520,606
Total Stormwater Mill Levy $1,622,568,720 0.650 $1,054,670
Refund/Abatements $1,622,568,720 0.013 $21,093
Total 2019 Property Tax 5.298 $8,596,369
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff proposes that the 2019 mill levies be adopted.
ALTERNATIVES: The proposed mill levies may be amended downward as City
Council deems necessary.
PROPOSED MOTION: Move adoption of the resolution attached which approves the
2019 mill levies as proposed.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
P55
VI.d
RESOLUTON NO. 145
(SERIES OF 2018)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO SETTING THE 2018 MUNICIPAL MILL LEVY RATES AND
CERTIFYING SAME TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR
PITKIN COUNTY.
WHEREAS, the City Manager, designated by Charter to prepare the budget, has
prepared and submitted to the Mayor and City Council the Annual Budget for the City of
Aspen, Colorado for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2019 and ending December 31,
2019; and
WHEREAS, the net assessed valuation of the taxable property for the year 2018
in the City of Aspen returned by the County Assessor of Pitkin County was certified on
November 29, 2018, is the sum of $1,622,568,720; and
WHEREAS, the net assessed valuation of taxable property in Aspen increased
approximately 0.2% between 2017 and 2018 assessment years; and
WHEREAS, under section 9.9 of its Home Rule Charter, the City of Aspen shall
constitute a levy of the property taxes incorporated into its adopted budget; and
WHEREAS, a general purpose mill levy has been established at an amount not to
exceed 5.410 mills, and is calculated to produce gross ad valorem tax proceeds in the
amount of $8,778,097 for collection year 2019; based upon the assessed valuation as
determined by the County Assessor, and
WHEREAS, a temporary reduction in general property tax collections is desired
by the City Council in order to reduce the tax burden on owners of taxable property
within the City of Aspen while preserving the City’s ability to increase property taxes to
levels previously authorized by City of Aspen voters as described above, and
WHEREAS, C.R.S. section 39-1-111.5 authorizes a local government to certify a
refund in the form of a temporary property tax credit or a temporary mill levy rate
reduction, provided that the certification includes the gross mill levy, the temporary
property tax credit or temporary mill levy rate reduction expressed in mill levy
equivalents, and the net mill levy and under C.R.S. section 39-1-111.5(4), the Assessor
shall, concurrent with delivery of tax warrants to the Treasurer, itemize duly certified
temporary property tax credits or temporary mill levy rate reductions in the manner set
forth in C.R.S. section 39-1-111.5(2), and under C.R.S. section 39-1-111.5(5) the tax
statements shall indicate by footnote which local government mill levies reflect a
temporary property tax credit or temporary mill levy rate reduction for the purpose of
effecting a refund; and
WHEREAS, voter approval on November 6, 2007 established the separate City’s
Stormwater Fund mill levy rate at an amount not to exceed 0.650 mils upon each dollar
of assessed valuation on all taxable property within the City annually with no date of
P56
VI.d
expiration, permitting collection of property tax revenues in excess of the mill levy
limitation provided in Article X, Section 20 or the Colorado Constitution for property tax
collection in all future years beginning in 2008; and
WHEREAS, said mill levy rate is calculated to produce gross ad valorem tax
proceeds in the amount of $1,054,670 for collection year 2019; based upon the net
assessed valuation of the City of Aspen as determined by the County Assessor;
SECTION 1
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, Colorado for the purpose of balancing the 2019 budget, and
providing a reasonable closing fund balance for said fiscal year, levies the following
taxes upon each dollar of the total valuation for assessment of all taxable property within
the City of Aspen for the year 2018; that a temporary mill levy rate reduction is
authorized; and that the individual mill levies are expressed in terms of the gross mill
levy, the temporary mill levy rate reduction shown in mill levy equivalents, and the net
mill levy as shown below, which includes a temporary credit of 0.775 mills for the
General Purpose mill levy:
2019 Max Mills
2019 Mill Credit
2019 Mill Levy
General Property Tax 5.410
0.775
4.635
Stormwater Fund 0.650
0.000
0.650
Total 6.060
0.775
5.285
2018 AV
Mill Levy
2019 Taxes
General Fund $1,622,568,720
2.549
$4,135,928
Asset Management Fund $1,622,568,720
2.086
$3,384,678
Total General Mill Levy
4.635
$7,520,606
Total Stormwater Mill Levy $1,622,568,720
0.650
$1,054,670
Refund/Abatements $1,622,568,720
0.013
$21,093
Total 2019 Property Tax
5.298
$8,596,369
P57
VI.d
SECTION 2
The City Clerk is hereby directed to certify and deliver this Resolution to the Board of
County Commissioners for Pitkin County on or before December 15, 2018.
ADOPTED THIS 10th day of December, 2018
__________________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk of the City of Aspen, Colorado,
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Resolution adopted
by the City Council at its meeting held on December 10, 2018, which Resolution was
adopted subsequent to public hearings on the City of Aspen’s 2019 Municipal Budget
and prior to the final day established by law for the certification of the tax levy to Pitkin
County, all was required by the Sections 9.8 and 9.9 of the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
_______________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P58
VI.d
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Barry Crook
Rumbaugh, Karen Harrington, and Brian Long
DATE OF MEMO: December 3
MEETING DATE: December 10
RE: Resolution #153, Series of 2018
SUMMARY:
City staff is requesting approval
between the City of Aspen and Lyft for the provision of the following services during the
project, scheduled for June 8, 2019
· Dockless, mobility (e-bikes and scooters)
· Micro transit
· Shared rides
· Marketing/outreach
· Data sharing
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
City Council’s Goal #4, which was set in 2017, is to
changed and dramatically alter the way we move ourselves into, out of and around Aspen by
experimenting with technologies and modes that are not reliant on more lanes and more parking
in town, but are reliant on making the new modes competitive with the personal, single
occupancy automobile. This extended experiment will look at possible futures of mobility
results will inform future solutions that improve the quality of life and community experience
To accomplish this goal, City of Aspen
implementation in the summer of 2019. City Council has heard from staff about
provided direction at numerous work sessions
contracts for SHIFT work including: project management, data collection, and marketing and
outreach. City Council has approved budget for
2017 Allocated Funding - $470,300
2018 Allocated Funding - $429,000
2019 Allocated Funding - $2.6 million
Page 1
MEMORANDUM
Mayor and City Council
Barry Crook, Ashley Perl, John Kruger, Mitch Osur, Lynn
Rumbaugh, Karen Harrington, and Brian Long
December 3, 2018
December 10, 2018
Resolution #153, Series of 2018 - SHIFT Partnership Contract
City staff is requesting approval of Resolution #153 of Series 2018, authorizing a contract
between the City of Aspen and Lyft for the provision of the following services during the
t, scheduled for June 8, 2019 – September 2, 2019:
bikes and scooters)
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
, which was set in 2017, is to leave the transportation landscape forever
changed and dramatically alter the way we move ourselves into, out of and around Aspen by
with technologies and modes that are not reliant on more lanes and more parking
in town, but are reliant on making the new modes competitive with the personal, single
This extended experiment will look at possible futures of mobility
results will inform future solutions that improve the quality of life and community experience
this goal, City of Aspen staff have created the SHIFT project
summer of 2019. City Council has heard from staff about
provided direction at numerous work sessions since June 2017. City Council has also approved
work including: project management, data collection, and marketing and
City Council has approved budget for SHIFT in the following yearly amounts:
$470,300 (unspent funds remain)
$429,000
$2.6 million
, Ashley Perl, John Kruger, Mitch Osur, Lynn
Partnership Contract
2018, authorizing a contract
between the City of Aspen and Lyft for the provision of the following services during the SHIFT
eave the transportation landscape forever
changed and dramatically alter the way we move ourselves into, out of and around Aspen by
with technologies and modes that are not reliant on more lanes and more parking
in town, but are reliant on making the new modes competitive with the personal, single-
This extended experiment will look at possible futures of mobility and the
results will inform future solutions that improve the quality of life and community experience.
the SHIFT project plan for
summer of 2019. City Council has heard from staff about SHIFT and
. City Council has also approved
work including: project management, data collection, and marketing and
amounts:
P59
VI.e
Page 2
BACKGROUND:
SHIFT will run from June 8, 2019 until September 2, 2019, and is designed to provide
transportation options to commuters, community members and visitors to Aspen that are
innovative, easy to use and provide an experience superior to that of driving alone. Each element
of the SHIFT project design is intended to help community members overcome a transportation
barrier, and to test which services add value to the local transportation landscape.
Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley have a long history of leading the way with innovative
transportation measures. These accomplishments and the services that are offered to the
community are renowned across the country, particularly for a community as small as Aspen.
Despite these leading actions, the community continues to be greatly impacted by traffic
congestion and the absence of mobility services that are adequate to serve the unique needs of
locals, commuters and visitors. Data and evidence from the community shows that the current
mobility options are not convenient, inexpensive, or attractive enough for community members
to leave their personal automobile and choose another way.
SHIFT will provide a demonstration ground for some of the concepts that were put forward
during the discussions of the Community Forum on Transportation. According to the Upper
Valley Mobility Report, the integrated transportation system that Aspen needs have five parts,
and SHIFT intends to implement three for a short-term test. These three elements include:
- Ride Sharing
- BRT Enhancement
- Ride Hailing
The SHIFT project will be deemed a success if new and enhanced transportation options are
provided for the community and data is collected on the use and impacts of those options. The
intention of SHIFT is to understand what types of transportation services are desired by our
community and what services warrant further investment and support as part of Aspen’s
permanent transportation landscape.
The SHIFT project plan includes the following key elements:
· Increased RFTA bus service. Through the City of Aspen’s existing contract with RFTA
there will be more direct buses from the Intercept Lot into and out of Aspen during peak
commute hours.
· Ride Hailing and Ride Sharing. These specialty services will be provided by Lyft,
using local drivers and vehicles.
· Dockless Electric Bikes and Scooters. Bikes and scooters will be provided by Lyft.
· Improved experience at the Intercept Lot. The City of Aspen intends to offer food,
drinks, and improved restrooms, parking and waiting areas for the duration of SHIFT.
· Cargo Bike Fleet. The City intends to offer a demonstration fleet of cargo bikes to make
bicycles a more functional transit choice by enabling pets, kids, groceries and tools to be
carried by bike. This service will be provided by a cargo bike manufacturer.
P60
VI.e
Page 3
· Increased bike parking. The City of Aspen will install more bike racks in the core of
Aspen and will designate areas, with striping, for dockless bikes and scooters to park.
· Rewards for changing behavior. The Miles app will be available for use during SHIFT.
Users accrue miles for their transportation choices and can redeem those miles for
discounts and rewards at local and national businesses.
· Outreach to the community. The City of Aspen will contract with an outreach and
marketing team to ensure that commuters and community members are aware of SHIFT’s
offerings and are encouraged to participate.
· Mobile app. The Lyft app will be available during SHIFT. Through this app, users can
identify, reserve and pay for e-bikes, scooters, microtransit, and shared rides.
· Visitor engagement. Most visitors from outside the Roaring Fork Valley will already
have the Lyft mobile app. Through this existing technology, the City of Aspen will be
able to reach visitors and engage them in the SHIFT project.
· Data collection. Through contracts with HDR and Xaqt, the community will be able to
understand what types of services were used during SHIFT and what impacts those
services had on the community. This data will inform future investment decisions.
The City of Aspen has been planning SHIFT for over a year and a half, and initial project plans
were based on the learnings from other cities and the recommendations of mobility experts. The
final SHIFT plan is a product of these early ideas mixed with extensive community feedback and
local knowledge. During the summer of 2018, the City of Aspen heard from close to 600
community members regarding their ideas for improving Aspen’s transportation options.
Additional outreach was conducted with local bike shop owners and the owners and managers of
local shuttle and taxi companies. The reports from this outreach are available on the SHIFT
website ShiftAspen.com and the comments and ideas collected have influenced the final project
plan.
DISCUSSION:
The attached contract and scope of work with Lyft details the public private partnership that will
be the foundation of SHIFT. Through this partnership, Aspen will be able to offer numerous new
transportation services, available through the Lyft mobile app, and will enter into a relationship
with Lyft to deliver the majority of the SHIFT project in 2019. Additional contracts with other
providers are mentioned above.
The contract with Lyft requires the City of Aspen to pay for Microtransit services up front and
pay for Shared Rides monthly. All other services are provided to the City of Aspen at no cost to
the City. These in-kind services including the mobile app and outreach, add significant value to
the overall project. In addition to receiving a mobile app and outreach in-kind, the Lyft
partnership is unique in that it allows visitors and tourists to engage in SHIFT, which was
previously not thought possible.
The attached contract with Lyft includes several elements. Each element has been drafted by
staff, vetted through internal City of Aspen departments and reviewed in detail with Lyft. A
P61
VI.e
Page 4
summary of each element appears below. Full details for each contract element can be found in
Attachment A.
Dockless Mobility
Dockless electric bikes and scooters are being used worldwide to solve the first and last mile
challenges of many commuters. However, dockless and electric technology has been known to
cause management challenges for other cities. For this reason, SHIFT is the ideal time to
introduce dockless mobility to Aspen, under a closely regulated contract, to allow the community
to experience the pros and cons of this new technology first hand.
Lyft will provide the City of Aspen with the opportunity to test dockless mobility as part of the
SHIFT effort. This will include electric bicycles and electric scooters. The scope was developed
with input from key internal departments as well discussions with local bike shops. Upon
deployment, the dockless element of the Lyft contract will be managed by a staff team
represented by Transportation, Parks, Parking and Engineering departments. Highlights of this
element include:
· The bikes and scooters are free to the City and charge a per minute fee to the user
· The bikes and scooters will only be allowed to park and operate in a designated
geographic area (aka: geo-fenced), with the final service area to be determined in
partnership with Lyft by March 1, 2019.
· The pricing will be set to encourage traditional bike rentals from local stores for trips
longer than 30 minutes, with final pricing to be determined in partnership with Lyft by
March 1, 2019.
· Placement and parking of dockless devices will be limited per the scope of work and a
final plan to be developed in partnership with Lyft no later than March 1, 2019.
· In addition to this scope of work and contract, dockless mobility will be closely regulated
by a City of Aspen ordinance that will be brought to City Council in early 2019.
Micro Transit
Micro transit refers to the mini-buses that will be available to take people from the Intercept Lot
direct to their final destination and will carry dogs. This service was designed with direct input
from community members who said the direct, trunk route BRT service did not get them to their
final destination or did not allow space for dogs, gear or tools. For those with dogs or gear,
driving a personal vehicle is currently the only option, and many have said they look forward to
having another option. Others have said they would appreciate a direct option instead of being
required to transfer buses or modes.
Lyft will provide micro transit services between the Intercept Lot and points near and around
Aspen based on user needs. Upon deployment, the micro transit element of the Lyft contract will
be managed by the Transportation Department.
Highlights of this element include:
· Lyft will deploy a minimum of 8 vehicles to provide the service.
· The service will operate during peak weekday morning and afternoon commuter hours
only.
P62
VI.e
Page 5
· The model is fare free to the user.
· The service will allow dogs.
· The service will be provided by transit vehicles using the dedicated bus lanes.
· The final service area and deployment model will be determined in partnership with Lyft
no later than March 1, 2019.
· Lyft will contract with local companies to provide the drivers and vehicles.
Shared rides
The Upper Valley Mobility Report identifies that one of the greatest opportunities in reducing
single occupancy vehicles is in the area of shared rides, or carpooling. The report also suggests
Ride Hailing as one of the five parts of the Integrated Mobility System. Lyft’s Shared Rides will
combine these two concepts. Users will be able to book a ride using the mobile app, and the app
will create routes to accommodate multiple parties in one vehicle. The app will not always be
successful in creating a pooled route and will not do so at the expense of adding significant wait
times. This service will allow Aspen to understand if the rural nature of this community lends
itself to more carpooling as a growing transportation option.
Lyft will provide its shared ride services to the City of Aspen. Upon deployment, the shared ride
element of the Lyft contract will be managed by the Transportation Department.
Highlights of this service include:
· The user will pay a fee, subsidized by the City, based on Lyft’s existing fare platform
· The City will subsidize a portion of each shared ride
· The final service area, pricing structure and operating hours will be determined in
partnership with Lyft no later than March 1, 2019.
Marketing/Outreach
Lyft will provide the City with its marketing and outreach expertise via a variety of channels
during the SHIFT effort. Lyft will coordinate with internal staff in the Climate Action Office,
Transportation and other departments to maximize marketing and outreach efforts. Lyft will
align outreach efforts with the overall SHIFT marketing plan, designed and implemented by a
hired team that is managed by the City.
Data
As part of this contract, Lyft will be required to provide the City with important data points. This
element of the contract will be managed by the Quality Office.
Highlights of this service include:
· Anonymous ride information, such as pick up and drop off zones by time window, and
trip dates, durations and distance
· Customer satisfaction data
· Passenger loads
· Level of service (service standards) data
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
P63
VI.e
Page 6
The City of Aspen has the unique ability to work with a national mobility leader and craft the
details of the SHIFT project in partnership with Lyft. Currently, not all details are final,
including the exact pricing breakdown. The contract is set at a not to exceed amount of
$800,000, while the City’s exact service costs continue to be finalized. The City of Aspen is
committed to paying Lyft for the Shared Rides and Microtransit services. The City of Aspen will
pay upfront for Microtransit services. This number is currently listed as ‘not to exceed’
$375,000. Lyft will contract with a local company to provide these vehicles and drivers, at which
point, the final price to the City will be known. The City of Aspen will also pay to subsidize
Shared Rides and will be billed monthly for actual rides used. The pricing structure is not yet set,
nor has the City of Aspen committed to a final subsidy amount. These price details will need to
be discussed further in the coming months. No other aspects of the partnership have an
associated cost, as shown in Attachment C. This not to exceed amount is included in the SHIFT
2019 budget.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
SHIFT positively impacts numerous measures from City Council’s Sustainability Dashboard
including: Air Quality (PM levels, ozone levels); Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Castle Creek
Bridge Counts; Acres of Trails; Mass Transit Use; Walkability and Bike-ability Rating; Health
and Well Being; and Community Connections.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve the contract with Lyft via Resolution #153 to deliver SHIFT on time and within budget
in 2019.
ALTERNATIVES:
City Council can choose not to partner with Lyft for the SHIFT project. Without Lyft as a
partner, it is unlikely that staff will be able to deliver the SHIFT project in 2019.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Attachments:
Attachment A – Contract and Scope of Work
Attachment B – Resolution #153
Attachment C – Fee Schedule
P64
VI.e
RESOLUTION #153
(Series of 2018)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO AND LYFT, INC., SETTING FORTH THE TERMS
AND CONDITIONS OF THE SHIFT SERVICE PROVIDER AGREEMENT.
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen is committed to maintaining a high quality of life
for residents and providing a superior visitor experience, and
WHEREAS, quality of life and experience is greatly influenced by the way
community members and visitors move into, out of, and around Aspen, and
WHEREAS, single occupancy vehicles lead to traffic, air quality and safety
concerns, and an overall reduced quality of life, and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen aims to experiment with new mobility services
with the hope that new mobility options can compete with the personal automobile
and provide better options for community members to move, and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen supports residents and visitors in choosing low
carbon transportation options, and
WHEREAS the City of Aspen seeks to test new modes of transportation during a
lab in the summer of 2019, and
WHEREAS a service provider is needed to provide new transportation and
mobility services during the SHIFT project, and
WHEREAS Lyft offers transportation and mobility services to the community
along with a mobile app to streamline the customer experience, and
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 the Contract
between the City of Aspen, Colorado and Lyft, Inc. that sets forth the terms and
conditions of the partnership and services agreement, a copy of which is
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.
P65
VI.e
Dated: December 10, 2018
______________________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Linda Manning, 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 December 10, 2018.
______________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P66
VI.e
GENERAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
This General Services Agreement (“Agreement”) dated as of December 10, 2018
(“Effective Date”) by and between Lyft, Inc., a Delaware corporation, located at 185 Berry Street,
Suite 5000, San Francisco, CA 94107 (“Lyft”) and City of Aspen , located at 130 S Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611, (“City”).
In consideration of the mutual promises contained herein and the mutual benefits to be
derived therefrom, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties
agree as follows:
1.Background.Lyft operates a ridesharing platform (“Lyft Platform”)and mobile
application (the “Lyft App”)which allows users the opportunity to request a ride from one location
to another (each,a “Ride”).The transportation services (“Driving Services”)are provided by
authorized drivers using their own vehicles (“Drivers”).Lyft provides enterprise transportation
solutions through its Concierge Service,and Lyft Codes programs (collectively,“Programs”)to
cities to administer,track and manage its transportation spend for its authorized users (each,a
“User”).City desires to participate in the Programs,and Lyft and City agree to launch the
Programs in accordance with the terms of this Agreement and as specified in Exhibit A.
2. Activities. The parties agree to perform the business activities as set forth in the Scopes of
Work attached hereto and incorporated herein, during the term from Effective Date through
September 2, 2019 (the “Term”). Except as expressly agreed to in Section 3 (and Exhibit A) of this
Agreement, each party shall be responsible for its expenses and costs during its performance
under this Agreement.
3. Fees and Payment.
3.1 Fees. Fees to be paid by one party to the other party in connection with this Agreement, if
any, shall be as set forth on Exhibit A (“Fees”). Fees due are payable in accordance with the
payment schedule set forth in Exhibit A.
4. Proprietary Rights.
1
P67
VI.e
4.1 License to Use Lyft Marks.Lyft hereby grants to City a revocable,time-limited,
royalty-free,non-exclusive,non-transferable,non-sublicensable right and license to use all
names,marks and logos associated with Lyft (collectively,“Lyft Marks”)during the Term,solely in
furtherance of City’s obligations in this Agreement.City’s use of any of the Lyft Marks shall be
subject to Lyft’s prior written approval in each instance.Lyft warrants and represents that it has
(or has obtained from all appropriate rights holders)all necessary rights and authority to grant the
license granted by it hereunder.City hereby covenants and agrees that the Lyft Marks shall
remain the sole and exclusive property of Lyft and that City shall not hold itself out as having any
ownership rights with respect thereto.Any and all goodwill associated with the Lyft Marks shall
inure directly to the benefit of Lyft.City’s use of Lyft Marks must conform to Lyft’s usage
guidelines and instructions as Lyft may provide or update from time to time (and in no event shall
the color,style,appearance,or relative dimensions of the Lyft Marks be altered or changed in
any way).
4.2 License to Use City Marks. City hereby grants to Lyft a revocable, time-limited,
royalty-free, non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensable right and license to use all
names, marks and logos associated with City (collectively, “City Marks”) during the Term, solely in
furtherance of Lyft’s obligations in this Agreement. Lyft’s use of any of the City Marks shall be
subject to City’s prior written approval in each instance. City warrants and represents that it has
(or has obtained from all appropriate rights holders) all necessary rights and authority to grant the
license granted by it hereunder. Lyft hereby covenants and agrees that the City Marks shall
remain the sole and exclusive property of City and that Lyft shall not hold itself out as having any
ownership rights with respect thereto. Any and all goodwill associated with the City Marks shall
inure directly to the benefit of City. Lyft’s use of City Marks must conform to City’s usage
guidelines and instructions as City may provide or update from time to time (and in no event shall
the color, style, appearance, or relative dimensions of the City Marks be altered or changed in
any way).
5. Confidential Information.
5.1 Either party (the “Disclosing Party”) may disclose or make available to the other party (the
“Receiving Party”), whether orally or in physical form, confidential or proprietary information
2
P68
VI.e
concerning the Disclosing Party and/or its business, products, services, marketing, promotional or
technical information in connection with this Agreement, which shall include the terms and
conditions of this Agreement (collectively, the “Confidential Information”). For purposes hereof,
Confidential Information will not include information: (a) which was previously known to Receiving
Party without an obligation of confidentiality; (b) which was acquired by Receiving Party from a
third party which was not, to the Receiving Party's knowledge, under an obligation to not disclose
such information; (c) which is or becomes publicly available through no fault of Receiving Party;
(d) which Disclosing Party gave written permission to Receiving Party to disclose, but only with
respect to such permitted disclosure; or (e) independently developed without use of the other
party’s Confidential Information.
5.2 Requirements. Except as otherwise required by applicable law, each Receiving Party
agrees that (a) it will use the Confidential Information of the Disclosing Party solely for the
purpose of this Agreement and (b) it will not disclose the Confidential Information of the
Disclosing Party to any third party other than the Receiving Party's employees or agents on a
need-to-know basis who are bound by obligations of nondisclosure and limited use at least as
strict as those contained herein. The Receiving Party will protect the Confidential Information of
the Disclosing Party in the same manner that it protects the confidentiality of its own proprietary
and confidential information and materials of like kind, but in no event less than a reasonable
standard of care. The Receiving Party is responsible for any breach of the confidentiality
provisions of this Agreement by its employees or agents. In the event the Receiving Party
receives a subpoena or other validly issued administrative or judicial process demanding the
Confidential Information or is otherwise required by law to disclose Confidential Information, the
Receiving Party will give the Disclosing Party prompt written notice of such request prior to
disclosure and shall make diligent efforts to limit disclosure pursuant to any available bases
under applicable law. If the Receiving Party determines that it must disclose such information,
then the Receiving Party will provide Disclosing Party a minimum of ten (10) business days prior to
the proposed disclosure, so that the Disclosing Party may assert any defenses to disclosure that
may be available. If Receiving Party is required to release Disclosing Party’s Confidential
Information, it nevertheless shall use any available authorities to redact personal or business
confidential information from such records to the extent consistent with applicable law and the
final judgment. Upon request by the Disclosing Party, the Receiving Party will return all copies of
any Confidential Information to the Disclosing Party, if permitted by law or if returning such copies
3
P69
VI.e
is not commercially infeasible for Receiving Party. Confidential Information disclosed by the
Disclosing Party to the Receiving Party will at all times remain the property of the Disclosing Party.
No license under any trade secrets, copyrights, or other rights is granted under this Agreement or
by any disclosure of Confidential Information under this Agreement.
6. No Publicity. Except as may be expressly set forth in Exhibit A, neither party may issue a
press release, post information on-line (including web sites, social media channels or blogs) or
otherwise refer to the other party in any manner with respect to this Agreement, the Activities or
otherwise, without the prior written consent of such other party.
7. Representations and Warranties; Disclaimer.
7.1 Each party hereby represents and warrants that: (a) it has full power and authority to enter
into this Agreement and perform its obligations hereunder; (b) it is duly organized, validly existing
and in good standing under the laws of the jurisdiction of its origin; (c) it has not entered into, and
during the Term will not enter into, any agreement that would prevent it from complying with this
Agreement; (d) it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations in its performance of this
Agreement; (e) the content, media and other materials used or provided as part of the Activities
shall not infringe or otherwise violate the intellectual property rights, rights of publicity or other
proprietary rights of any third party. Additionally, both Parties acknowledge and agree that Lyft is
not performing transportation services for the general public under this Agreement, and therefore
this Agreement shall not be subject to 49 C.F.R. §37.23.
7.2 EXCEPT AS SET FORTH HEREIN, EACH PARTY MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS, AND
HEREBY EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, REGARDING ITS
SERVICES OR PRODUCTS OR ANY PORTION THEREOF, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY
OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND IMPLIED WARRANTIES
ARISING FROM COURSE OF DEALING OR COURSE OF PERFORMANCE. SPECIFICALLY, LYFT
MAKES NO WARRANTIES CONCERNING THE LYFT APP, LYFT PLATFORM, LYFT CREDITS,
CODES, OR OTHERWISE (“LYFT MATERIALS”). LYFT PROVIDES THE LYFT MATERIALS “AS IS”
AND WITHOUT WARRANTY. LYFT DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE LYFT MATERIALS WILL
MEET CITY’S REQUIREMENTS OR THAT THE OPERATION OF THE LYFT MATERIALS WILL BE
UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR FREE. TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, LYFT
4
P70
VI.e
SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES IN RESPECT TO THE LYFT MATERIALS, WHETHER
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ORAL OR WRITTEN, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ALL IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY
PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND ALL WARRANTIES ARISING FROM ANY COURSE OF DEALING,
COURSE OF PERFORMANCE OR USAGE OF TRADE. IN THE EVENT THAT A CODE OR LYFT
CREDIT IS NONFUNCTIONAL, City’S SOLE REMEDY, AND LYFT’S SOLE LIABILITY, SHALL BE
THE REPLACEMENT OF SUCH CODE OR LYFT CREDIT.
8. Ownership and Feedback. Lyft and its affiliates are and shall remain the owners of all
right, title and interest in and to the Lyft Materials, including any updates, enhancements and new
versions thereof, and all related documentation and materials provided or available to City or any
User in connection with this Agreement. City acknowledges and agree that any questions,
comments, suggestions, ideas, feedback or other information about the Programs (“Feedback”)
provided by City to Lyft are non-confidential and shall become the sole property of Lyft. Lyft shall
own exclusive rights, including all intellectual property rights, and shall be entitled to the
unrestricted use and dissemination of this Feedback for any purpose, commercial or otherwise,
without acknowledgment or compensation to City or any User
9. Indemnification.
9.1 Indemnification by City.To the extent provided by law,City agrees to defend,indemnify
and hold harmless Lyft and its directors,officers,employees,subcontractors and agents from and
against third party all claims,suits,causes of action,damages,costs (including reasonable and
documented attorneys'fees),judgments and other expenses arising out of or related to (i)City’s
breach of this Agreement;(ii)City’s violation of the representations and warranties in Section 7;
(iii)any allegation that Lyft’s use of City’s Marks or intellectual property as permitted herein
infringes or misappropriates the intellectual property rights of a third party,including without
limitation patent,copyright,trademark or other proprietary or intellectual property rights of such
third party;and (iv)City’s violation of applicable law including but not limited to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (as amended).
9.2 Indemnification by Lyft.Lyft agrees to defend,indemnify and hold harmless City and its
directors,officers,employees,subcontractors and agents from and against all third party claims,
5
P71
VI.e
suits,causes of action,damages,costs (including reasonable and documented attorneys'fees),
judgments and other expenses arising out of or related to (i)Lyft’s breach of this Agreement;(ii)
Lyft’s violation of the representations and warranties in Section 7;(iii)any allegation that City’s
use of Lyft’s Marks or intellectual property as permitted herein infringes or misappropriates the
intellectual property rights of a third party,including without limitation patent,copyright,
trademark or other proprietary or intellectual property rights of such third party;and (iv)Lyft’s
violation of applicable law.
9.3 Indemnification Procedure. A party's obligation to indemnify the other under this Section
is subject to the indemnified party notifying the indemnifying party promptly in writing of any
claim as to which indemnification will be sought and providing the indemnifying party reasonable
cooperation in the defense and settlement thereof. In each case the indemnifying party will have
the exclusive right to defend any such claim, and the indemnifying party may not settle or
compromise such claim without the prior written consent of the indemnified party. An
indemnified party may, at its sole cost and expense, participate in the defense of a claim with
counsel of its own choosing.
10. LIMITS OF LIABILITY. TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, EXCEPT FOR
EITHER PARTY’S BREACH OF CONFIDENTIALITY, IN NO EVENT SHALL EITHER PARTY BE
LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM FOR ANY INDIRECT, WILLFUL, PUNITIVE, INCIDENTAL, EXEMPLARY,
SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, FOR LOSS OF GOODWILL, FOR LOSS OF BUSINESS
PROFITS, OR DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF BUSINESS, OR LOSS OR INACCURACY OF DATA OF
ANY KIND, OR OTHER INDIRECT ECONOMIC DAMAGES, WHETHER BASED ON CONTRACT,
NEGLIGENCE, TORT (INCLUDING STRICT LIABILITY) OR ANY OTHER LEGAL THEORY, EVEN IF
SUCH PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OR HAD REASON TO KNOW OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGES IN ADVANCE. THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF ANY AND ALL LIABILITY OF ONE
PARTY TO THE OTHER FOR ANY CLAIM(S) ARISING FROM OR RELATING TO THE AGREEMENT,
SHALL BE LIMITED TO DIRECT PROVABLE DAMAGES AND SHALL NOT EXCEED, IN ANY
EVENT, ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($100,000). THIS LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
SHALL NOT APPLY TO OUTSTANDING AMOUNTS OWED BY CITY FOR CHARGES INCURRED
BY USERS, NOR SHALL IT LIMIT THE SCOPE OF LYFT’S COMMERCIAL AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY
POLICY.
6
P72
VI.e
11. Insurance.During the term of this Agreement,Lyft shall maintain in force during the term,
at Lyft’s own expense, at least the following insurance coverages:
a. Workers'Compensation Insurance in accordance with state statutory laws,including
Employers' Liability with minimum limits of $1,000,000 each Accident.
b. Commercial General Liability Insurance including,but not limited to,product and
completed operations,personal and advertising injury and contractual liability coverage with
minimum limits of $1,000,000 Each Occurrence; $2,000,000 General Aggregate.
c. Commercial Auto Liability Insurance including a minimum combined single limit of
$1,000,000 each accident and Uninsured/Underinsured motorist coverage with a minimum
combined single limit of $1,000,000.
All policies maintained shall be written as primary policies,not contributing with and not
supplemental to coverage City may carry and will contain a waiver of subrogation against City
and its insurance carrier(s)with respect to all obligations assumed by Lyft under this agreement.
The fact that Lyft has obtained the insurance required hereunder shall in no manner lessen or
otherwise affect such Lyft’s other obligations or liabilities set forth in this Agreement.
12. Termination.
12.1 Termination Events. This Agreement may be terminated by either party, by written notice
to the other party, in the event of a material breach by the other party of any material term or
condition of the Agreement that remains uncured for thirty (30) days after receipt of written notice
thereof from the non-breaching party. Termination by either party for breach shall be in addition
to any other remedies the non-breaching party may have for such breach. Either party may
terminate the Agreement immediately by written notice to the other party upon: (i) the other
party becoming insolvent; (ii) the other party’s initiation of any proceeding under Federal
bankruptcy or state insolvency law regarding its own bankruptcy, reorganization, or insolvency;
(iii) the initiation of any proceeding under Federal bankruptcy or state insolvency laws against the
other party that is not dismissed within sixty (60) days; (iv) the appointment of a receiver or a
similar officer for the other party or for a substantial part of the other party’s property; or (v) the
other party making an assignment for the benefit of creditors or otherwise being reorganized for
the benefit of creditors.
12.2 Survival. Any outstanding payment obligations and Sections 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 (for the
period specified), 12.2 and 13 shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.
7
P73
VI.e
13. General.
13.1 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado without regard to its conflict of laws provisions.
13.2 Notice. Any and all notices permitted or required to be given hereunder shall be
sent to the address first set forth above, or such other address as may be provided, and deemed
duly given: (a) upon actual delivery, if delivery is by hand; or (b) by electronic mail. Additionally,
the parties may agree in Exhibit A for the provision of certain notices by email to the recipients
indicated in Exhibit A. In the event a party gives notice by electronic mail, such notice must be
followed with a written copy of the notice to the receiving party’s legal department.
13.3 Waiver, Modification. The failure of either party to enforce, at any time or for any period of
time, the provisions hereof, or the failure of either party to exercise any option herein, shall not be
construed as a waiver of such provision or option and shall in no way affect that party’s right to
enforce such provisions or exercise such option. Any modification or amendment to this
Agreement shall be effective only if in writing and signed by both parties.
13.4 Severability. In the event any provision of this Agreement is determined to be invalid or
unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Agreement (and each of
the remaining terms and conditions contained herein) shall remain in full force and effect.
13.5 Force Majeure. Any delay in or failure by either party in performance of this Agreement
shall be excused if and to the extent such delay or failure is caused by occurrences beyond the
control of the affected party including, but not limited to, decrees or restraints of Government,
acts of God, strikes, work stoppage or other labor disturbances, war or sabotage (each being a
“Force Majeure Event”). The affected party will promptly notify the other party upon becoming
aware that any Force Majeure Event has occurred or is likely to occur and will use its best efforts
to minimize any resulting delay in or interference with the performance of its obligations under
this Agreement.
13.6 No Assignment. This Agreement may not be assigned, in whole or in part, by a party
without the prior written consent of the other party, provided that each party may assign this
agreement to (a) an affiliate of such party; or (b) in connection with the sale of all or substantially
all of such party’s equity, business or assets. Subject to the foregoing, this Agreement shall be
binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of each party hereto and its respective successors
and assigns.
13.7 Relationship of Parties. The parties shall be independent contractors in their performance
under this Agreement, and nothing contained in this Agreement shall be deemed to constitute
either party as the employer, employee, agent or representative of the other party, or both
parties as joint venturers or Citys for any purpose.
8
P74
VI.e
13.8 Entire Agreement; Amendment. This Agreement and the exhibits attached hereto contain
the full and complete understanding and agreement between the parties relating to the subject
matter hereof and supersede all prior and contemporary understandings and agreements,
whether oral or written, relating such subject matter hereof. This Agreement may be executed in
one or more counterparts and by exchange of signed counterparts transmitted by facsimile, each
of which shall be deemed an original and all of which, when taken together, shall constitute one
and the same original instrument. The Agreement may only be amended or modified through a
writing signed by both Parties.
13.9 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. Lyft
agrees to meet all of the requirements of City of Aspen's municipal code, Section 15.04.570,
pertaining to non-discrimination in employment.
13.10 Illegal Aliens – CRS 8-17.5-101 & 24-76.5-101.
(a) Purpose.During the 2006 Colorado legislative session,the Legislature passed House
Bills 06-1343 (subsequently amended by HB 07-1073)and 06-1023 that added new statutes
relating to the employment of and contracting with illegal aliens.These new laws prohibit all state
agencies and political subdivisions,including the City,from knowingly hiring an illegal alien to
perform work under a contract,or to knowingly contract with a subcontractor who knowingly
hires with an illegal alien to perform work under the contract.The new laws also require that all
contracts for services include certain specific language as set forth in the statutes.The following
terms and conditions have been designed to comply with the requirements of this new law.
(b) Definitions.The following terms are defined in the new law and by this reference are
incorporated herein and in any contract for services entered into with the City.
“Public Contract for Services” means this Agreement.
“Services”means the furnishing of labor,time,or effort by a Contractor or a subcontractor not
involving the delivery of a specific end product other than reports that are merely incidental to
the required performance.
9
P75
VI.e
(c) By signing this document, Lyft certifies and represents that at this time:
(i) Lyft shall confirm the employment eligibility of all employees who are newly hired for
employment in the United States; and
(ii) Lyft will comply with all applicable laws in verifying that new employees are not illegal aliens.
13.11 Warranties Against Contingent Fees, Gratuities, Kickbacks and Conflicts of Interest.
(a) Lyft 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 Lyft for the purpose of securing business.
(b)Lyft agrees not to give any employee of the City of Aspen 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.
(c) Lyft represents that no official,officer,employee or representative of the City of Aspen
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.
(d) 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,provided City pays all
outstanding fees generated by City before such cancellation or termination;
10
P76
VI.e
2. Debar or suspend the offending parties from being a Lyft,contractor or subcontractor
under City contracts;
3. Recover,the value of anything transferred or received by the Lyft,solely in the event it is
determined that City has overpaid for any Services or Lyft Materials over one and one-half times
(1.5x) the amount actually do; and
4. Recover such value from the offending parties.
13.12 Electronic Signatures and Electronic Records This Agreement and any
amendments hereto may be executed in several counterparts,each of which shall be deemed
an original,and all of which together shall constitute one agreement binding on the Parties,
notwithstanding the possible event that all Parties may not have signed the same counterpart.
Furthermore,each Party consents to the use of electronic signatures by either Party.The Scope
of Work,and any other documents requiring a signature hereunder,may be signed
electronically in the manner agreed to by the Parties.The Parties agree not to deny the legal
effect or enforceability of the Agreement solely because it is in electronic form or because an
electronic record was used in its formation.The Parties agree not to object to the admissibility
of the Agreement in the form of an electronic record,or a paper copy of an electronic
documents,or a paper copy of a document bearing an electronic signature,on the grounds that
it is an electronic record or electronic signature or that it is not in its original form or is not an
original.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the Effective
Date.
LYFT, INC.
By: ___________________________
Printed Name: Bakari Brock
Title: Senior Director, City Partnerships
CITY
By: ___________________________
Printed Name: Steven Skadron
Title: Mayor
11
P77
VI.e
12
P78
VI.e
ATTACHMENT A
SCOPE OF WORK | DOCKLESS ELECTRIC DEVICE SHARING SERVICES
1. DEFINITIONS
The terms below shall have the following meanings assigned to them:
1.1) Dockless Mobility Device (or dockless device or device): A singular device used in the offering
of rented, shared transportation for the conveyance of people, goods or services that does not
require docking stations or apparatus to receive or return a unit. Excludes automobiles and
mopeds.
1.2) Fleet: The totality of dockless mobility devices deployed by Lyft within the City.
1.3) User/Customer: Lyft’s customer, who is making use of and is legally responsible for the
rental/proper use of a dockless mobility device.
1.4) Lyft: The entity providing dockless mobility devices as a service to the public.
1.5) Electric or Electric Assist: An electric motor affixed to a device that assists the efforts of the
user.
1.6) Service Area: The geographic area in which a dockless mobility device is allowed to be
operated and/or parked by a user and/or Lyft.
1.7) Span of Service: The dates and times during which Lyft is allowed and/or expected to make
its dockless mobility devices available to users/customers.
1.8) Restricted Area: Geographic areas in which a dockless mobility device is not allowed to be
operated and/or parked by a user and/or Lyft.
13
P79
VI.e
1.9) Geo-Fence: A virtual geographic boundary, defined by GPS or RFID technology that enables
software to trigger a response when a dockless mobility device enters or leaves a particular area.
1.10) User Penalty: A monetary fee or other sanction issued by Lyft to a user in an instance or
instances where a rule is broken by the User. Examples include travel outside of the service area,
inappropriate parking, damage to a dockless mobility device or a similar.
1.11) Lyft Staging and Deployment. The placement of the shared active transportation vehicles by
Lyft must be on parking surfaces: Concrete, asphalt, bricks, pavers, or other hard surfaces. A
parking surface does not include a parking space utilized by motor vehicles, unless it has been
designated as a parking corral.
1.12) Rebalancing: Redistributing dockless mobility devices in such a manner as to achieve an
intended distribution throughout the service area.
1.13) Level of Service (LOS): The minimum service requirements of the City, to be reported to the
City by Lyft per Attachment E.
2. SPAN OF SERVICE & SERVICE AREA
2.1) Lyft will provide shared dockless e-bike and e-scooter services within City right-of-way, at a
minimum between the hours of 6 am and 9 pm for the duration of the SHIFT effort. The
scheduled dates for this effort are June 8, 2019 through September 2, 2019. Hours can be
modified based on utilization.
2.2) The City and Lyft will, prior to March 1, 2019, determine a dockless mobility device service
area. Lyft will encourage e-bike and e-scooter ridership only within the geofenced service area,
and will discuss the implementation of speed caps and/or user penalties for use outside of the
service area.
2.3) Changes to the agreed upon service area will be implemented by Lyft within two business
days of agreement between Lyft and the City (to share a geoJson file of the requested new
service area).
14
P80
VI.e
2.4) Lyft shall, via its app, website and all educational materials, proactively educate users about
the service area and the penalties for non-compliance.
2.5) Lyft shall, via its app, provide its users alternatives for trips outside of the service area
including transit, microtransit and rideshare services.
2.6) The City reserves the right to immediately remove and/or relocate devices from any area
deemed a public safety hazard. Lyft will be responsible for costs associated with such activity, at
a fixed rate of $15 per occurrence. The City will share a description of the incident and a scooter
or bike ID number with Lyft for each occurrence.
3. SERVICE METRICS AND STANDARDS
Level of service expectations and reporting requirements are outlined below. It is expected that
Lyft will provide a detailed report on its successes and/or failures related to LOS at the end of the
project report as outlined in Attachment E.
ITEM DESCRIPTION LOS
System Availability % of devices available and charged 90% of the minimum
fleet size at the start of
daily service hours
Rebalancing Redistribution of devices based on
geographic coverage and customer
demand
Daily
Recharging Ensuring that all deployed devices are
sufficiently charged to ride
Daily
Relocation Removal/relocation of devices from
unsafe/unauthorized locations
4 hours
15
P81
VI.e
Removal - inoperable Removal of inoperable devices from
service
3 hours
Removal - unutilized Removal/relocation of idle devices For devices idle for 72
hours, moved within 24
hours
Removal – other Removal/relocation of devices per City
direction related to construction, special
events or other concerns
48 hours
Website / app Uptime of website and app 99%
Customer service Question/complaint response 4 hours, or before 12pm
the following day if
received after 8pm
Preventative
maintenance
Minimum maintenance per 6.2 Monthly
Parking/service area
violations
Reporting of out of compliance use
and/or parking
Monthly
Safety Accident/incident reports provided to
City
In the event that an
Operator is notified of
user injury, report on a
weekly basis
Change to service area Time elapsed between agreement
between Lyft and the City, and change
enacted by Lyft
Within two business
days
4. USE OF RIGHT OF WAY INCLUDING PARKING SPACES
16
P82
VI.e
4. 1.) The City and Lyft will, prior to March 1, 2019, jointly develop and publicize a dockless mobility
device deployment and staging plan.
4.2) At a minimum, Lyft shall not stage or deploy devices at, attached to, and/or blocking:
●the following transit zones: inside of bus shelters, on bus pull-offs/pads, in bus lanes, bus
loading or bus staging zones
●In any way that blocks access to WE-cycle device share kiosks
●Designated public parking spaces or loading zones
●ADA accommodations including but not limited to reserved parking, curb ramps, railings,
signal/crosswalk push buttons
●street features that require pedestrian access (i.e. crosswalk buttons, benches, parking
pay stations, bus shelters, transit information signs, etc.)
●parking infrastructure such as pay stations, sign posts, etc.
●fire exits, fire escapes or any other building exitways
●driveways or alleys
●fire hydrants
●utility infrastructure
●landscaped areas
●in or blocking access to crosswalks, driveways, alleys, device lanes, trails or paths
●in any manner that blocks access on foot or by wheelchair to the above
●in any manner that hides from view or interferes with the effectiveness of an official traffic-
control device or any railroad sign or signal
●any location deemed inappropriate by the City after initial deployment
4.3) Lyft will instruct users to park e-bikes and e-scooters according to the guidelines above.
4.4) Lyft shall notify the City within 15 calendar days of entering into an agreement with private
property owners for staging/parking of devices.
4.5) Devices will be staged in an upright position.
17
P83
VI.e
4.6) Devices may be staged in and/or locked to public device racks/corrals and/or public
parking spaces only as specified in the final parking and staging plan.
4.7) Lyft will actively track all devices, removing/relocating devices reportedly located in improper
or unsafe locations including streets, private property, areas blocking a clear sidewalk/trail path,
etc. per the LOS.
4.8) Upon direction from the City, Lyft will remove devices from City right of way within 48 hours
due to special events, construction, maintenance or similar.
4.9) Parking locations deemed inappropriate by the City regardless of specific mention in this
document, will require removal within 48-hours of written notice.
4.10) The City reserves the right to immediately remove and/or relocate devices from any area
deemed a public safety hazard. Lyft will be responsible for costs associated with such activity, at
a fixed rate of $15 per occurrence. The City will share a description of the incident and a scooter
or bike ID number with Lyft for each occurrence.
4.11) Lyft shall, via its app, website and all educational materials, proactively educate users about
appropriate parking of devices.
4.12) The City reserves the right to further restrict parking/staging areas as needed, and shall give
Operator 7 days notice prior to the imposition of additional parking/staging area restrictions.
5. FLEET
5.1) Lyft’s fleet of devices shall be defined as the permitted pool of devices made available for
users.
5.2) Initial deployment will consist of a minimum of 100 total devices (combination of bikes and
scooters) and a maximum of 200 total devices. Any device allocations over 200 devices will be
made in conjunction with the City.
18
P84
VI.e
5.3) Additional devices may be added to this fleet based on demand with advance written
permission from the City.
5.4) Each device will prominently feature the following information in the form of a decal or
similar:
●Lyft
●24/7 method of contacting Operator with questions or problems
●Unique identifier for each device
●Instruction to wear helmets
●Instruction to yield to pedestrians and obey all traffic laws
●Website to access safety information, including essential safe riding rules as determined
by the City
5.5) Minimum standards for dockless mobility devices can be found in Attachment A-1.
6. FLEET MAINTENANCE AND REBALANCING
6.1) Lyft shall maintain each deployed device in good working order. Lyft shall repair or
remove any device that is not in good working order. A device is in good working order if:
●the device and its components are present and function properly
· the device is charged if applicable
6.2) Preventative maintenance will be completed once per calendar month and shall include, at a
minimum (as applicable to each type of device):
●Check tire pressure, and add air as may be needed, to recommended Pounds per Square
Inch measurement
●Check tightness and alignment of handlebars, headset bearings, and full handlebar range
of motion (left to right)
●Check tightness of seat, seat post quick release, and see that seat post moves freely in
full range of motion (up and down)
19
P85
VI.e
●Check brake function (front and rear), and check grips for wear and brake levers for
tightness and damage
●Check bell for tightness and correct function
●Check handlebar covers for damage and instruction stickers
●Check front basket for tightness and damage, and check bungee cord for wear;
●Check for correct gears and shifter function
●Check fenders (front and rear) for damage, and clean outside of fenders
●Check tires (front and rear) for damage or wear
●Check wheels (front and rear) for trueness, broken or bent spokes and hub or axle
tightness
●Check lights (front and rear) for function
●Check reflectors on wheels, seat and basket, to see if they are present, clean and
undamaged
●Check pedals and cranks for tightness and damage/distortion
●Lubricate and clean chain and check chain tensioner for correct function
●Check kickstand for correct function
●Brief test ride to ensure overall correct function
●Clean device
6.3) Lyft shall ensure that devices are unavailable for check out should they be unsafe to
operate. A device is unsafe to operate if:
●one or more of the device’s components is missing or does not properly function,
possibly exposing the rider to risk of injury.
●One or more of the following components are missing or malfunctioning
§ wheel assembly, including wheels, tires, hubs, spokes, and axles;
§ lights and reflectors;
§ brakes;
§ pedals;
§ handlebars, including their alignment
7. FEES
20
P86
VI.e
7.1) The City and Lyft will, by March 1, 2019, develop a user fee schedule in such a manner as to
meet both City and Lyft’s goals.
7.2) Collection of all user fees is the full responsibility of Lyft.
7.3) Lyft will work with the City to develop a solution prior to June 1, 2019 to discourage the use of
Lyft e-bikes and e-scooters for longer trips or recreational trips. This could be achieved through a
fee increase for rides over 30 minutes, a speed cap on devices operated outside of the service
area, or another solution.
7.4) The City permits that Lyft to institute user penalties for users parking outside of the approved
service area and/or parking devices inappropriately.
7.5) Lyft shall employ an electronic payment system that is compliant with the Payment Card
Industry Data Security Standards.
7.6) Lyft shall not require users to grant location services or share other private data including but
not limited to contacts, or files as a requirement of using the services. Lyft may require users to
grant access to camera for parking verification purposes.
7.7) Lyft may provide a low-income discount program for all eligible Aspen-area residents ages 18
and older who are currently enrolled or eligible for a state or federal assistance program, such as
SNAP or a discounted utility bill. Lyft shall provide information about any low-income membership
options on its website.
8. CUSTOMER SERVICE
8.1) Lyft will provide an app-based customer interface for the totality of transactions including but
not limited to program information, real time device locations, device check out and return,
secure payment processing and reporting of problems.
21
P87
VI.e
8.2) The app will clearly indicate to the customer correct and incorrect locations/methods of
returning device and provide a method to penalize the customer for incorrectly returning the
device.
8.3) The app will provide clear direction as to the safe use of the device including helmet use
instructions and local safety regulations.
8.4) Lyft will provide and maintain in full operation a web page to allow for an individual to easily
learn about the program and be directed to the smart phone app.
8.5) When at all possible, Lyft will provide materials and assistance for the Spanish speaking
population.
8.6) Lyft shall provide first response to customer questions and complaints per the LOS.
9. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
9.1) Lyft will provide, by January 31, 2019, contact information for its local operations manager.
This individual will be the point of contact for the City for all items related to daily operations. It is
expected that this individual will meet a minimum of once weekly with identified City staff and
other mobility partners during the period that services are operating.
9.2) Lyft will notify the City within 48-hours of a relevant change to management.
9.3) Lyft is responsible for employing an adequate number of on-site staff to maintain the daily
operation of the system per the LOS. The City is not responsible for wages, benefits, housing or
any expenses related to the hiring and/or retainment of employees.
9.4) Lyft shall meet all data reporting requirements as outlined in Attachment E.
9.5) Lyft shall commit to proper recycling and/or disposal of dockless mobility device batteries
under Universal Waste Battery disposal standards until Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) in part 273 to the extent possible.
22
P88
VI.e
9.6) Lyft shall, at its expense, remove all devices and related equipment from City right of way
within 24 hours of contract expiration.
9.7) Lyft is wholly responsible for and will bear all expenses related to the closure of its
operation at the end of the service period.
9.8) Lyft must be and remain a member in good standing for the full duration of the permit term
with the North American Bikeshare Association (NABSA) or a comparable bikeshare association
that has a code of conduct for its members that promotes a safe, reliable and equitable bike
share system.
23
P89
VI.e
ATTACHMENT A-1
DOCKLESS MOBILITY DEVICE MINIMUM STANDARDS
A. Bicycles
1)Operator-deployed bicycles shall meet the standards outlined in the Code of Federal
Regulations under Title 16, Chapter II, Subchapter C, Part 1512 – Requirements for Bicycles.
Additionally, the bicycle shall meet the safety standards outlined in the International Organization
for Standardization 43.150 – Cycles, subsection 4210.
2) Operator-deployed bicycles must meet the Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.) requirements
for brakes and for lights during hours of darkness, described in C.R.S. 42.
3) Operator-deployed bicycles, if electric, will meet the requirements outlined in 15 U.S.C. 2085
– LOW SPEED ELECTRIC BICYCLES.
4)The devices will offer kickstands and locking mechanisms.
5)Devices will be decaled in a branded design. No advertising outside of Operator and/or
City branding will be allowed.
6)Low-speed electric bicycles shall be incapable of reaching an assisted top speed greater
than 20mph on flat ground.
7)Safety/security features will include, at a minimum:
a. lighting per 2 above.
b. locking mechanism controlled through the Lyft App.
c. visible language that notifies the user that helmets should be worn while riding a
device.
d. language on the device or within Lyft’s app, website, or other materials educating users
regarding laws applicable to riding and operating an electric device within the City.
e. other safety-related language as required by the City, located on the device or within
Lyft’s app, website, or other materials.
24
P90
VI.e
8) All devices shall be capable of recording and transmitting the device’s location at the
following times:
●when Lyft deploys or removes the device;
●when a trip begins or ends;
●at least once every three minutes, if the device is being rented; and
●at least once every 30 minutes, if the device is deployed and is not being rented
B. Scooters
1.Electric scooters shall have a governor that restricts electric assist speed to 15.5 mph.
2.Safety/security features will include, at a minimum:
a. lighting per 1 above.
b. locking mechanism controlled through the Lyft App.
c. visible language that notifies the user that helmets should be worn while riding a
device.
d. language on the device or within Lyft’s app, website, or other materials educating users
regarding laws applicable to riding and operating an electric device within the City.
e. other safety-related language as required by the City located on the device or within
Lyft’s app, website, or other materials.
3. All devices shall be capable of recording and transmitting the device’s location at the
following times:
●when Lyft deploys or removes the device;
●when a trip begins or ends;
●at least once every three minutes, if the device is being rented; and
●at least once every 30 minutes, if the device is deployed and is not being rented
25
P91
VI.e
ATTACHMENT B
SCOPE OF WORK | MICRO TRANSIT SERVICES
For clarity, Lyft will work with a third party subcontractor (the “Subcontractor”) for the
purposes of the services provided in this Attachment
1. DEFINITIONS
The terms below shall have the following meanings assigned to them:
1.1) Bus berth: Designated pull off or parking area for a RFTA bus at the Brush Creek Intercept Lot,
Rubey Park Transit Center and designated RFTA bus stops.
1.2) Capacity: The number of passengers that may be carried per trip. For the purposes of this
service, the minimum vehicle capacity shall be 12 passengers.
1.3) Fleet: The totality of vehicles deployed by the Subcontractor for the provision of micro transit
service.
1.4) Level of Service (LOS): The minimum service requirements of the City, to be reported to the
City by Lyft per Attachment E.
1.5) Micro Transit: Multi-passenger public transportation services, that serve passengers using
dynamically generated routes, with passengers starting their trips from a common pickup point.
1.6) Subcontractor: The local transportation entity agreed to by the City to provide micro transit
services to the public and displayed through the Lyft platform.
1.7) Parking: The placement of vehicles during periods outside of the span of service.
1.8) Platform: The area from which customers board or exit from their RFTA bus.
1.9) Restricted Area: Geographic areas in which the service may not operate.
1.10) RFTA: The Roaring Fork Transportation Authority.
26
P92
VI.e
1.11) Service Area: The geographic area in which the micro transit will travel.
1.12) Span of Service: The dates and times during which the Subcontractor is expected to provide
service.
1.13) Staging: The placement of fleet vehicles for the purpose of loading and/or unloading
passengers.
1.14) User/Customer: An individual making use of the micro transit service.
2. SPAN OF SERVICE
2.1) The Subcontractor will provide microtransit services within the specified zone(s) in and
around Aspen, Colorado throughout the SHIFT pilot “(Pilot”). The scheduled dates for the Pilot
are June 8, 2019 through September 2, 2019. Days of service may be added should the need
arise, upon agreement between Lyft, the Subcontractor and the City, at the cost included in
Attachment I, Fee Schedule.
2.2) Hours and days of service will be as follows: 6:00am-10:00am MST and 3:00pm-7:00pm
MST, Monday to Friday. Microtransit will not operate on Saturdays or Sundays. Hours of service
may be added should the need arise, upon agreement between Lyft, the Subcontractor and the
City, at the cost included in Attachment F.
3. LEVEL OF SERVICE
Level of service expectations and reporting requirements are outlined below. It is expected that
Lyft and the Subcontractor will provide a detailed report on its successes and/or failures related
to LOS at the end of the project report as outlined in Attachment E.
ITEM DESCRIPTION LOS
27
P93
VI.e
Avg Wait time The amount of time that lapses between
service request and user pick up
indicating that the fleet is appropriately
sized and dispatched.
15 minutes
Website / app Uptime of website and app 99%
Customer service Question/complaint response 4 hours
Safety Summary of Accident/incident reports In the event that Lyft is
notified of injury or police
involvement, Lyft will
provide a summary of
incident within 48 hours
4. SERVICE AREA
4. 1.) The general service area will be between the Brush Creek Intercept Lot and downtown/east
of Aspen, with exact service area boundaries agreed upon between the City and the
Subcontractor no later than March 1, 2019.
4.2) Changes to service area must be approved by the City.
4.3) Service will prioritize end points within the service area that are not directly served by fixed
route transit.
4.4) During service periods, the Subcontractor will aim to load and/or unload vehicles in
designated locations at the transit centers and office park locations. The locations will be agreed
upon no later than March 1, 2019.
5. FLEET
28
P94
VI.e
5.1) Initial deployment will consist of up to eight vehicles. Additional vehicles may be added after
this initial deployment should the need arise, upon agreement between Lyft, the Subcontractor
and the City, at the cost approximate to those outlined in Attachment I.
5.2) The City does not require any specific vehicle make or model, so long as each vehicle used
is licensed to provide the transportation services offered.
5.3) Vehicles will at a minimum:
a. provide the capacity to carry a minimum of 12 passengers
b. Offer enough head room to allow passengers to stand upright after entering
c. Offer aisle space for standees
d. allow space for pets, bicycles and gear such as tools
e. feature exterior branding with a project design provided by and/or approved by the
City
f. offer no exterior advertising
5.4) Subcontractor will deploy a WAV-based service as part of the project. WAV service will be
achieved by having a share of the fleet be WAVs, and working with the City to ensure that there
are WAVs available during service hours to deliver the target LOS.
5.5) Parking/storage of vehicles outside of service hours is the responsibility of the
Subcontractor.
5.6) Fueling and maintenance of vehicles is the responsibility of the Subcontractor.
6. DRIVERS
6.1) Drivers may be employees of the Subcontractor (or one of the entities that make up the
Subcontractor), individual subcontractors of the Subcontractor, independent contractors, or
affiliated drivers to any of the entities that make up the Subcontractor.
29
P95
VI.e
6.2) The City will not request the Subcontractor to have any particular number of drivers, so long
as the Subcontractor can ensure that it will have provide a sufficient number of drivers to provide
the LOS at any given time during service provision hours, including periods of peak demand.
6.3) All drivers must hold a valid driver’s license providing legal authority to operate the specific
service and vehicle type.
6.4) The Subcontractor is responsible for all facets of driver recruitment, payment and retention.
The City will not assist the Subcontractor with hiring, paying, housing, insuring or otherwise
assisting with recruitment and/or retention.
7. FACILITIES
7.1) Micro transit services will begin and end at the Brush Creek Intercept Lot. A site plan for the
Brush Creek Intercept Lot including micro transit staging, loading and parking locations will be
provided to the Subcontractor by March 1, 2019.
7.2) The Subcontractor will be responsible for abiding by the Brush Creek Intercept Lot site plan.
7.3) The use of the RFTA platform at the Brush Creek Intercept Lot by the Subcontractor including
passenger waiting and bus staging/waiting areas will not be allowed.
7.4) The Subcontractor may pick up and drop off at designated RFTA bus stops during service
hours. The Subcontractor may not stage or break at these bus stops.
7.5) The use of the Main Street and Hwy 82 bus lanes will be allowed only during service periods,
and only by appropriately branded vehicles in active operation. Supervisor or other related
vehicles will not be allowed.
7.6) The City, Lyft and the Subcontractor will develop a parking/staging plan within the Aspen
downtown core. This plan will be in place no later than March 1, 2019.
7.7) The Subcontractor may not use the Rubey Park platform or bus berths for loading or staging.
30
P96
VI.e
7.8) The Subcontractor may use parking/loading areas adjacent to the Rubey Park platform for
loading or staging as agreed upon by March 1, 2019.
7.9) The Subcontractor may not make use of the Rubey Park administrative, storage or garage
areas.
8. FEES
8.1) There will be no passenger fare associated with this service at the time of launch. Should the
City determine that fares are appropriate, Lyft and the Subcontractor will work with the City to
implement a fare for the microtransit service.
8.2) A No Gratuity policy for the microtransit services will be communicated to the public via
program materials and postings inside the microtransit vans.
9. CUSTOMER SERVICE
9.1) Lyft will provide an app-based customer interface for the totality of transactions including but
not limited to program information, real time vehicle locations, secure payment processing
(should fares be implemented), reporting of problems, simple surveys and ability to be integrated
with other trip planning apps including those that are part of the SHIFT program.
9.2) The platform will complete the following tasks in a manner that is seamless to the customer:
a. Identifying whether the customer is requesting a regular service or a WAV service and
assigning a vehicle appropriately.
b. Providing accurate real time estimations of time of pick-up and time of arrival to the
customers.
c. Providing customers with simple guidance to meet their assigned vehicle.
d. Following up with customers in a manner such that they may rate their experience and
an end of pilot survey to be distributed via email to users with questions crafted by the
City in partnership with Lyft.
31
P97
VI.e
9.3) Lyft and the City will discuss and determine prior to June 1, 2019 whether or not the
microtransit program will include pre-booking capabilities and how to implement that solution.
9.4) Lyft will work with the City to provide materials and assistance for the Spanish speaking
population.
9.5) Lyft shall provide response to customer questions and complaints per the LOS.
9.6) Lyft shall provide response to customer questions and complaints per the LOS.
10. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
10.1) The Subcontractor will, by January 2, 2019, specify a high-level management team charged
with collaborating with City staff in all matters related to service planning.
10.2) Lyft will provide, by January 2, 2019, contact information for its on-site operations manager.
This individual will be the point of contact for the City for all items related to daily operations. It is
expected that this individual will meet a minimum of once weekly with identified City staff and
other mobility partners during the period that services are operating.
10.3) The Subcontractor will notify the City within 48-hours of a change to management team.
10.4) The City is not responsible for wages, benefits, housing or any expenses related to the
hiring and/or retainment of employees.
10.5) The City, Lyft and the Subcontractor will, by March 1, 2019, jointly develop a co-branded
marketing/public information plan as outlined in Attachment G.
10.6) Lyft and the Subcontractor shall meet all data reporting requirements as outlined in
Attachment E.
10.7) The Subcontractor shall, at its expense, remove all of its fleet from the Brush Creek Intercept
Lot and/or City right of way within 24 hours of contract expiration.
32
P98
VI.e
10.8) The Subcontractor is wholly responsible for and will bear all expenses related to the
closure of its operation at the end of the service period.
ATTACHMENT C
SCOPE OF WORK | SHARED RIDE SERVICE
1. DEFINITIONS
The terms below shall have the following meanings assigned to them:
1.1) Shared Ride Service: Is an on-demand curb-to-curb service prearranged rides requested via
the Lyft App that groups users in real time with others traveling along a similar route. Shared Ride
service will be provided by the network of drivers operating on the Lyft platform. The subsidized
service will be limited to a specific service areas. Users will be able to pay for service and rate
their experience via the Lyft App.
1.2) User/Customer: An individual making use of the shared ride service.
1.3) Service Area: The geographic area in which the shared ride service may travel.
1.4) Span of Service: The dates and times during which an Operator is expected to make shared
ride service available to users/customers.
1.5) Restricted Area: Geographic areas in which the service may not operate.
1.6) Level of Service (LOS): The minimum service requirements of the City, to be reported to the
City by Lyft per Attachment E.
1.7) RFTA: The Roaring Fork Transportation Authority.
1.8) Bus berth: Designated pull off or parking area for a RFTA bus at the Brush Creek Intercept
Lot, Rubey Park Transit Center and designated RFTA bus stops.
33
P99
VI.e
1.9) Platform: The area from which customers board or exit from their RFTA bus.
2. SPAN OF SERVICE
2.1) Lyft will provide shared ride services within the specified zone(s) in and around Aspen,
Colorado throughout SHIFT effort. The scheduled dates for this effort are June 8, 2019 through
September 2, 2019. Days of service may be added should the need arise, upon agreement
between Lyft and the City. As noted in Attachment I, the subsidy to provided by the City is TBD.
2.2) The Subsidized Shared Ride program hours of service will be as follows: 8:00am-11:00pm
MST daily. Hours of service may be added and/or changed should the need arise.
2.3) Upon notice from the City, Lyft will adjust service hours of the Program code every month
during the program.
2. LEVEL OF SERVICE
Level of service expectations and reporting requirements are outlined below. It is expected that
Lyft will provide a detailed report on its successes and/or failures related to LOS at the end of the
project report as outlined in Attachment E.
ITEM DESCRIPTION LOS
Average Wait time The amount of time that lapses between
service request and user pick up
20 minutes
Customer service Question/complaint response 4 hours
Safety Accident/incident reports In the event that Lyft is
notified of injury or police
involvement, report within
48 hours
34
P100
VI.e
Change to program
service area / service
hours / pricing
Time elapsed between notice given by
the City and change enacted by Lyft
One a month during the
program. Will be delivered
through new promo code
structure
3. SERVICE AREA
3.1) The City and Lyft will, prior to March 1, 2019, jointly develop and publicize a shared ride
service area. Lyft will provide shared ride services only within that service area.
3.2) Changes to service area must be approved by the City and will be acted upon by Lyft within
48 hours of notice.
3.3 We will send communications to drivers about pick-up spots at the intercept lot, and desired
designated areas for pick-ups and drop-offs downtown.
4. VEHICLES AVAILABLE ON THE LYFT PLATFORM
4.1) The Lyft network will work to meet the LOS for wait time during the span of service.
4.2) The City does not require any specific vehicle make or model, so long as each vehicle is
approved to operate on the Lyft platform.
4.3) Vehicles will at a minimum:
a. provide the capacity to carry a minimum of 4 passengers
4.4) WAV services will be provided by the vehicles operated under the Microtransit program. See
Section 5.4 of Attachment B.
5. DRIVERS ON THE LYFT PLATFORM
35
P101
VI.e
5.1) All drivers must hold a valid driver’s license and meet the requirements under Section
40-10.1-605(1)(d) of the Colorado Revised Statutes
5.2) Lyft is responsible for all facets of driver recruitment, payment and retention. The City will not
assist with hiring, paying, housing or insurance.
6. FACILITIES
6.1) A site plan for the Brush Creek Intercept Lot including shared ride service, loading and
locations will be provided to Lyft by March 1, 2019.
6.2) Lyft will geofence pick-up and drop-off locations at the Brush Creek Intercept lot so as to
discourage passenger pick-up and drop-off on the RFTA platform at the Brush Creek Intercept
Lot.
6.3) Vehicles operating on the Lyft platform may not pick up and drop off at designated RFTA bus
stops during service hours. Lyft will communicate to drivers that they are not allowed to park in
RFTA bus stops.
6.4) The use of the Main Street and Hwy 82 bus lanes will not be allowed for the provision of the
shared ride service.
6.5) Lyft may not use the Rubey Park platform or bus berths for loading or staging.
6.6) Lyft may use parking/loading areas adjacent to the Rubey Park platform for picking and
dropping off passengers as agreed upon by March 1, 2019.
7. FEES
7.1) The City and Lyft will, by March 1, 2019, develop a City Subsidized Ride structure to meet the
City’s goals.
36
P102
VI.e
7.2) Lyft will provide the City the opportunity to Change the Shared Ride Subsidy provided by the
City at the beginning of every month of the pilot to encourage program usage and test different
pricing structures. Lyft requests that the City provide Lyft with new pricing request 4 days before
the end of month.
7.3) Lyft shall employ an electronic payment system that is compliant with the Payment Card
Industry Data Security Standards.
7.4) Lyft must accept a pre-paid debit card payment option for unbanked passengers and must
provide information about such options on its website and work with City to include such
information in Shift marketing materials.
8. CUSTOMER SERVICE
8.1) Lyft will provide an app-based customer interface for the totality of transactions including but
not limited to real time vehicle locations, secure payment processing, reporting of problems.
Simple surveys will be conducted by email.
8.2) The platform will complete the following tasks in a manner that is seamless to the customer:
a. Receiving all trip requests through the smartphone app or call center (run by City).
b. Identify eligible trips based upon the approved service area.
c. Identifying whether the customer is requesting a regular service or a WAV service and
assigning a vehicle appropriately.
e. Pooling users into shared rides based on similar destinations and departure times.
f. Providing accurate real time estimations of time of pick-up and time of arrival to the
customers.
g. Following up with customers in a manner such that they may rate their experience.
h. Providing real time estimations and monitoring of time of pick-up and time of arrival to
the customers.
9. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
37
P103
VI.e
9.1) Lyft will, by January 31, 2019, specify a management team charged with collaborating with
City staff in all matters related to service planning.
9.2) Lyft will notify the City within 24-hours of a change to management or on-site operations
team members.
9.3) Lyft will submit a monthly report to the City by the 1st of the month for the previous month’s
operation using the report template provided in Attachment E.
9.4) Lyft shall meet all data reporting requirements as outlined in Attachment E.
9.5) Lyft shall, at its expense, remove all of its fleet from the Brush Creek Intercept Lot and/or City
right of way within 24 hours of contract expiration.
9.6) Lyft is wholly responsible for and will bear all expenses related to the closure of its
operation at the end of the service period.
38
P104
VI.e
ATTACHMENT E
DRAFT DATA REQUIREMENTS
E1) Unless otherwise specified, Lyft will provide all required data in CSV format or similar, in such
a manner so that it does not require manual data entry by the City into the project’s central
database.
E2) For the purposes of Attachment E, the term “each service” refers to micro transit, shared rides
and dockless mobility individually.
E3) Lyft will provide the following data points to the City on a weekly basis, for each service
individually:
A.Trip Level Information
§ anonymized unique transaction ID for each trip
§ Pick up and drop off by census block group
§ length of trip, distance in two mile increments (0-2 increments)
§ trip start time, in three-hour increments. City and Lyft agree to explore more frequent
time increments over the course of the contract.
§ trip end time, in three-hour increments. City and Lyft agree to explore more frequent
time increments over the course of the contract. .
§ trip date
§ duration of trip (total time service was used, per trip) in five minute increments
§ trip incentive received, if any
B. Additional Weekly Information
§ Total Trip Start or Endpoints by Time period and Census Block Group in 2 hour
increments
C. Participant satisfaction
§ For the entire set of participants or a sample of participants every two weeks during the
first month, and then once a month for the last two months.
39
P105
VI.e
§ If a sample, the method of sampling and size of sample proposed must be described in
detail, must be statistically valid and must provide a large enough sample to result in an
error rate of +/- 5%.
§ The City will provide the specific questions to be used.
§ The topics will include at a minimum:
o Overall satisfaction with service
o Willingness to use the service again
o Perception of service value
o Alternative mode that would have been taken but for the service
o Summary of complaints/compliments
D. Shared ride-specific
§ Percent of rides that were shared by discrete users requesting separately via app
§ matched rides
E. Micro transit-specific
§ Passenger load per trip for microtransit
§ Number of dogs carried per trip
F. In-kind contributions / subsidies
§ Value of in-kind contributions by service and by type
G. LOS elements for each service listed in Attachment A, B, C
H. Record of program problems
§ Number of accidents to be reported on a monthly basis.
§ Incidents reported per every 48 hours per Attachment B, Section 3.
40
P106
VI.e
ATTACHMENT F.
GENERAL PROGRAM SCOPE OF SERVICES
F.1) Lyft will provide and maintain in full operation a web page to allow for an individual to easily
learn about the program and be directed to the smart phone app and as well as any available
telephone options.
F.2) The City and Lyft will jointly develop a co-branded marketing/public information plan as
outlined in Attachment G.
F.3) Lyft will provide, by March 2, 2019, contact information for its local operations manager. This
individual will be the point of contact for the City for all items related to daily operations. It is
expected that this individual will meet a minimum of once weekly with identified City staff and
other mobility partners during the pilot period that services are operating
41
P107
VI.e
ATTACHMENT G
MARKETING/OUTREACH REQUIREMENTS
The City will develop its comprehensive SHIFT marketing and public information campaign
before June 1, 2019. This plan will include in-kind marketing elements from Lyft including but not
limited to:
G1) Periodic SHIFT messaging pushed to program users through email
G2) Access to existing Lyft messaging and branding tool kit.
G3) Use of Lyft in SHIFT branding, ex: SHIFT rides powered by Lyft
G4) Physical promotional production including vehicle wraps, signage, flyers, etc.
G5) In app advertisement of SHIFT and Lyft’s Cityship to the Roaring Fork Valley and other
targeted geographies that make up the visitor population like Dallas, Houston, Austin, NYC, San
Francisco, Los Angeles, etc.
G6) Digital announcements of the Cityship targeted at relevant geographies. Coordinate with the
agency to support City’s Shift Press releases.
G7) On-the-ground promotion support through brand ambassadors at the launch of the program
and at least one other event during the summer.
G8) Targeted social media advertising of SHIFT and Lyft through Lyft channels.
G9) Lyft will integrate any available public transit information as negotiated between the City and
local agencies, and will explore the integration of other alternative transportation services.
42
P108
VI.e
ATTACHMENT H
ACTIVITIES
1. Overview.
The activities described herein shall take place in Aspen, Colorado.
2. Term.
Unless terminated earlier as provided herein, the term of this Agreement shall commence
on the Effective Date and continue in accordance with Section 2 (Activities).
3. The Dashboard.
i. Access to the Dashboard. In order for City to manage the Programs, Lyft will provide
City with access to an online portal owned and hosted by Lyft (the “Dashboard”). Within the
Dashboard, City may view, add or remove Users, generate reports of User activity, and place
certain restrictions on Users’ activity. As related to the Concierge Service, City may also use the
Dashboard to request Rides for Users. Additionally, Lyft grants City a non-exclusive,
non-transferrable limited license to use the Dashboard solely in connection with the Programs
during the Term. City shall not, and shall not authorize others to, (a) decompile, disassemble,
reverse engineer or otherwise attempt to derive the source code or underlying technology,
methodologies or algorithms of the Lyft Materials; (b) sublicense, lease, rent, sell, give, or
otherwise transfer or provide the Lyft Materials to any unaffiliated third party except as may be
provided in this Agreement; or (c) interfere with, modify or disable any features or functionality of
the Lyft Materials. Lyft reserves all rights not expressly granted to City under this Agreement.
ii. City Administrator. City will designate at least one (1) authorized personnel of City to
serve as City’s administrator (each, an “Administrator”) and the Administrator will be required to
create Dashboard login credentials to access and use the Dashboard. City is responsible and will
indemnify Lyft for all activity occurring under City’s Dashboard login credentials, except to the
extent caused by Lyft’s breach of this Agreement. City will contact Lyft upon known or suspected
unauthorized use under City’s Dashboard or if Dashboard login credentials information is lost or
stolen.
43
P109
VI.e
4. Concierge Service.
i. General. Under the Concierge Service, an Administrator may request a Ride for a User
by submitting such request in the Dashboard (each, a “Request”). Each Request will include all
relevant Ride information, including but not limited to, the User’s first and last name, pick-up and
drop-off location, and telephone number (collectively, “User Information”). Lyft will transmit the
Request via the Lyft Platform to available Drivers. In the event a Ride is scheduled for a future
date and time, Lyft will submit the Request to Drivers within a reasonable time from the desired
pick-up time. If the Request is accepted by a Driver, the Driver whom accepted the Request will
provide the Ride to the User. Lyft or the Driver may contact the User via the calling or texting
features within the Lyft App to provide updates on the Request. If the Request is not accepted by
a Driver, a notification of non-acceptance will be sent via the Dashboard. In the event of a
cancellation by a Driver, City will be notified of such cancellation via the Dashboard. Any Request
cancellations by City or no-shows by Users will be subject to Lyft’s cancellation policy. City will
pay Lyft for all Rides under the Concierge Service (“Concierge Rides”). All Concierge Rides are
subject to prime time surcharges and Driver availability.
ii. Ride Requests. When submitting a Request, City consents on behalf of itself and each
User to allow Lyft to use the User Information to (a) send transactional SMS texts to the User
relating to the Request and User’s Ride; (b) share the User Information with the Driver who
accepted the Request; provided that the Driver will only receive the first name of the User and
pick up and drop off location; and (c) use and store the User Information for the internal purposes
of Lyft, subject to the Lyft Privacy Policy. City represents and warrants that (i) City will only submit
Requests for Users whom are eighteen (18) years of age or older; and (ii) City has obtained all
necessary consents from each User to share such User Information for the purposes set forth
herein. City agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Lyft and its directors, officers,
employees, subcontractors and agents from and against all third party claims arising out of a
breach of City’s representations and warranties.
5. City Codes: Lyft will provide City with a coupon codes for use under this Agreement, as
governed by the following terms:
44
P110
VI.e
Definitions.
a.“Code”means a Lyft code (i)that is issued and authorized by Lyft for use on the Lyft
ridesharing platform;and (ii)which is attributed a certain amount of Lyft Credits as specified in
the Code Request.
b. “Event” means a scheduled occasion with a specified start and end date.
c.“Lyft App”is the mobile application operated by Lyft that allows individuals the opportunity to
request transport from one location to another.
d.“Lyft Credits”is defined as credit made available for use on the Lyft platform to be applied
towards rides arranged through the Lyft App.Lyft Credits may not be applied towards tips to
the driver.
e.“User”means an individual that has been distributed a Code from City for use in the User’s
profile within the Lyft App in accordance with the Code Request.
A.Code Request Process.To purchase a Code,City must send an email to
codeshelp@lyft.com and transit@lyft.com,which contains 1)the number of Codes
requested,2)the price attributable to each Code,and 3)any additional Code parameters.
City represents and warrants that the person requesting Codes has the full authority to
purchase codes on behalf of City (the “Code Request”).Upon Lyft’s receipt of the Code
Request (i)Lyft agrees to sell,transfer and deliver,within five (5)business days,the Codes
to City,and (ii)City agrees to pay Lyft for any usage or redemption of the Codes,subject
to the terms and conditions herein.
B.Payment and Reporting.Lyft will invoice or charge City for the full dollar amount of actual
Lyft Credit used by City (including Users)for the preceding month.Payment is due in
accordance with Section 6 (Fees;Payment)below.Upon delivery of the Codes from Lyft
to City,City is responsible for any and all activity relating to the Codes and will indemnify
Lyft for any claims related to City’s use thereof.Lyft has the right to invoice City for any
usage of Lyft Credit by City,even after expiration of the Term.City represents and
warrants that any future Codes Requests for additional Codes under this Order will be
submitted in writing to Lyft by an authorized representative of City.
C.Use of Codes.In order to use the Code,Users must (a)download and install the Lyft App
on a compatible mobile device;(b)create and maintain and active Lyft account,including
45
P111
VI.e
agreeing to Lyft’s Terms of Service (https://www.lyft.com/terms),as may be updated from
time to time;(c)successfully redeem the Code in the User’s Lyft App for Lyft Credit;(d)
takes a ride via the Lyft App which qualifies for Code redemption under this Agreement;
and (e)successfully apply the Lyft Credit at the end of the ride.For rides taken by Users
that exceed the amount of Lyft Credits available on a Code,Lyft will charge User’s
personal payment method on file.Lyft will charge the User’s personal payment method
for all rides which include any tips.
D.Cancellation of Codes.City can request a refund for Codes by emailing
codeshelp@lyft.com at least seven (7)days prior to the intended cancellation date.
Cancellations take approximately three (3)business days to process.Notwithstanding the
foregoing,if your Code has been redeemed at any point prior to the successful
processing of the cancellation request,Lyft will not be able to fulfill your cancellation
request or edit the Code in any way.
6. Fees; Payment.
Each month during the Term, Lyft will invoice City for the full dollar amount for all charges
associated with Concierge rides requested by City and City Codes redeemed by City or Users for
the preceding month. Payment is due within thirty (30) days of proper invoice date. All late
payments shall bear interest at the lesser of one and one half percent (1.5%) per month or the
maximum allowed by applicable law. Upon delivery or activation of the City Codes from Lyft to
City, City is responsible for any and all activity relating to the City Codes and will indemnify Lyft
for any claims related to City’s use thereof. Lyft has the right to invoice City for any usage of City
Codes by City or Users, even after expiration of the Term.
7. Contacts.
For Lyft:
Name: Paul Davis
Email: transit@lyft.com
46
P112
VI.e
For City:
Name: Lynn Rumbaugh
Email: lynn.rumbaugh@cityofaspen.com
47
P113
VI.e
ATTACHMENT I.
SHIFT PROJECT BUDGET
Program Component Description Cost to User Cost to City
Real-Time Transit
Integration
Integration of RFTA transit data into
the Lyft App and surfacing of transit
options for every trip booked
through the Lyft App.
Not Applicable. Free.
Lyft Bikes and Scooters Lyft will set up lock-to dockless
eBike program as well as dockless
eScooters.
$1 unlock,
$0.15/minute
Free setup.
No ride cost for City.
Contracted Shuttle
Services
Lyft will subcontract with local
shuttle operation to provide
microtransit shuttles. Actual
microtransit program scope to be
determined in partnership with the
City.
Free. Estimated: ~ $375k.
Community Shared Ride
Services
Lyft proposes to supplement
microtransit shuttles with Shared
Rides Services to provide SHIFT
users with a convenient shared ride
option at all times.
Fare rate TBD. $0 upfront cost
Per ride code-based
subsidy TBD
Carbon Offsets Lyft will offset the carbon produced
by every ride delivered under the
program in partnership with its
carbon offset partner, 3Degrees.
Free. Free.
Shift by Lyft Program
Marketing
Lyft will help market the program to
residents and visitors, as well as to
local drivers to balance supply and
demand.
Not Applicable. Free.
Total Cost Not To Exceed: $800K
without contract
amendment
48
P114
VI.e
Program Component Description Cost to User Cost to City
Real-Time Transit
Integration
Integration of RFTA transit data into the Lyft
App and surfacing of transit options for every
trip booked through the Lyft App.
Not Applicable. Free.
Lyft Bikes and
Scooters
Lyft will set up lock-to dockless eBike
program as well as dockless eScooters.
$1 unlock,
$0.15/minute
Free setup.
No ride cost for City.
Contracted Shuttle
Services
Lyft will subcontract with local shuttle
operation to provide microtransit shuttles.
Actual microtransit program scope to be
determined in partnership with the City.
Free. Estimated: ~ $375k.
Community Shared
Ride Services
Lyft proposes to supplement microtransit
shuttles with Shared Rides Services to provide
SHIFT users with a convenient shared ride
option at all times.
Fixed rate TBD. $0 upfront cost
Per ride subsidy TBD
Carbon Offsets Lyft will offset the carbon produced by every
ride delivered under the program in partnership
with its carbon offset partner, 3Degrees.
Free. Free.
Shift by Lyft
Program Marketing
Lyft will help market the program to residents
and visitors, as well as to local drivers to
balance supply and demand.
Not Applicable. Free.
Total Cost Not To Exceed: $800K
P115
VI.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 3, 2018
1
CITIZEN COMMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 2
CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS ................................................................................................................... 2
BOARD REPORTS ...................................................................................................................................... 2
CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................. 2
Minutes – November 26, 2018 .............................................................................................................. 2
ORDINANCE #26, SERIES OF 2018 – Renewable Energy Mitigation Program Code Changes ............... 2
ORDINANCE #38 SERIES OF 2018 – Lift One Lodge – Major Amendment and ..................................... 3
ORDINANCE #39, SERIES OF 2016 – Gorsuch Haus – Planned Development ........................................ 3
P116
VI.f
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 3, 2018
2
At 5:00 p.m. Mayor Skadron called the regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Hauenstein, Frisch
and Mullins present.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
1. Toni Kronberg said we need an intervention on what was voted on for city offices. 517 E
Hopkins is asking to be all commercial. The city is recommending denial of turning it into all
commercial when that was proposed in the statement of facts if it was to be city offices.
CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilman Hauenstein said rest in peace #41. Thank you for your service George H. W. Bush. Happy
Hanukah. It is also the beginning of Advent. We are entering the darkest period of year with the least
amount of sunlight. This is a high time of year for depression. Give people a smile.
Councilman Myrin said Steve and I rode the bus from the airport the other day. The RFTA stations have
a board that announce upcoming busses. My suggestion is to duplicate those board in the baggage areas.
Mayor Skadron said he will chat with the transportation team and county as well. Councilman Myrin said
he picked up a paper version of the paper. There are a lot of help wanted and almost no rental ads. It is
an unhealthy ratio. His suggestion is going forward, work on a code amendment to phase out the 35%
discount. Also consider phasing out the 100% reduction for essential public facilities. Also change the
fee in lieu payment to reflect more realistic pricing.
Councilwoman Mullins said some of us went to the Castle Creek bridge celebration. It was a lot of fun.
Thanks to everyone who worked on that project. The Wheeler continues to have a lot of great projects.
The programs have ramped up for the holidays.
Councilman Frisch said there is lots of great snow up there.
Mayor Skadron said there are only 18 more days until the days get longer.
BOARD REPORTS
Councilwoman Mullins said for the RUEDI water and power authority, April is doing a great job. See
Councilwoman Mullins for more info.
Councilman Frisch said Nordic ran a tiny test at the high school Nordic track.
Councilman Hauenstein said CCLC had a nice presentation from Kemo Sabe. They view retail as a social
event. It’s an interesting concept.
Mayor Skadron said RFTA is finalizing plans on the mil levy increase. It was a big win for Aspen and
the valley.
CONSENT CALENDAR
· Minutes – November 26, 2018
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt the consent calendar; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in
favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #26, SERIES OF 2018 – Renewable Energy Mitigation Program Code Changes
CJ Oliver, environmental health, said these changes will revise chapter 8. There have been no changes
since the first reading.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public
comment.
P117
VI.f
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 3, 2018
3
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #26, Series of 2018; seconded by Councilman
Hauenstein. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Myrin, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Mullins, yes;
Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #38 SERIES OF 2018 – Lift One Lodge – Major Amendment and
ORDINANCE #39, SERIES OF 2016 – Gorsuch Haus – Planned Development
Mike Kraemer, community development, told the Council this is a continuation of the November 26th
meeting. This is the third hearing on this. There is general consensus of the site planning and lift
corridor. For the proposed uses on city parks we feel we have basic approval from Council. We also feel
Council generally agrees on the lot reconfiguration for Lift One Lodge as well as the height, massing and
scale of both projects. Staff heard general approval of Gorsuch Haus. There are comments of Lift One
Lodge size, but no major redesign needed. For the subdivision and rezoning of Gorsuch Haus, issues that
need further discussion and specific direction included affordable housing mutation and requests for
discretionary reviews, cost sharing proposal, project phasing, impact to lift 1A operation, winter
maintenance of S. Aspen Street and Dean street.
Affordable Housing mitigation for the Lift One Lodge application include ski museum as an essential
public facility. If that determination is made there can be a waiver of mitigation. The second part is the
employee generation review calculation. There is the ability to incentivize a lodge project with this
review. Baseline required mitigation is 59.3 FTEs. That number can be reduced by 13.68 FTEs. Total
mitigation would be 45.62 FTEs.
Jessica Garrow, community development, stated what is being proposed is an audit at 5 years.
Gorsuch Haus
Lodge density special review and employee generation review. The baseline required mitigation is 55.29
FTEs. If granted the reduction would be 28.97 FTE and if the employee generation review if granted it
would be a reduction of an additional 6 FTEs for a total of 21.68 FTEs required.
Councilman Frisch asked what is the difference between the 29 and the 6. Mr. Kraemer replied if a unit
size accomplishes 450 net livable there are certain incentives. The code provides for someone to not
accomplish those reductions and still get the incentives. Gorsuch is providing those required onsite
amenities to meet the review.
Councilwoman Mullins said there is no audit required for the density. Ms. Garrow replied no.
Councilwoman Mullins asked how long has this been part of the code and have other lodges used this.
Ms. Garrow said it has been there for quite a long time, at least 12 years. She can’t think of any other
lodges that have used them.
Mayor Skadron said the value of the mitigation should council grant the request is 3.3 for Lift One Lodge
and 8 million for Gorsuch Haus. Mr. Kraemer replied correct. Councilman Frisch said if it gets built as
planned is there a number of how many live people will be working up there. Ms. Garrow said we’ve
only evaluated it under the Land use code. Each project is in a different code and has a different
generation rate.
Councilman Myrin said page 17 of the memo has category 4 of cash in lieu. The APCHA memo has
mixing it. Ms. Garrow said she is not sure how to quantify that recommendation. The code dictates
category 4. Councilman Myrin asked how do we align the APCHA memo with what is in the code. Ms.
Garrow said the land use code clearly says category 4.
Councilman Hauenstein asked if there was a wider variety of categories it would generate more units.
Councilman Frisch said the lower the category the higher the mitigation. Councilman Myrin said the
P118
VI.f
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 3, 2018
4
APCHA memo rates suggested 100%, is that reflective of the calculations without the mitigation requests.
Ms. Garrow said we believe the recommendation is against the reductions, follow the code.
Stan Clauson, representing Lift One Lodge, said what was presented at the APCHA meeting were the
mitigation methods not the actual numbers. They advocated for a range of categories.
Councilman Hauenstein said the letter we got was from Ron. Did the board meet and discuss this. Ms.
Garrow replied it was from the board.
Ben Anderson, community development, discussed the cost sharing proposal. There are four questions
staff is seeking clarification on. Does council support financial contributions from the City to an aspect of
the project, specifically Dean Street. Secondly, do you support fees paid to the city be used, 80%, back
into the relocation and white boxing of the skier chalet. If yes, what aspects. If yes, what total financial
commitment. Primary requests include Dean Street improvements estimates of total costs are $1.2
million. City contribution is $760,000. $200,000 from the Dancing Bear project. The second request is
the skier chalet with a total of $5.6 million and a city share of $3.6 million, 80% from development fees.
Third is tree mitigation with an estimate of $359,000 with a proposal to have the money directed to on
site park improvements. What is not in here is the restoration and relocation of the historic lift and bull
wheel. Lift One Lodge is to contribute $650,000. Costs beyond that would be up to the city. Ms.
Garrow said if Council is interested in cost sharing then we can refine. This is an area we would like
clearer direction.
Councilwoman Mullins said we also asked for direct impact of dollars and redirection of fees. Ms.
Garrow said it depends on fees. Use tax helps fund the free bus program. Parks, TDM air quality go to
parks and transportation to help fund specific infrastructure. The others are general fund. It would be a
reduction in the amount of money that goes to the general fund. Use tax and impact fees have more
specific direction.
Mr. Kraemer said project phasing is one of the more complicated aspects. If referred to the voters and
successful there will be final review at P&Z then construction documents and building permits and a
construction start date. There are a lot of variables. We need to talk of assurances meaning if the project
stalled. We also need to talk of vested rights.
For snow melt, engineering, staff and applicants have been evaluating this. It is a complex discussion.
We are looking for Council direction to provide direction if we are to require snow melting of S. Aspen
Street. If no, then what maintenance would be required. If yes, the applicant is not in favor of it but there
should be exploration of it. There should be at least a year study of the methods that are in place today
including to evaluate efficacy of city plowing, snow storage and snow removal techniques. Conduct a
detailed traffic study to determine a baseline, identify the snow melt technologies and evaluate financial
and environmental costs. Identify alternative maintenance strategies. Identify level of service or safety
concern triggers. Revisit within 2 years of completion of project and a possible metro district to fund
snow melt. Ms. Garrow said there is so much work to be done to understand this.
Lift one lodge
Mr. Clauson showed an image of massing of the free market and main buildings. He showed the changes
to the east elevation of the west building. He showed the reduction in the elevator overruns. The height
with the overruns is almost completely within the maximum height. Scott Glass, architect, said the
perceived height is reduced by about 5 feet. They changed the nature of the overhang by about 18 inches
as well. We are working hard to make the building nestle in to the hillside. The uppermost portions of
the building step back. In no way will there be a massive wall of building. Mayor Skadron asked for a
comment on the view to the north looking up the hill. What is the width. Mr. Glass said at the widest it is
80 feet and narrow around 40. You will see the building terrace up the hill in 11 foot sections with the
hill. It maps the natural terrain.
P119
VI.f
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 3, 2018
5
Mr. Clauson said for affordable housing mitigation and employee generation review. There is complete
connectivity between the two buildings and shared staff. It is provided by code to incentivize lodge
development. Subject to audit after 2 years.
For the cost sharing concepts, the differences in numbers are clear. The skier chalet building estimated
cost is between $5.2 and $5.5 million. Gorsuch Haus provide $1 million and Lift One Lodge $1 million.
The City of Aspen provides $3.6 million in reallocated development fees. Aspen Historical Society and
Ski Co costs are associated with tenant improvements. He showed a slide with estimates of fees
generated. If there were over runs they would be assumed by the applicants and not by the city. It is
apparent that some fees relate to staff time, but some do not.
For Dean Street, the estimated cost is currently $1.2 million. The original proposal did not have a cost
associated with it. Dancing Bear has contributed $290,000. Lift One Lodge contributes $150,000
reprogrammed from the volley ball courts with COA the rest.
S. Aspen road maintenance initial cost of $82,000 with Lift One Lodge paying $62,000 for sanding
equipment and 20K for materials.
Park development at Willoughby park are estimated at $1 million for park improvements and $500,000
for public restrooms. Our participation would be tree mitigation fees of $359,000. COA would be
responsible for the remaining balance as part of overall park master planning.
Interplay of lift structure with Lift One Lodge garage. The initial costs are hard to quantify but the return
would be huge.
Interplay of snowmaking infrastructure would be supplied by Ski Co.
Flood/stormwater/mudflow/water quality runoff is also hard to determine but should be split equally
between the Coty, Ski Co, Gorsuch and Lift One Lodge.
This is truly a public private partnership. The city only being asked to reprogram those funds going into
the city as part of this development.
Councilwoman Mullins said the memo says the City would be responsible for mudflow. Mr. Clauson
replied it should be split.
Councilman Frisch said the lowest interest was you purchased it with an original contract. Then there is
the argument that you move the lift. What is not mentioned in the public private partnership is the putting
the lift on hold for maybe 2 years. It is a win win win to have the lift come down.
Councilman Myrin said he read the minutes from the past meeting. How much money do you need to
make this project work from the city. If the total sum was 3 million is that enough. Michael Brown,
owner Lift One Lodge, said we made a proposal in our application. Councilman Myrin said without that
the project collapses. Mr. M. Brown said we are prepared to have feedback on that application.
Councilman Myrin said we constantly see applications asking for one thing and settling for something
else. Mr. M. Brown said one of the conversations we went through last week were the many projects that
came before the city and they are not success for the developers. Councilman Myrin said my question
was what is it you need to make this project a success. Aaron Brown, owner Lift One Lodge, said this is
not a binary discussion. It is all about probabilities. We are trying to come up with a proposal that has
the most likelihood of getting built. It is not 100% likely of getting built as asked. The more money
contributed the more likely it is of getting built. We’ve tried to put forward a proposal that has a high
probability of getting built. Councilman Myrin said I see my obligation to the community as making a lift
happen. If it takes more money we need to know that.
P120
VI.f
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 3, 2018
6
Mayor Skadron said you are arguing regarding cost sharing that additional cost accrued are substantial
improvements made outside the original approval. Mr. Clauson replied yes, mostly to the park and Dean
St. Councilman Frisch said some not all are related to the renewed lift alignment. Mr. Clauson said most
definitely. Mayor Skadron said related to affordable housing, early on you mentioned a synergy between
the buildings. The code required 59 FTEs, the reconfiguration, you made a determination that the
business plan requires fewer employees. Mr. M. Brown said the original from 2011 was 35FTEs. With
the employee generation review it is still in excess of that number. The code says the lodge can handle
whatever is necessary. Mr. Clauson said the code was readopted in 2016 and contains all of those same
provisions.
Gorsuch Haus
Richard Shaw, design workshop, representing the owner, said as a community we have wanted a different
type of bed base. Lodging plays a key role in the future. Quality means a certain type of hotel program
and a certain type of design. Gorsuch Haus is a very compact lodge. 25% lot area is public amenity
space. With that we are maintaining guest amenities and quality guest services.
A lodge zoning compliant project relies on efficiency of service. There are 4 residential units that will not
require additional staffing. The employee generation review requires shared staffing. There is also a
provision of an audit after two years.
Construction sequencing, while there is a lot in front of us the group is fully knowledgeable that each
project can move forward and the corridor will be complete. There are no guarantees, however there are a
number of techniques in the code that the city can use to make sure these projects can move forward.
Vesting will begin 3 years from a point when returning skiing could be considered a reality.
For S. Aspen Street he showed an image of the historic condition. Under proposed conditions, skier drop
off and pick up area and available public parking is relocated from S. Aspen St. to Dean St. Average
daily traffic will not materially change. Peak daily traffic will decrease.
On Winter maintenance, the redesign was finalized in 2016 and reconstructed in 2018. The redesign
includes snow melted sidewalks. Traffic volumes will decrease on peak days and not materially change
on average days. City maintenance to pilot snow management programs. Properties can agree to re-
evaluate maintenance.
Jeff Gorsuch, owner, said he is honored to be a part of this. We have arrived at a really great point. We
are looking for a landing that will go to the voters. There is a great group of stakeholders. He would like
to see world class events welcomed back. It has been an honor to be a part of this.
Councilwoman Mullins said one of the questions from last meeting was the conservation zone and ways
to protect that and future development. We could do something now, but a future council could overturn
it. Would you be willing to put a conservation easement on it. Mr. Shaw said any part of the land would
not have an entitlement that would not normally exist. We are willing to remove the entitlement on the
remaining part of the conservation zone land. Ms. Garrow said as part of the Ski Co preservation this is a
topic that is very important to them and they may have some comments as well.
Councilman Frisch said we talked about Ann’s comments last week. Not all development may be treated
equally. I appreciate your comments. It may be a ski co discussion.
Mayor Skadron said what did you say about sight restoration. Mr. Shaw said the code allows the city to
request bonding around development as a financial assurance. The main reason I referenced that is there
are existing provisions for these assurances that a project in the corridor may be required to complete.
David Corbin, Ski Co, said Ann raised the conservation zone and remainder lot. Subdivision leaves a lot
for conservation that is essentially the returning ski trail of about 5 plus acres. For us, we are satisfied
with the idea of a plat note or other ordinance restricting residential development. It doesn’t meet the 10
P121
VI.f
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 3, 2018
7
acres to do residential development. I would not want to put a conservation easement on it because it
unduly complicates the title 100 years from now. Councilman Frisch said the conservation easement is a
tool to get to a goal. Are you saying 50 or 100 years from now you want residential development or a
structure used for skiing. Mr. Corbin said 100 years from now we can’t predict what we would need for
the company or the community. For the near future our uses are intended to be skiing. I think the
protections are adequate. Councilman Frisch said the simple thing is do you want to have the ability to be
changed by council or the vote of the public. Mr. Corbin said I don’t think we are making a distinction of
council or by public vote. Regarding phasing or completion assurances, we perhaps more than anyone are
highly incented to make sure skiing returns as quickly as possibly to this portal without interruption. The
challenge in a development as complex as this is it is extremely hard to guarantee. The optimal schedule
would mean we would be without a lift for one season. We recognize it could be two. If there was some
sort of economic cataclysm there are other parties in the room. Suggest this be dealt with in the
development agreements between the parties. Perhaps incentives and or penalties can be included in the
agreements.
Councilman Frisch said this is one of my biggest concerns. A small loss for the community is if the lift
takes an extra year. I think we can all deal with that. The big loss for the community is when no
incentive will do it and the project is 20 Million away from being done. I want a really high probability
the lift gets done. Mr. Corbin said our interests are aligned. We want to see the infrastructure completed
as soon as possible. It wouldn’t solve the problem of interrupted operation. Completion bonds attempt to
guarantee that things may be built but not necessarily in what time.
Councilman Myrin said how can the city provide the highest assurances to the community that the lift will
be built regardless of the hotels. If the money being waived were to go to the lift would it help. Mr.
Corbin said he is not sure I should be the one answering that. Councilman Myrin said the reason I ask
you is you have built more ski lifts than the city. Mr. Corbin said the lift from bolts up is the easy part.
Councilman Myrin said one piece of this is the garage at the base. If the city funded that initially would
that help. MR. Corbin said a platform under it is an essential step for getting a lift in.
Historical Society
Chase Dillion, president of board of trustees, said we are working to deliver a ski museum worthy of
Aspen. We must have no less than 3,000 square feet of exhibition space and no less than 14 foot ceilings.
We have compromised in ways including in sharing the building with ski co.
Councilman Myrin said we received a letter from Georgia Hanson, is the expectation just a white box.
Chase replied yes.
Mr. M. Brown said we have had ongoing discussions with cascade townhomes. They are not objecting to
the project.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment.
1. Paul Taddune, representing the lift one homeowners association. I urge you to accept the
proposition that some of the development fees be used for the pubic portions of the project. The
city should be willing to contribute to a history museum, relocation of historic structures and
development of city parks. It makes sense for the city to contribute.
2. Sherri Oates said she’s seen every change in this town. I was 6 years old the day they opened the
lift. She would love to see that part of the hill going again. We have to move forward again.
3. James Bartenson said the world is watching us for a world class resort to make a world class
decision. The amount of time and money that went in to this project is great. Aspen has to keep
evolving.
4. Mary Dominic Komer said Aspen is a community with many unique happenings and buildings.
It would be really nice to see lift 1 come back where it was and have the world championships
come back. Aspen is truly an international town.
P122
VI.f
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 3, 2018
8
5. Charlie Bantis said he is on the chamber board and AVLT board. These are personal opinions.
The deal junkie in me liked what I heard. Strike a bargain that everyone can live with. If we
don’t do it now it could be another 10 years. I don’t know if we can go that long without hosting
world cup.
6. Toni Kronberg said since the last approval with a platter lift and a dump truck this project has
come a long way. She has been asking for S Aspen Street to be snow melted since 2006. The
burden should fall to the city.
7. Luke Van Ardesdale, Balcome and Green, representing Robert Sheere who lives on the corner of
Monarch and Gilbert street. He showed the existing approval from 2011 with Gilbert street
terminating in a dead end. The Problem with that is it dead ends and violates the city code.
Existing application is for a cul de sac but needs to be 15 Feet and Gilbert street is only 11 feet
wide. There is no room to widen that. Currently Gilbert is only one way. He showed an image
of 2 full size trucks trying to pass in summer. The issue with Gilbert St. as proposed with the cul
de sac will be it will be the best ski drop off spot. Problem is the current proposal will address the
current traffic problem with signage only. Signage will not prevent two way traffic on Gilbert
street. The better solution is to put retractable bollards at the end of Gilbert st to limit traffic.
Trish Aragon, city engineer, said it is a narrow street because the existing developments have
encroached into the right of way. We can still make it work. Having a cul de sac absolutely is an
improvement. Bollards are not supported by engineering or the fire department. This is not ideal.
We are not asking to remove the encroachments at this point. Jim True, city attorney, asked how
wide is the right of way. Ms. Aragon replied 30 feet. There is a portion that is narrower. Ms.
Garrow said one of the issues is the existing approvals has the dead end without a cul de sac. It
anticipated 2 way traffic without a way to turn around.
Councilman Myrin asked is Monarch steeper than S Aspen St. Ms. Aragon said the steepest part
of Monarch is 13 degrees. The steepest part of S Aspen is 17. The other part with the bollards is
privatizing the street and engineering is not in support of that. Councilman Myrin said if the
mechanism were not an issue that is a different issue. Ms. Aragon replied yes, I would have a
difference stance and so would the fire dept. The other part of the privatization and the bollards
is limiting for a certain period of time.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
Mr. A Brown said on the historical society it is important to note that they have architectural drawings
showing exactly what the space will look like. They are well aware of what their space looks like on a
gross space.
Councilwoman Mullins said this is a really complicated project with lots of moving targets. It is a real
simple easy win with a lift that moves down the mountain, new lodging, new city park, reinvigorated
Ruthies and restored historic structures. We are attempting to see into the future. The city will still have
its historic character. The city should be a partner in this project. We need to be assured we are not
giving away too much but be assured the project can move forward successfully. The big decision tonight
is do we want to be a partner. For affordable housing mitigation, the arguments are defendable and it is
part of the land use code. For Gorsuch Haus it is an excessive reduction. For cost sharing there are a lot
of unknowns. She would like to see more refinement and accuracy for costs. Tree mitigation makes
sense. Project phasing is a concern that we lose the lift for more than a year. All the partners are
compelled to get this done. Winter maintenance, she agrees with staff recommendation to take a season
look. Snow melt seems like an excessive energy use.
Councilman Hauenstein said on cost sharing and being a partner, this is a classic example of a public
private partnership. Is there any precedent for fees being earmarked. Ms. Garrow said the best example
would be fees related to pedestrian amenity. Councilman Hauenstein said he thinks the city should be a
partner. He would be more comfortable with X number of dollars the city should be contributing rather
than earmarking the fees. For housing mitigation, the baseline calls for 114 FTEs between the two
projects. The waivers are a lot of money and a lot of housing. He would hate the project to succeed
P123
VI.f
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 3, 2018
9
solely on the back of housing. He would like to see the full 114 FTEs realized. Shorting on employee
housing is a huge burden on the town. Phasing is unknown and in the interest of all applicants to get it
done on time. He is not sure what we can do to make sure it gets finished. Snow melt, there are examples
of geothermal to melt the snow. I can accept a one or two years for study. I don’t want to be given a
choice between green house gas or damaging the roaring fork river. He would like to explore land at
BMC for creation of workforce housing. On cost sharing the city has honored all the approvals of Lift
One Lodge. One of those was for it to deliver the ski museum.
Councilman Myrin said on affordable housing, he is not supportive in any of the reductions. On cost
sharing, what does it take to fund this. Tell me what the big number is. He is willing to support the cost
sharing to make this happen. He is not willing to support the cost sharing and end up with the Dancing
Bear or Aspen Club. If that means the city spends the money to build the base, the garage and the
foundation of the lift then the value comes back to us in a taxing district I’m happy to do it. I’m not
willing to give it away in housing. On phasing, it needs to be addressed. We all have the same goal to
make this happen. On snow melt, the city has started electric heat on bus shelter side walks. I think it is
possible to heat with renewable energy. I think snow melt needs to happen. For the conservation zone
there is progress making it as iron clad as possible. On height, thanks for bringing it down. It looks much
better. The museum, I’m confused. The city managers memo says it will take considerable costs to
operate yet there are no employees. Something doesn’t connect. It is a huge gift to waive housing. For
this to have no housing provided doesn’t make sense to me. It is the code currently. Property taxing
district – the bathrooms, sidewalks etc need to be world class. For Gilbert St, plastic bollards that can be
driven over makes sense. Adding cars doesn’t.
Councilman Frisch said how does this all come together. By next Monday there is going to be an
ordinance that will then go to the ballot March 5th. Ms. Garrow said you have 2 draft ordinances that are
substantially there. If we can get consensus tonight, we can return with a more complete ordinance. The
actual ballot language would not be completed until the January 14th meeting. Mr. True said I’m a little
concerned about the consensus given the comments we’ve heard tonight.
Councilman Frisch said the Dancing Bear application required money that these applicants want to dip
into. Will we hear a future application wanting some of this money. Ms. Garrow said the money from
Dancing Bear has been collected. It goes in to city coffers and it goes into projects specific to Dean St.
The idea with this is the permits are complete and there is no money to tap in to in the future.
Councilman Frisch said S Aspen St, the goal is there should be a safe corridor. I’m in the camp of try
other things before we get to snow melt but I think it needs to be there. I’m happy to start small but it
needs to be part of the plan. The cost sharing is related to affordable housing. Bert talked about the
taxing district. It is an interesting concept to be applied to the whole bundle of asks. I think the city has
been partnering for years on this. This is not a sequencing conversation. The concern is the assurance if
the economy has changes. On the conservation, my hope would be any further development that has to
do with sellable FAR has to go to the vote of the people. If there is a possibility for residential
development it will happen. I think we all agree the size, FAR and shape will be going to the voters. I
appreciate the work on the height of Lift One Lodge. Government should be spending money when the
private sector cannot deliver something. I appreciate where Ann and Ward are coming from. I need to
hear more that this will not get done without further contributions. On affordable housing, it is the
highest and most dire need. I’m not opposed to having part of the mitigation be part of a loan with
payback through a district. It should be nice to collect as much as possible.
Mayor Skadron said for cost sharing, I don’t believe the community should contribute one dollar of public
money to this project. The city contribution has come in a number of places, changing conservation to
lodge, floor area increases, activating park to facilitate a lift, amendments to original approval, decreases
in affordable housing mitigation, lodge density privileges in height and floor area. Developers should
deliver what they promised including the ski museum. I’m not one bit persuaded that a project like this
gets derailed because of the cost sharing. The snow melt is needed but the developers should provide it.
Once the hotels are built and the customers say it needs snow melted it will get done. The phasing is
P124
VI.f
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 3, 2018
10
acceptable and the lift will get done. On affordable housing, I can support the generation review. I can’t
understand why a private developer would not be responsible for building for 100% of its employees. If
their business plan can support the housing they are promising, either the applicants are so blind to the
realities of this community that they can get by with so little employees, then so be it. I don’t know how
you can get it done. That alone is worth 11 million dollars.
Mayor Skadron said what I’m hearing from council is on cost sharing, the general consensus is there
should be some participation. Explore a tax improvement district. On affordable housing, council is all
over the board. Councilman Myrin said what you said makes sense only if you prohibit their employees
from participate in the housing program. Otherwise it makes it more difficult for everyone else.
Ms. Garrow said she heard there is support from the Mayor and Councilmember Frisch and Mullins to
possibly grant the special review piece for Gorsuch Haus. Councilwoman Mullins said the reductions for
Gorsuch are excessive. To the Mayors comments, it doesn’t mean if they are only mitigating for 29
employees they only have 29. They are still going to have 59, they just don’t have to provide housing for
the other half. That is an incentive that is in the code to promote lodging. If we don’t like it then we need
to go back and take a look at the land use code. That is the way it stands now. They are asking for
something that is in there. It is at our discretion. I’m in agreement with Lift One. I think Gorsuch, by
taking both reductions, that it is reducing the mitigation far too much.
Councilman Frisch said if a project goes 55 FTEs, there is probably 80 some employees. We are already
giving a 35% reduction. With Gorsuch there was two requests from them. One had to do with the
technical aspect. Ms. Garrow replied that is reducing it to 26, the special review for lodge density.
Councilman Frisch replied that is huge, 7 million dollars. They have the ability to get that by right not
just ask. Ms. Garrow replied correct. It has clear review criteria that are met. The other piece is special
review. They are also getting some additional height and floor area. It would be difficult to say we grant
the special review for one piece but not the other. Councilman Frisch said the other aspect is the 6 FTEs
from the employee generation review. To me that goes in to the bucket of the Lift One Lodge ask.
Mayor Skadron said there are two members clearly on the side of no shorting of affordable housing. One
on the side of supporting the generation review and one supporting some degree of this and one
suggesting this could be resolved through the taxing district. Ms. Garrow said we can’t take this and
come back to you with an ordinance next week or in six weeks. We need some clarity.
Mayor Skadron stated we are clear on the cost sharing. On the phasing we have consensus around the
acceptability of what’s been proposed and with what Dave Corbin presented around the lift. Councilman
Frisch said it is not the accepting of the sequencing, it’s that there is a majority of council, in which I
don’t think I’m in, that doesn’t seek any further discussions about the assurances. There is a majority of
council that is basing on the market and incentives are going to drive the lift to get done. Councilman
Myrin said he agrees with that. Mayor Skadron said there are two parts to this phasing question. One is
what Richard laid out about how it is going to get done and the other is the assurances around the lift.
About the lift, I am mindful about what Dave told us yet Adam and Bert are suggesting something more
stringent. Councilman Myrin said he does not think there has been a full conversation about trying to
figure out what happens when things turn into a Dancing Bear, Aspen Club or Base Village as far as the
delivery of the lift. I do not want the lift to be held up. Councilman Frisch said he is not asking for a
guarantee. I have some level of reality. I just think that if something goes a little bad or a lot of bad and
the partners stop becoming partners and start becoming litigants and there is no lift. The problem with the
sequencing is it is not a 3 to 5 million dollar solution to get the lift done. There needs to be some amount
of 8 figure numbers that needs to go in for Dave to go to the upper management and say now we are ready
to start bolting in the lift towers. There needs to be recognition.
Mr. A. Brown asked about the risk we are trying to solve for. He said it is that the current lift gets torn
down and the new lift doesn’t get built. The existing lift won’t be torn down until literally the project is
shovel ready. In addition to that, our hole and infrastructure can be built and the parking structure can be
built without the lift being torn down, we think. I think that is possible. Now we are talking about a
situation where the existing lift is still operating, we have built the infrastructure required to put the new
lift in. Now the risk is the old lift gets torn down and the issue is on Ski Co to put the new lift in place.
P125
VI.f
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 3, 2018
11
We are not 100% sure that can be the case, but we are only talking about this narrow issue of either the
lift just taken down and rebuilt on existing infrastructure or our hole and parking garage being dug so that
a new lift can be placed on top. The old lift is never going to get torn down until we are literally ready to
dig. Our financing is in place, our infrastructure permit is pulled. It is a narrower risk that having to build
a whole building. Councilman Frisch said this is the first time we are hearing this. The timeline that was
provided is different than what you just said. Mr. A. Brown said we are hoping this is the case, but we
need to study it. Councilman Frisch said you are hoping there is a lot more work that can be done on the
excavation of the garage before the old lift needs to stop and be taken away. Mr. M. Brown said for our
project the current lift does not have to come down. We have the ability to start construction and build
the necessary infrastructure then say to Ski Co land your lift. Mr. M. Brown said what it would involve is
that Gorsuch would have to go after Lift One Lodge, not simultaneously. That is the assurance that you
would need. They can’t construct with that lift sitting where it is. Mr. True said that is the dilemma you
really have to face. The sequencing does involve Gorsuch based on what was presented. Once Gorsuch
starts construction the lift comes down. You can’t have the new lift until the garage is completed.
Mr. Corbin said they just didn’t describe an operable lift. Until the Gorsuch Haus actually goes, the
existing lift can remain up the hill and prepare the future base for the lift. That doesn’t mean I would
have an operable lift for a certain period of time. You can guarantee some things might be built but you
probably can’t guarantee or find assurances of when they would be built or when they would be operable
without disruption or interruption. That is what we don’t know now. We can’t make that concrete. That
will be dynamic when everyone starts. I personally couldn’t get too excited about beginning Lift One
Lodge structure, Gorsuch doesn’t start and we have a nice sculpture on the top of that structure that
actually doesn’t turn. That’s done nobody any good. How do you fix that in time, I’m not sure you can.
Councilman Frisch said he is not looking for guarantees but to increase the probability of the entire
project getting done, not just the lodging component. Mr. Corbin said we share that vision and goal.
Councilman Frisch said he appreciates the probability of the sequencing that maybe the lift can continue
to spin while some amount of work gets done. Mr. Corbin talked about the scenario of Lift one Loge
going first and two years later how accessible is the lift with a construction project going on below. You
couldn’t get to the lift. Mr. True asked if the new lift were built on the garage prior to Gorsuch starting,
could you build a new lift with the old lift still running. Mr. Corbin replied not likely. The alignments
and the physical relationships would conflict pretty badly. Leaving the existing lift in place would
conflict with the alignment of the new lift. There would be little sense in just building the lower terminal
of the new lift and leaving the old lift in operation. If Gorsuch doesn’t go for several years and you start
the new lift the closeness to the building envelope would mean I have to turn it off in the future when they
do start to build. Mr. Shaw said this conversation is why it is important for the projects to be sequenced
together.
Councilwoman Mullins asked to review the affordable housing again. Mr. M. Brown said the employee
generation review is not meant to be a gift. If it doesn’t bear out you owe the employee housing through
the mitigation. Ms. Garrow said there is an audit at two years. If it is not shown there were efficiencies
by not taking the free market mitigation on the front end and they actually did have more employees it is
owed at the two year mark. Mayor Skadron said but if it should bear out the benefit is about 11 million
dollars. Mr. M. Brown replied should it bear out the employees weren’t generated and there wasn’t a
need for it. It wasn’t a gift, it never became reality. I think that is why it is in the code. Councilwoman
Mullins replied that is why I supported that for both projects. The density reduces the mitigation so much
more. Ms. Garrow said the special review for density is within the lodge zone district and allows the
project to take advantage of the allowances as if it had more units per lot area. There are higher heights
and floor area and lower mitigation. If council supported the height and floor area and not the mitigation
then we could write the ordinance to say that is approved through planned development or the special
review is granted for the two but not the mitigation. Councilwoman Mullins said she will go with what
Steve said because the employee generation means there are no additional employees and if there are they
will be mitigated for. I appreciate the changes to the architecture. Ms. Garrow said there are three that
would grant the special review related to density, Steve and Ann support the employee generation
reduction, Ward and Bert are against it. Councilman Myrin said he is happy to do it as part of the
P126
VI.f
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 3, 2018
12
package for the money and then get the money back somehow. Adam is right that it is money that
nobody sees. Mr. M. Brown said the employee generation is an incentive for lodging. We are simply
asking for that. These projects contribute 184 rooms to the lodging base and that is the impetus for it
being in the code. Councilman Hauenstein said using the baseline of 114 FTEs he would be fine granting
full relief as long as we end up with 114 FTE. If those are arrived at with a special tax district that is fine.
I don’t object to the applicants getting the breaks of the incentive programs, I just don’t want the delta to
be on the back of the employee. The 114 is what I want. If the 67 is what the applicants can be granted,
that’s fine, just make up the difference. Mr. Clauson said a special tax district is very complex and will
require a tremendous amount of time to analyze and bring forward. We are better off looking at what the
code can provide. Councilman Myrin asked if it is possible to get the number of employees of the St.
Regis, Jerome and the Nell and the number of rooms among them. Ms. Garrow said it may be possible. I
think what I heard is there is support for the special review, there is still a question on the employee
generation review. We can come back with language related to both next week. Councilman Frisch said
the APCHA board said don’t even get involved in the audit. Ms. Garrow replied correct. The point
Michael and Stan have made is important. You are not waiving those employees. You are saying as an
incentive to help this project, trust but verify. If there are employees that are generated they have to be
mitigated. Councilman Frisch asked if there is a maximum cap to these numbers for employee
generation. Ms. Garrow replied it is an audit to the free market piece specifically. Councilman Myrin
said it would make no sense to do a taxing district after the fact. The answer to everything is it is just too
complicated and that is what was presented tonight. We hear that all the time. I think it is worth trying to
accomplish. Councilman Frisch said he is happy to talk about it. On the street melt, I think there is
enough support to leave it in the language that we might have to pull that trigger at some point. If that is
the case we need some discussion on the mechanisms to pay for it. Mayor Skadron said the direction on
snow melt is to not explore it. Ms. Garrow said it is to not mandate it. Councilman Frisch said it is to
have something in the ordinance that it might come in the future. We need some level of direction as to
how it gets paid for. Councilwoman Mullins said staff’s recommendation is pretty clear. See what
happens this winter, do some traffic studies, look at alternative then bring it back to council. Councilman
Myrin said like a sidewalk agreement it need to have an agreement as to who is going to pay for it when it
is time to put it in. That is what Adam is asking for. Councilwoman Mullins said that is a tough thing to
ask someone. She is not sure that is something you can ask of the applicant or ask it of the city. Mr. True
said there is one way to address the snow melt issue through the ordinance where you really are deferring
the consideration after you explore the necessity and who may feel a need for it other than the City of
Aspen. If the City feels a need for it there is a way to form a special district because it is specifically
authorized as something under special district and taxing powers of that district. You just want the
property owners that are the applicants to agree not to veto if it goes to a vote of the property owners. I
think in the ordinance, and I think we have done this in the past, the ordinance can say if you create a
special district for the purpose of doing the snow melt that these particular owners will not object. They
will have to join the district that you create. We have talked about that as a possibility and I think that can
be done. Councilman Hauenstein stated he does not like unresolved and undefined and leaving it to a
future council. He would support finding a cost sharing percentages between the applicants and the City
if the snow melt is needed for a future council to have it as guidance. Mr. A. Brown said it shouldn’t be
lost that millions were just spent on S. Aspen Street on improvements mandated by the developments
going along the street pursuant to a cost sharing agreement between ourselves and One Aspen
Townhomes. Councilman Frisch said I don’t think anyone wants to do anything more to S Aspen Street
from a financial reason and an environmental reason. The problem is if the road becomes so unsafe that
your guests and your deliveries and Gorsuch’s team is affected by it, the community might want to have
an option to ensure there is a safe street created. Councilman Frisch said your preference would be to not
have any discussion about any type of future snow melt that has anything to do with the Lift One corridor
application team and the onus should be on the city. Ms. Garrow said every council member supports the
proposal that was in the memo. The test it out for two years and see how it goes. There are a lot of
concerns related to environmental impacts. We would move forward a potential district in the future if it
is determined if the snow melt is needed.
P127
VI.f
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 3, 2018
13
Ms. Garrow said the majority of council has indicated there is some participation but probably not for the
ski museum. It is really city infrastructure and things that were not part of the original obligation of the
Lift One approvals and potentially dealt with through a taxing district. I want to be clear that is the
direction so we can continue to work with the applicants. Councilwoman Mullins said that may be the
majority but I certainly think the City should help with the ski museum. To what extent I’m not sure.
The ski museum, the restored lift, the skier chalet, the steakhouse, they are all going to be long term assets
for the city and it would behoove us to make sure it happens and we don’t lose those structures or that one
structure. Councilman Frisch said I totally agree on your goal, is it your assumption that if the
community doesn’t help take care of some priory purchased obligations from the developer that the entire
project is at risk and that is why we need to get them over the finish line. Councilwoman Mullins replied
that one particular resource is at risk. Councilman Frisch stated it is not at risk. They have a legal
obligation to deliver a black box per agreement they bought. Mr. M. Brown replied we are making a
voluntary designation of that building to preservation. We are not obligated to that particular building.
Our current entitlement is that but who knows if that gets built either. Councilman Frisch asked if you are
thinking after all this work for two year you want to go back to the original plans that you bought. Mr. M.
Brown said I’m telling you with certain whether or not we would do that or nothing. Councilman Myrin
said that is very helpful to hear that. That is what we need to be aware of on council. We need to be
making sure we are getting what we want for the community. Councilwoman Mullins said what has been
put together is a really good project. Twenty years from now people will look at it and appreciate what
this council did, if we support it and an integral part of that is the historic resources and we need to at this
point we need to partner with these guys because there is no obligation on their part to preserve them.
Mr. M. Brown said what I can tell you is our existing approval, while we hope to build it, we aren’t going
to put ourselves in a financial jack pot like the dozens of lodges that have come before us have done. You
didn’t give us what we needed on the vested rights. We took the risk. If the situation with the economy
is not favorable at the time the development is ready to go then we aren’t going to build. We aren’t going
to go broke like the dozens of lodges before us. Councilman Frisch said I think we all want to focus on
this proposal as opposed to the one that was purchased.
Ms. Garrow said there are still some outstanding questions on cost sharing which I’m not sure will be
resolved tonight so we can continue the conversation next week. We can do what we can to the
ordinances to address all the other items that were discussed tonight and go from there. Mayor Skadron
said you are desirous of a number from city council exclusive of the ski museum. Ms. Garrow said as we
walk away from this meeting trying to put the direction into actual ordinance language, what I heard and
what you summarized is there is some support for participation but not for the ski museum. I’m not really
sure where that leaves us in terms of coming back. Mr. M. Brown said we’ve proposed cost sharing on
two areas, the museum, park and street. Councilwoman Mullins said before we exclude one part or the
other I think everybody needs to understand the consequences of excluding the ski museum. We need a
more in depth discussion as to what happens. Ms. Garrow said that is what we need to have on the 10th.
What we need going in to the 10th is if council is really focused on yes cost sharing but for the park and
public infrastructure improvements not including the museum, what does that look like. Mr. M. Brown
said that would be helpful to us. Ms. Garrow said these are the key improvements that are part of the cost
sharing. We need some clarity if you are interested in participating in some way. Mayor Skadron asked
should the city dedicate the fees it’s been paid to offset development expenses. Mr. M. Brown said for
tree mitigation it gets spent right there. That is where they would go otherwise. Barry Crook, managers
office, said the city manager has been clear that he thinks that kind of dedication of fees is inappropriate
and is not a precedent you would want to set. That doesn’t mean you can’t say whatever is up there that
is left 4.4 million dollars should come from the City and we have to go figure out where it comes from.
There was some notion somewhere raised by someone that development fees would be turned back into
the project costs. We don’t think that is a good precedent for the council to set. Councilman Myrin said
he would prefer one big number then figure out how much we want to recapture, if any. The other thing
that has come up is if the ski museum isn’t funded the applicant might look at using that for affordable
housing, is that the case. Mr. M. Brown said if the city isn’t interested in participating in cost sharing
elements we are going to have to get creative. If that means part of the steakhouse building goes back to
dormitory or there are alternatives for the skier chalet the burden would shift back to us to think of what
P128
VI.f
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 3, 2018
14
are the alternatives. Ms. Garrow said we will do our best to put two ordinances together that address what
we heard tonight.
Councilman Frisch said from day one of the joint venture the assumption was there would be some type
of historical society building here. Then it got combined with skier services. Now I’m hearing that whole
thing might be proposed to be voted on without any type of ski museum what so ever. I think the
probability is higher unless there is some type of cost sharing community investment discussion. Mr. M.
Brown said it would force us to be creative and to think of other solutions. Jeff Woods, parks, said the
historical society is very much a part of this. They were voted on in 94 to have a museum on Willoughby
park. If they exercise that right this whole project falls apart. I think we need to be creative and work
together. The historical society is part of this unless they opt out. They have a 99 year lease on the
property. If they exercise their lease they could potentially check mate the whole project. Councilman
Frisch said from day one of the joint application of the lift coming down there was always a plan of a
historical society museum. It has now been shared with some skier services. 10 minutes ago what I think
I heard Michael say was if there is not any cost sharing from the community they might turn the building
that was to be the museum into something else. Mr. Woods said the museum is a critical component.
Mayor Skadron said we are at a point where we need to move this. We have clarity on three of the four
topics. There will be further discussion on the cost sharing component. Council needs to be specific on
the degree to which we are willing to offer.
Councilwoman Mullins said she has heard overwhelming support for this project. We are supportive of
this going forward. We do want it to pass. If you are getting overwhelming support for what is proposed
I’m not sure it is in our best interest to start picking it apart.
Councilman Hauenstein moved to continue Ordinance #38, Series of 2018 to December 10, 2018;
seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Frisch moved to continue Ordinance #39, Series of 2016 to December 10, 2018; seconded by
Councilman Hauenstein. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Frisch moved to adjourn at 11:25 p.m.; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor,
motion carried.
Linda Manning
City Clerk
P129
VI.f
Page 1 of 7
Lift 1 Corridor Project
City Council, Second Reading, December 10, 2018
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and City Council
FROM: Ben Anderson, Planner II
Mike Kraemer, Senior Planner
THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director
RE: Lift 1 Corridor Project – continued public hearing
MEETING
DATE: Monday, December 10, 2018; 5pm
INTRODUCTION:
This is the fourth public hearing on the Lift One Corridor project, consisting of City Parks, Lift One
Lodge, and Gorsuch Haus. This memo provides an overview of the project, areas of previous
Council direction, as well as responses to the final outstanding issues related to cost sharing.
While the attached Ordinances are near completion, there is some detail that needs to be
finalized on the ballot language for referral, and all parties need time to ensure the Ordinances
accurately reflect the direction from Council.
For this reason, staff requests the December 10th meeting focus on resolution of the remaining
issues, and gaining final direction on the project, but that the final vote to refer the Ordinances
occur in January. A special meeting on January 7th, 2019 and if needed a continuation to January
14th, 2019 is possible in the council schedule.
OVERVIEW OF THE LIFT 1 CORRIDOR PROJECT:
The Lift 1 Corridor Project is the culmination of a multi-year effort by multiple stakeholders to
revitalize the Lift 1A neighborhood. The project envisions a reconstruction and relocation of the
Lift 1A lift station to Dean Street through the redevelopment of private properties owned by the
Lift One Lodge and the Gorsuch Haus. Through extensive community outreach and stakeholder
involvement, the Lift 1 Corridor Project has been refined to achieve the community desire of
bringing the lift closer to downtown and return lodging base to this declining sector of the Aspen
economy. Overall, the project will result in the following land uses:
P130
IX.a
Page 2 of 7
Lift 1 Corridor Project – Staff Memo
City Council, Continued Second Reading, December 10, 2018
• 185 new lodge keys, including 104 in Lift One Lodge (timeshare units), and 81 in Gorsuch
Haus (traditional lodging units).
• 2 new on-site affordable housing units, housing 3.5 FTEs (remaining mitigation provided
through off-site, credits, and cash-in-lieu)
• 23,855 sq ft of commercial space, including a 3,829 sq ft revitalized Skiers Chalet
Steakhouse
• Approximately 11,000 sq ft of community space in the form of a Ski Museum, Aspen Skiing
Company skier services, and ancillary space
• Dean Street lift location, including facilities for ski patrol and ticketing/skier services
Additionally, as has been identified previously, completion of the Project has the ability to
provide long term community benefits beyond just the nearby neighborhood, but the City of
Aspen as a whole. These benefits include the following:
• Direct skier access from Dean Street. This project creates a more accessible second
portal to Aspen Mountain, and activates the area traditionally used for skier access. The
new lift is in nearly the identical location as the original Lift 1.
• Return skiing to Dean Street. This project, thanks in large part to the generosity of the
Dolinsek family, enables full return skiing to Dean Street.
• Improved skier facilities. The new facilities, include ticketing, patrol, a new “chondola”
lift, and a skier corridor, providing a potential for the return of World Cup skiing to Aspen
Mountain. The improvements to the base area, may also provide opportunities for
activation of other on-mountain facilities, such as Ruthies. This could, in turn, promote
additional uphilling and other activities called for in other city planning efforts.
• Revitalized portal to Aspen Mountain. The addition of a skier museum, skier services,
dining opportunities, and updated parks land provides day-into-night time activation of
this western portal. Additionally, the creation of lodge units to add to the bed base is an
important goal outlined in the AACP and often discussed in the community. If lodge
development is to occur anywhere in town, this appears to be an ideal location.
• Year-round parks amenity. The redesigned Willoughby and Lift One Parks provide an
improved access from Dean Street to Aspen Mountain and create many opportunities for
both summer and winter activities. The addition of Dolinsek Gardens and the
reorganization of multiple open space parcels create a contiguous open space which
rivals Wagner Park in size and importance. The parks are designed to highlight Aspen’s
skiing heritage in a way that doesn’t occur today.
• Restoration of historic resources. The project includes the relocation and preservation
of three of Aspen’s most important ski-era structures – Lift 1, Skiers Chalet, and Skiers
Chalet Steakhouse. While restoration was called for in the existing Lift One Lodge
P131
IX.a
Page 3 of 7
Lift 1 Corridor Project – Staff Memo
City Council, Continued Second Reading, December 10, 2018
approval, this amendment is clearer in how that is achieved, and includes some more
extensive restoration work. Additionally, it returns the Steakhouse building to its original
restaurant use.
• Ski History Museum. This project also provides a clearer path for the long-anticipated
museum to interpret and celebrate Aspen’s contribution to ski history. Coupling the
space with ticketing and café space, may ensure a more vital and visited area than the
current approval.
• Dean Street becomes a pedestrian and bicycle friendly amenity. Dean Street, from
South Aspen to Monarch Streets will be transformed into a pedestrian friendly ADA
accessible zone with a formalized plaza area, pervious pavers, a generous vehicular drop
off area and designated bike ways. This theme strengthens the relationship of pedestrian
flows all the way along the Dean Street corridor and further emphasizes the connection
to Gondola Plaza.
• Multi-modal improvements. In addition to mitigating the trips generated by the
development, the proposed improvements along Dean Street create a multi-modal
corridor between Lift 1A and the Gondola. The improvements enable one to walk or bike
safely between these two access points.
• Safety improvements. The relocation of the garage access to Dean St. provides a safer
access point for cars, and the on-way configuration creates a safer environment for
bicyclists and pedestrians.
• Gilbert Street Access: The project creates a turnaround at the end of Gilbert Street.
This provides a safe turnaround area in an otherwise dead end street, thereby
preventing people from the unsafe maneuver of backing out of Gilbert Street onto
Monarch Street.
PREVIOUS CITY COUNCIL HEARING:
At the December 3rd public hearing (continued from November 26th), the discussion
acknowledged topics that gained previous City Council support (site planning/lift corridor
alignment, use of City parks, height/massing/scale-both Gorsuch Haus and Lift One Lodge, and
rezoning) and more directly focused on remaining topics that needed further vetting and
direction. These four remaining topics included:
1) Further evaluation on Affordable Housing Mitigation including Special Review for Lodge
Density, Employee Generation review, and the Ski History Museum as an Essential Public
Facility;
2) Winter Maintenance on S. Aspen Street including discussion on the possibility of a
snowmelt system installation.
3) Project Phasing and impact to the operation of Lift 1A; and
4) Dollar figures associated with the Cost Sharing Proposal;
P132
IX.a
Page 4 of 7
Lift 1 Corridor Project – Staff Memo
City Council, Continued Second Reading, December 10, 2018
The following summarizes the City Council majority direction on these topics:
AFFORDABLE HOUSING MITIGATION
Following significant discussion between Council and the applicant teams, and after public
comment, Council expressed a majority of support for the Special Review for Lodge Density
(Gorsuch Haus) and the discretionary Employee Generation Review (both Gorsuch Haus and Lift
One Lodge). These reviews provide incentives to the lodge projects through increased floor area,
height, and reduced affordable housing mitigation fees. To ensure accurate representations of
FTE efficiencies between the lodge and free market components, an audit will be required at 2
years following certificate of occupancy. If the audit shows the efficiencies are not realized,
mitigation of the waived FTE’s will be required at that time. Though unanimity among the Council
was not achieved on this aspect of the project, majority support for these discretionary reviews
was expressed. The draft ordinances will be amended to reflect this support.
Additionally, there was majority support by the Council that the current requirements for
mitigation of the Ski Museum be carried forward from the vested Lift One Lodge project.
Specifically, this means that no FTE mitigation for the ski museum as an essential public facility is
required at this time, and instead an audit will be required at 5 and 10 years increments after the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Should the audit show additional employees are
generated from the ski museum, the Aspen Historical Society and the City Council will meet to
determine what potential FTE mitigation, if any, should be owed. This is standard practice for
essential public facilities. The draft ordinances will be amended to reflect this aspect of the
review.
SNOWMELT
Due to the potential winter maintenance issues involving the use South Aspen Street for lodge
development access, the Council engaged in significant discussion regarding the merits of
requiring a snowmelt system installation for this steeply graded road. Variables discussed
included the potential for increased traffic volumes associated with the lodge developments,
vehicles types accessing South Aspen Street, and winter maintenance augmentations that would
utilize additional sanding, plowing, and potential use of de-icers in lieu of a snowmelt system.
Due to the unknown environmental factors and monetary costs associated with the snowmelt
system and an undefined funding mechanism for installation and maintenance of such a system,
Council expressed majority support to defer the snowmelt requirement and study the future
impacts to the street. Deferring the snowmelt installation provides time to study the winter
maintenance needs of the lodges and evaluate the ability for the City to provide such
maintenance from a both a cost and priority perspective. Should augmented maintenance prove
insufficient, snowmelt installation could be required and potentially funded through a future
metropolitan district or other public improvement district. The draft ordinances will include
language to reflect the City Council majority direction on this topic, which reflects the proposal
from the December 3rd staff memo.
P133
IX.a
Page 5 of 7
Lift 1 Corridor Project – Staff Memo
City Council, Continued Second Reading, December 10, 2018
CONSTRUCTION PHASING AND SEQUENCING:
The City Council expressed concern relating to the potential for an inoperable Lift 1A for
unanticipated extended timeframes once construction commences for the proposed lodge
projects. In their discussion, the Council considered implementing a definitive timeframe to
ensure future lift operation. In response, the Applicant teams represented that, without
question, unknown factors exist relating to extensive site excavation for both projects and future
market variabilities that could alter the planned timeframe for Lift 1A replacement and its
eventual full operation. To this end, the Council acknowledged the Applicant teams’
representations on construction sequencing and phasing and gave clear direction for the desire
to limit the timeframe that Lift 1A in inoperable. However, a majority of Council determined a
specific condition of approval relating to the lift was not required. The draft ordinances will
include language that reflects the Applicants’ representations and the Council’s discussion on this
topic.
COST SHARING PROPOSAL
The December 3rd meeting did not result in consensus on potential cost sharing, and Council
requested additional thought and discussion on this topic. Since the December 3rd meeting, the
applicant has adjusted two aspects of the requested cost sharing. First, the request to reinvest
and tree mitigation fees directly into the project has been withdrawn. The applicants will pay all
tree mitigation according to standard requirements and practices. Second, the Lift One Lodge
applicants have stated that they will cover the full cost of the restoration, storage, and relocation
of the lift (previously the city was asked to cover any costs over $650K). Other aspects of the cost
sharing agreement remain on the table for discussion.
In effort to help facilitate the discussion regarding the Applicant teams’ cost sharing request, Staff
has proposed 5 separate alternatives for Council consider. These alternatives range from full
financial participation in the cost sharing proposal, to denial of any funding. Combinations are
also outlined and could include contributions to only one aspect of the project, and/or specific
dollar contributions that are not linked to a specific revenue source or specific portion of the
project. The following outlines these alternatives:
1) No Contribution to requests in Cost Sharing proposal
2) Contribute to the revised Cost Sharing Proposal as proposed (amount and revenue source)
Dean Street $760,000 – estimate, Capital Improvements Budget
Skiers’ Chalet Lodge $3.6M – estimate, re-allocated development fees
(80% of total project fees for L1L & GH)
__________________________________________
$4.36M – estimate, Total
3) Contribute to Cost Sharing Proposal as proposed (amount only)
P134
IX.a
Page 6 of 7
Lift 1 Corridor Project – Staff Memo
City Council, Continued Second Reading, December 10, 2018
$4.36M – estimate – direct contribution from COA
Under this option, this money could be directed to specific aspects of project, but not
from a defined revenue source.
4) Contribute to specific aspects of the Cost Sharing Proposal
Dean Street or, Skiers’ Chalet Lodge or, some combination
5) Contribute a fixed dollar amount unrelated to Cost Sharing Proposal
Example: Not to exceed $X.XX towards the project
From a budgeting perspective, if cost sharing is supported by City Council, it may make sense to
leave the source of revenue undefined, which would provide Council more flexibility in
determining how it should impact the City’s General Fund, Capital Fund, etc. Additionally, since
there is some lag time between the date of a final approval and when cost sharing would be due,
this allows the City to respond more nimbly to the financial situations at that time.
In all scenarios, the City is responsible for site improvements to Willoughby and Lift One Parks
(and Dolinsek Gardens) beyond responsibilities of L1L described in Cost Sharing Proposal. This
includes costs related to plaza and interface with Skiers Chalet Lodge, installation of bathrooms
in Pool House Building, and is consistent with the current Lift One Lodge vested approval.
It should be noted that the future evaluation of need for Snowmelt is a separate issue and is not
included in Cost Sharing consideration. Discussion of this requirement is handled in a separate
section of the Ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends continuation of the public hearing for Ordinance No. 38, Series of 2018 (Lift
One Lodge) and Ordinance No. 39, Series of 2016 (Gorsuch Haus) to a special City Council meeting
scheduled for January 7th, 2019. With the goal of continued refinement of the Ordinances for
both the Lift One Lodge and Gorsuch Haus projects, it is anticipated that the December 10th
meeting will include further opportunity for public comment and Council discussion/direction on
specific topics.
RECOMMENDED MOTIONS:
“I move to continue Ordinance No. 38, Series of 2018, to the January 7th,2019 Council meeting.”
And
“I move to continue Ordinance No. 39, Series of 2016 to the January 7th, 2019 Council meeting.”
EXHIBITS
None.
P135
IX.a
Page 7 of 7
Lift 1 Corridor Project – Staff Memo
City Council, Continued Second Reading, December 10, 2018
**Note: the Exhibits and packet materials submitted previously to Council for the projects
remain unchanged and are available on the agendas for the November 12, 26, and December
3, 2018 meetings.
P136
IX.a
DRAFT Working 12-6-18
Ordinance No. 38, Series of 2018
Lift One Lodge, Major Amendment
Page 1 of 17
ORDINANCE NO. 38
(SERIES OF 2018)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN GRANTING APPROVAL OF THE LIFT
ONE LODGE SUBDIVISION/ PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, WITH CONDITIONS, FOR
A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, SUBDIVISION, RE-
ZONING, GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM, COMMERCIAL DESIGN,
AND RELATED REVIEWS, FOR THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 710 S.
ASPEN STREET, WILLOUGHBY PARK, AND LIFT ONE PARK, AND LEGALLY
DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1, 2, 3 AND 4 OF THE LIFT ONE LODGE SUBDIVISION / PUD
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED MARCH 5, 2013, AT BOOK 102,
PAGE 1, RECEPTION NO. 597438, COUNTY OF PITKIN, CITY OF ASPEN, STATE OF
COLORADO.
Parcel ID: 2735-131-01-001; 2735-131-01-002; 2735-131-01-800; 2735-131-01-801
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application for the
Lift One Lodge Subdivision and Planned Unit Development (the Application) from Lift One
Lodge Aspen, LLC (Applicant), represented by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. for the following
land use review approvals:
• Planned Development, Major Amendment, Project Review - pursuant to Land Use
Code Chapter (26.445); and,
• Subdivision - pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter (26.480); and,
• Amendment to the Zone District Map - pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter (26.310);
and,
• Growth Management Quota System - pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter (26.470);
and,
• Commercial Design - pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter (26.412); and,
• Timeshare Development - pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter (26.590); and,
• Transportation and Parking Management - pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter
(26.515); and,
• Special Review - pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter (26.430); and,
• ESA - Mountain View Plane - pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter (26.435); and,
• Certificate of Appropriateness for major development, Conceptual Review – pursuant
to Land Use Code Chapter (26.415); and
• Vested Property Rights- pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter (26.308); and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned Lodge (L) and Park (P) with a Planned
Development (PD) Overlay; and,
WHEREAS, the original approval of the Lift One Lodge Subdivision / PUD was granted
through Ordinance No. 28, Series of 2011; and,
P137
IX.aa 1
DRAFT Working 12-6-18
Ordinance No. 38, Series of 2018
Lift One Lodge, Major Amendment
Page 2 of 17
WHEREAS, an Amendment to the Planned Development was approved by Planning and
Zoning Commission in Resolution No. 2, Series of 2016; and,
WHEREAS, City Council, in Resolution No. 41, Series of 2015, Resolution No. 90, Series
of 2017, and Resolution No. 71, Series of 2018 have approved extensions of vested rights; and,
WHEREAS, the Lift One Lodge Project has existing vested rights through November 28,
2021; and,
WHEREAS, as a consequence of the proposed changes constituting a Major Amendment,
all code citation references to the City of Aspen Land Use Code are in effect on the day of initial
application – September 4, 2018, as applicable to this Project; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed changes in the Application for the Lift One Lodge
Subdivision/PD are in response to a completed study of the Lift 1A corridor, the proposed
relocation of the Lift 1A lift station to Willoughby Park, and direction from Aspen City Council
to pursue changes to development to accommodate the proposed ski corridor; and,
WHEREAS, The Application for an Amendment to Lift One Lodge Subdivision/ PUD
proposes:
On Lot 1 and 2 – Lift One Lodge
• 34 Lodge Units, 104 Lodge Keys
• Six (6) free-market residential units
• One (1), one-bedroom employee housing unit
• 16,125 square feet of commercial, net leasable area
• Skiers’ Chalet Steakhouse, relocated and restored, restaurant/bar use
• 76 parking spaces in a sub-grade garage
• Cul-de-sac creating a terminus of Gilbert Street
On Lot 3 – Willoughby and Lift One Parks
• New, Aspen Skiing Company ski lift
• Ski corridor and ski operations facilities
• Relocated and restored, Skiers’ Chalet Lodge and historic Lift One bull wheel and
towers
• Use of Skiers’ Chalet Lodge as ski museum, skier services, and ski patrol
• Access to sub-grade parking garage, 50 public parking spaces
• Dean Street Improvements
WHEREAS, a Development Review Committee Meeting was held on September 19, 2018
and the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Environmental Health
Department, Parks Department, Aspen Fire Protection District, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority, Parking Department, and the Transportation Department as a result of the Development
Review Committee meeting; and,
P138
IX.aa 1
DRAFT Working 12-6-18
Ordinance No. 38, Series of 2018
Lift One Lodge, Major Amendment
Page 3 of 17
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Application at a duly
noticed public hearing on October 2, 2018; and continued the public hearing to October 16, 2018;
and provided recommendation of approval (Resolution No. 5, Series of 2018) to City Council by
a vote of seven to zero (7-0); and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority reviewed the Application at a
regularly scheduled meeting on October 3, 2018; and provided recommendation of approval to
City Council; and,
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the Application at a duly
noticed public hearing on October 10, 2018; and continued the public hearing to October 24, 2018;
and provided recommendation of approval (Resolution No. 16, Series of 2018) by a vote of seven
to zero (7-0); and,
WHEREAS, a properly noticed site visit on October 15, 2018 provided additional
information on the project with relationship to site planning and proposed building heights for the
Lift One Lodge and Gorsuch Haus applications; and,
WHEREAS, the Open Space and Trails Board reviewed the Application at a regularly
scheduled meeting November 1, 2018; and provided recommendation of approval to City Council
by a vote of four to one (4-1); and,
WHEREAS, 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
recommendations of the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission,
the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing;
and,
WHEREAS, on October 22, 2018, the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. 38,
Series of 2018 on First Reading by an five to zero (5–0) vote; and,
WHEREAS, properly noticed site visits on November 12 and 13, 2018 provided
information regarding proposed building heights for the Lift One Lodge and Gorsuch Haus
applications; and,
WHEREAS, on November 12, 2018, The Aspen City Council at a duly noticed public
hearing, considered the application, recommendations from review boards, presentations from the
applicant and staff, and public comments, and continued the public hearing on Ordinance No. 38,
Series of 2018 to November 26, 2018, by a vote of four to zero (4-0); and,
WHEREAS, on November 26, 2018, The Aspen City Council at a continued public
hearing, considered the application, recommendations from review boards, presentations from the
applicant and staff, and public comments, and continued the public hearing on Ordinance No. 38,
Series of 2018 to December 3, 2018, by a vote of four to zero (4 -0); and,
P139
IX.aa 1
DRAFT Working 12-6-18
Ordinance No. 38, Series of 2018
Lift One Lodge, Major Amendment
Page 4 of 17
WHEREAS, on December 3, 2018, The Aspen City Council at a duly noticed public
hearing, considered the application, recommendations from review boards, presentations from the
applicant and staff, and public comments, and continued the public hearing on Ordinance No. 38,
Series of 2018 to December 10, 2018, by a vote of XX to XX (X-X); and,
WHEREAS, during a continued public hearing on December 10, 2018 City Council, by a
____ to ____ (_ – _) vote, referred to voters Ordinance No.38, Series of 2018 that would grant
approval with conditions for a Major Amendment to a Planned Development, Project Review, and
related reviews for Subdivision, Rezoning, Growth Management Quota System, Commercial
Design, Timeshare Development, Transportation and Parking Management, Special Review, ESA
– Mountain View Plane, and Vested Rights, as identified herein, with the recommended changes
to the application listed hereinafter; and,
WHEREAS, City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all the
applicable development standards; and,
WHEREAS, City Council intends to refer the project to the Aspen voters for
consideration; and,
WHEREAS, 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, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1: General Approvals
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
City of Aspen approves with conditions the Lift One Lodge Aspen, LLC application for a Site
Specific Development Plan for the Lift One Lodge Subdivision / PD that includes reviews for a
Major Amendment to a Planned Development - Project Review, and related reviews for
Subdivision, Rezoning, Growth Management Quota System, Commercial Design, Timeshare
Development, Transportation and Parking Management, Special Review, ESA – Mountain View
Plane, Certificate of Appropriateness for major development, Conceptual Review, and Vested
Rights – allowing for the development of three lots with containing a mixed-use lodge
development with X lodging units and X lodging keys, a total of X sq. ft. of net leasable space,
one affordable housing unit, and X free market residential units; public and private parking; a
relocated historic Lift 1 and tower; a new ski lift and ski way; skier services; a standalone
commercial building; a redeveloped public park and a ski museum, subject to the conditions of
approval listed herein.
Section 2: Effectiveness of Ordinance 28, Series of 2011 and P&Z Resolution No 2, Series of
2016; existing vested rights for Lift One Lodge; and Subsequent Reviews.
Previous approvals for Lift One Lodge remain in effect and are valid until the plat and development
agreement(s) related to Ordinance 38, Series of 2018 are recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk
and Recorder. Upon recordation of required approval documents, the entitlements associated with
Ordinance No. 28 (Series of 2011) shall be considered null and void and the entitlements associated
P140
IX.aa 1
DRAFT Working 12-6-18
Ordinance No. 38, Series of 2018
Lift One Lodge, Major Amendment
Page 5 of 17
with this ordinance shall supersede any previous approvals unless specifically cited within this
ordinance.
Section 3: Subdivision and Rezoning
Contemporaneously with and effective upon the recording of an Amended Subdivision Plat, the
Lots within this subdivision as reflected in the Subdivision Plat, shall be zoned as follows:
Lot 1: Lodge, Planned Development, Designated Historic (L-PD-H)
Lot 2: Lodge, Planned Development (L-PD)
Lot 3: Park, Planned Development, Designated Historic (P-PD-H)
The Official Zone District Map shall be amended to reflect the rezoning once the plat is recorded.
Conveyance of title associated with Lots 1-3, acknowledging a change of ownership between Lift
One Lodge and the City of Aspen, shall be completed with a recordation of deeds immediately
following the recordation of the amended subdivision plat. The approved lot configuration is
attached as an exhibit to this Ordinance.
Section 4: Plat and Previously Approved Vacations
Previously approved vacations of public rights-of-ways, as described in Ordinance No. 28, Series
of 2011 and depicted in the Street, Alley and Easement Vacation Plat, Book 101, Page 98 and 99,
Reception number 597435, recorded on 03/05/2013; remain in effect. An Amended Street, Alley
and Easement Vacation Plat shall be recorded to reflect additional Gilbert Street right of way to
be vacated.
Section 5: Planned Development - Project Review
The approved dimensions, site plan, architectural massing, and character are represented as
Exhibits A and B of this ordinance. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.090(A), the
applicant has one year from Project Review approval to submit the Detail Review application for
this request.
Within 180 days of approval of this ordinance, the applicant shall submit an ‘Approved Plan Set,’
containing the floor plans, site plan, lot configuration, and elevations that were approved by the
City Council.
The following uses are approved on Lot 3 via the Planned Development and subsequently
described in more detail:
1) Ski base activity, including, but not limited to: lift and ski operations, skier services, ski
patrol, and special events.
2) Ski Museum, and accessory uses associated with the museum’s operation, that may be
commercial in nature.
3) Subgrade parking garage and related uses, including an access point from Dean Street.
P141
IX.aa 1
DRAFT Working 12-6-18
Ordinance No. 38, Series of 2018
Lift One Lodge, Major Amendment
Page 6 of 17
Section 6: Skier Chalet Lodge - Ski Museum and guest services
As designed, the relocated Skiers’ Chalet Lodge will contain a ski museum and related
programming operated by the Aspen Historical Society (AHS). Additionally, the building and
related structures will house skier services and ski patrol facilities operated by Aspen Skiing
Company (SkiCo.).
Lift One Lodge is responsible for the relocation and rehabilitation of the Skiers’ Chalet Lodge and
shall turn over the building in “white box” condition, ready for tenant finishes to be completed by
AHS and Ski Co. A Letter of Completion is required for the white box condition to be deemed
‘delivered’.
Upon completion of the building, the building will be under the shared ownership of Aspen
Historical Society and Aspen Skiing Company. An updated long-term lease with the City of Aspen
will establish the relationship between the building and the City Park as well as terms related to
determining a value for the building if a future sale were to occur. The city retains a right of first
refusal to purchase the building.
Section 7: Growth Management - Allotments
The original 2011 approval and 2016 amendment recognized a combination of credits and the
granting of the following growth management allotments: X lodging keys equaling X lodge
pillows, X sq. ft. of commercial net leasable area, X free market units, and X affordable housing.
With changes to the project the applicants are granted the following additional allotments from the
2018 allotments:
• 20 lodging keys = 40 lodging pillows.
• One (1) free-market residential unit.
The total number allotments associated with this project equals:
• X lodging keys = X lodging pillows
• X free-market residential units
• X commercial net leasable area
• 1 affordable housing unit
Section 8: Affordable Housing
The following mitigation requirements are based in the Land Use Code in effect at the time of
application, September 4, 2018. The calculations are based on conceptual level depictions of the
uses, especially the commercial space. Updated calculations will be conducted at final review and
confirmed at building permit.
A. Lift One Lodge
Lodge Use 17.72 FTEs
Free Market Residential Use 13.68 FTEs
Commercial Use West Building –21.8 FTE
SubTotal 59.3 FTE, Category 4
Total Required Mitigation 45.62 FTE, Category 4
P142
IX.aa 1
DRAFT Working 12-6-18
Ordinance No. 38, Series of 2018
Lift One Lodge, Major Amendment
Page 7 of 17
Employee Generation Review, Initial mitigation reduction
The applicant has requested and has been approved to have a project specific review of
employee generation that particularly reflects the allowance in Section 26.470.050.C.6 for
lodge development. This recognizes an efficiency of service between the free-market and the
lodge components of the project. A reduction of 13.68 FTEs is permitted; however, this
reduction requires an audit, 2 years after issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, to evaluate
actual employee generation. If the lodging component FTE generation is shown to be greater
than 17.72, mitigation shall be required commensurate with the employees generated up to an
additional 13.68 FTEs.
B Skier Chalet Steakhouse. The Skier Chalet Steakhouse generates 6.1 FTEs. Category 4.
C Aspen Skiing Company_- Skier services
The area in and adjacent to the Skiers’ Chalet Lodge to be utilized by Aspen Skiing Company for
skier services, lift operations, and ski patrol, is considered Commercial Net Leasable Area. This
area as depicted in the conceptual approval is approximately 2,500 sf. Because the existing Lift
1A facilities and related employees have been included in longtime employee audits of Ski Co.
operations with Pitkin County, the existing area of 2,340 sf is currently mitigated. The remaining
balance of the new area is 160 sf. This new, additional area is required to be mitigated. Based on
the calculation method in the Land Use Code, the estimated mitigation is 0.49 FTE, Category 4.
D. Ski Museum; Essential Public Facility
City Council designates the Ski Museum operated by the Aspen Historical Society as an Essential
Public Facilities. Employee generation is initially waived, but shall be evaluated by a required
employee audit at five and ten year intervals from the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
The museum shall be provided in a white box condition with a letter of completion being issued
by the City, prior to the Certificate of Occupancy being granted for the CO for the lodge, free-
market residential units, and commercial space.
E. Method of Mitigation
In addition to the provision of one on-site affordable housing unit, mitigation may be satisfied
utilizing on-site units, off-site units, “buy-down” units, or City of Aspen Affordable Housing
Credits. The Applicant is not requesting the option to provide a cash-in-lieu at this time, but
reserves the future right to request from City Council the ability to provide a cash-in-lieu payment
for any remaining mitigation that cannot be satisfied by the methods described above.
Section 9: Employee Housing Unit
The project as approved includes one (1), one-bedroom employee housing unit. This would
provide 1.75 FTE of required mitigation.
Affordable Housing Conditions. The one (1) affordable housing unit shall be deed restricted at
Category 4 (or below) and shall meet the following conditions:
P143
IX.aa 1
DRAFT Working 12-6-18
Ordinance No. 38, Series of 2018
Lift One Lodge, Major Amendment
Page 8 of 17
A. The deed restriction shall be recorded for the affordable housing unit prior to a Certificate of
Occupancy (CO) being issued for the housing unit. The CO for the affordable housing unit
shall be issued at the same time or prior to the CO for the lodge, free-market residential units,
and commercial space.
B. All tenants shall be approved by APCHA prior to occupancy.
C. Employees of the hotel shall be exempt from maximum assets and maximum income for the
on-site units; however, the tenants shall not own any other property within the ownership
exclusion zone and must work full time as defined in the APCHA Guidelines.
D. Minimum occupancy shall be obtained for each unit, as defined in the APCHA Guidelines.
E. The units shall not be vacant for longer than 45 days, unless APCHA notified as to why the
unit has been left vacant.
F. Washer and dryer shall be provided in employee housing unit.
G. The affordable housing unit shall be assigned one parking space in the underground garage,
and they shall not be a stacked or tandem space.
H. The affordable housing unit shall be a rental unit. The Condominium Declaration shall
include language, to be reviewed and approved by APCHA, that should the affordable
housing unit become an ownership unit:
1) It will be sold through the lottery system.
2) The dues will be based on the assessed value of the deed-restricted units vs. the free-
market unit as well as the square footage of the units;
3) No common expenses will be charged to the deed-restricted owners, unless approved
by APCHA.
4) A separate HOA shall be created for the deed-restricted employee housing unit.
Section 10: Timeshare Lodge Requirements
s originally approved, the lodge is approved as a timeshare lodge with a X share. A public rental
requirement assuring that unused timeshare lodge rooms will be available to the general public
shall be part of these approvals. Such rental requirements shall be documented in the Lift One
Lodge Timeshare Documents and shall contain a provision that this requirement cannot be
eliminated from the Condominium Declarations without approval from the City of Aspen City
Council. Periodic audits, pursuant to Section 26.575.210, Lodge occupancy auditing, of the Land
Use Code may be conducted.
Section 11: Parking and Transportation
A. Fifty (50) public parking spaces shall be provided by the project in a sub-grade garage, one of
which may be used by the Aspen Historical Society. Seventy-six (76) spaces shall be provided in
meeting the off-street parking requirements for Lift One Lodge in a sub-grade garage.
P144
IX.aa 1
DRAFT Working 12-6-18
Ordinance No. 38, Series of 2018
Lift One Lodge, Major Amendment
Page 9 of 17
B. Approval of Special Review is granted allowing tandem and stacked parking for the 76 spaces
for Lift One Lodge, subject to the condition that the space is only accessed by valet service.
C. A Parking Management Plan that defines the process for establishing any parking fee,
responsibility for management and maintenance, systems of access, and potential shared parking
agreement shall be provided for Final/Detailed review. This plan requires approval from the City
of Aspen, Parking Director.
D. The applicant shall implement the TDM and MMLOS mitigation measures, as outlined in the
application. Any closures/re-routes of South Aspen Street and Dean Street will need to be
coordinated with this project. Regardless of construction date, closures/impacts to Aspen Street
and Dean Street should be limited and coordinated well in advance. An updated TIA is required
at the PD-Detail Review and shall include a monitoring plan.
Section 12: Dean and Gilbert Street Improvements
Improvements to Dean Street and the creation of a cul-de-sac at the terminus to Gilbert Street are
approved and conceptual design is depicted as an exhibit to this Ordinance. Final design will be
evaluated by the Engineering Department and a recommendation made to the Planning and Zoning
Commission at Detailed review.
Section 13: Planned Development – Detail Review
In addition to the general documents required as part of a Planned Development – Detail Review,
the following items shall be required as part of the Application’s Planned Development – Detail
Review:
A. An Outdoor Lighting Plan, pursuant to section 26.575.150.
B. An existing and proposed Landscaping Plan, identifying trees with diameters and values.
C. A draft Construction Management/Phasing Plan.
D. A snow storage and snow shedding plan. Snow is not permitted to shed off roofs onto
neighboring properties. Demonstrate that any snow which sheds off roofs will remain on-
site.
E. An updated and final Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA), including a monitoring plan.
F. A final engineered design for the Dean Street improvements.
Section 14: Subdivision/PD Plat and Agreement
The Applicant shall submit a Subdivision/PD agreement (hereinafter “Agreement”) that meets the
requirements of the Land Use Code within 180 days of final approval. The 180 days shall
commence upon the granting of Final Commercial Design and Planned Development – Detail
Review approvals by the Planning & Zoning Commission and Final Review for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for a major development by the Historic Preservation Commission. The recordation
documents shall be submitted in accordance with the requirements of Section 26.490 Approval
Documents of the Land Use Code.
A. In accordance in Section 26.490.040, Approval Documents Content and Form, the
following plans are required in the Approved Plan Set:
1) Final Commercial Design Review/ Architectural Character Plan.
2) Planned Development Project and Detail Review Plans.
P145
IX.aa 1
DRAFT Working 12-6-18
Ordinance No. 38, Series of 2018
Lift One Lodge, Major Amendment
Page 10 of 17
3) Historic Preservation Plan
4) Public Amenity Plans.
5) Public Infrastructure Plan.
6) Final Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA), including a monitoring plan.
7) Amended Subdivision Plat.
B.In accordance with Section 26.490.050, Development Agreements, a Development
Agreement shall be entered into with the City. At a minimum the development agreement
shall include:
1) a construction sequencing plan,
2) easements or licenses to provide for ski operations to operate on the lots associated with
the ski corridor – including Lot 3 and
3)In accordance with Section 26.490.060, Financial and Site Protection Requirements,
the applicant shall provide a site protection guarantee and a site enhancement guarantee.
B. 4) In accordance with Section 26.490.070, Performance Guarantees, the following
guarantees are required in an amount equal to 150% of the current estimated cost of the
improvement:
1) Landscape Guarantee.
2) Public Facilities and Public Infrastructure Guarantee.
3) Storm Water and Drainage Improvements Guarantee.
The timeshare documents and condominium map referenced D. and E., below, shall not be
prepared until substantial completion of construction and should not be included in the 180 day
deadline. They will be required prior to a Certificate of Occupancy being issued for any part of
the lodge, free-market, or commercial uses not associated with SkiCo.
C. In accordance with Section 26.590, Timeshare, the Applicant shall incorporate the
requirements and restrictions of the City’s Timeshare Regulations into the final
timeshare instruments, including, but not limited to:
1) State requirements,
2) Owner occupancy limitations and disclosure of the public rental requirement,
3) Provisions for reserve funds for ongoing maintenance,
4) Prohibited practices and uses,
5) Limits on marketing techniques,
6) A prohibition against long-term storage of owner vehicles, and
7) Prohibitions on offering non-Aspen gifts within a marketing plan.
D. A Condominium Map shall be competed for the development in accordance with
Section 26.480.050(A), Condominiumization. The Condominium Map shall depict all
delineations of ownership across Lots 1, 2 and 3, and above and below grade.
Section 15: Engineering Department
The Applicant’s design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code,
Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department.
P146
IX.aa 1
DRAFT Working 12-6-18
Ordinance No. 38, Series of 2018
Lift One Lodge, Major Amendment
Page 11 of 17
Drainage: The project shall meet the Urban Runoff Management Plan Requirements. A compliant
drainage plan, including a 100-year mudflow analysis, must be submitted with a building permit
application.
Sidewalk/Curb/Gutter: All sidewalk curb and gutter shall meet the Engineering Standards of City
of Aspen Municipal Code Title 21.
Excavation Stabilization: Due to the proximity of the neighboring property and the excavation of
the building, an excavation stabilization plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department
prior to building permit submittal.
CMP:
The Construction Management Plan shall describe mitigation for parking, staging/encroachments,
mechanisms for construction noise abatement, and truck traffic.
Section 16: Fire Mitigation
All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is not
limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire
sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907).
The subgrade garage shall have adequate fire access. This shall be reviewed and approved by the
Fire Marshall.
Section 17: Parks Department
Tree removal permits are required prior to issuance of a building permit for any demolition or
significant site work. Mitigation for removals must be met by paying cash in lieu, planting on site,
or a combination of both, pursuant to Chapter 13.20 of the City Municipal Code. Any plantings on
the roof shall not qualify as mitigation. The applicant shall explore potential sites around the
property to allow full maturation of trees. This shall be included as part of the PD Detail Review.
A tree protection plan indicating the drip lines of each individual tree or groupings of trees
remaining on site shall be included in the building permit application for any demolition or
significant site work. The plan shall indicate the location of protective zones for approval by the
City Forester and prohibit excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage
of equipment, and access over or through the zone by foot or vehicle.
Section 19: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Requirements
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.
On-site sanitary sewer utility plans require approval by ACSD. Permanent improvements are
prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD
P147
IX.aa 1
DRAFT Working 12-6-18
Ordinance No. 38, Series of 2018
Lift One Lodge, Major Amendment
Page 12 of 17
where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the
district.
Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to
specific ACSD requirements and prior to micro-piling. Soil nails are not allowed in rights of way.
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.
Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. Above grade
development shall flow by gravity.
Plumbing plans for the pool and spa areas require approval of the drain size by the district. Glycol
snowmelt and heating systems must have containment provisions and must preclude discharge to
the public sanitary sewer system.
Oil and Grease interceptors are required for all new and remodeled food processing establishments.
Oil and Sand separators are required for public vehicle parking garages and vehicle maintenance
facilities. Driveway entrance drains shall not be routed to ACSD's sanitary sewer infrastructure
but rather be mitigated in accordance with the City of Aspen's Urban Runoff Management Plan.
Elevator shafts drains must flow thru Oil and Sand interceptor. Plans for interceptors, separators
and containment facilities require submittal by the applicant and approval prior to a building permit
application.
Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve
capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional
proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment
capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all
development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed.
Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned capacity
of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will be assessed fees
to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. The
District would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the
material cost difference for larger line).
The Applicant shall furnish average and peak flows as well as service size prior to final design.
The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and requirements once detailed
building and utility plans are available. All ACSD total connection fees must be paid prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
Amendments to the above requirements agreed to in writing by the Applicant and the Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District shall supersede the sanitation requirements listed herein.
Section 19: Environmental Health Department
A. Environmental Health Codes: The State of Colorado mandates specific mitigation
requirements with regard to asbestos. Additionally, code requirements to be aware of when
P148
IX.aa 1
DRAFT Working 12-6-18
Ordinance No. 38, Series of 2018
Lift One Lodge, Major Amendment
Page 13 of 17
filing a building permit include: a prohibition on engine idling, regulation of fireplaces,
fugitive dust requirements, noise abatement and pool designs.
B. Trash Requirements: The trash enclosures shall meet the minimum requirements outlined in
Title 12. Prior to Detail PD Review, the Applicant shall identify the type of door to be
installed on the trash enclosures for review and approval by the Environmental Health
Department.
C. Deliveries and Trash Removal: All deliveries and trash removal to and from the new lodge
will occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. except under the following
circumstances:
• Heavy snowfalls, acts of God, and force majeure
• Food & Wine Classic, in which case, for 3 days prior to the event, these timelines
may be exceeded to include the following hours: 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
• X-Games, in which case, for 3 days prior to the event these timelines may be
exceeded to include the following hours: 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
• Christmas, in which case, for 3 days prior to Christmas Eve, these timelines may
be exceeded to include the following hours: 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
• New Years, in which case, for 3 days prior to New Years’ Eve, these timelines may
be exceeded to include the following hours: 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
D. Noise Requirements: The Applicant may install a sound system to accommodate the acoustic
needs for day-to-day operations as well as special events. Outside events are not permitted
to bring in their own sound equipment, unless approved by the City through a Temporary
Use Approval or a Special Events Permit.
Section 20: Water/Utilities Department
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. All Water System
Distribution standards in place at the time of building permit shall apply, and all tap fees will be
assess per applicable codes and standards. Utility placement and design shall meet adopted City
of Aspen standards.
Section 21: Outdoor Lighting and Signage
All outdoor lighting and all signage shall meet the requirements of the Aspen Municipal Code.
Section 22: Building Department
The Applicant shall meet all applicable building and accessibility codes in place at the time of
building permit. The elevators are required to meet IBC accessibility requirements. The
affordable housing unit shall be provided with a compliant circulation path within the site that
connects the units to the parking and the public right of way.
Section 23: Colorado Tramway Board Review
P149
IX.aa 1
DRAFT Working 12-6-18
Ordinance No. 38, Series of 2018
Lift One Lodge, Major Amendment
Page 14 of 17
The Colorado State Tramway Board will conduct a review of the lift and ski corridor for
compliance with safety and design standards. If the review by the Tramway Board requires
modification to any element of the design of this approved project to comply with standards, such
modifications will be reviewed and may be approved administratively by the Community
Development Director. Any required modifications that have significant impacts to height, mass
or scale, or site planning will be reviewed during Final Review with Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Section 24: Project Phasing
Section 25. Cost Sharing
Section 26: Election
Section 27: South Aspen Street Winter Maintenance
The city and applicant have considered the potential development impacts the project may have
on the level of service that will be possible during the winter season. The City and Applicant teams
agree to the following process:
1) Evaluate efficacy of City plowing, snow storage, and snow removal techniques in response
to the redesigned and recently installed S. Aspen St.
2) Conduct a detailed traffic study for a more complete understanding of impacts of new
development to S. Aspen Street level of service.
3) Identify the technologies that could be available for a snow melt system and evaluate the
financial and environmental costs of installation, maintenance, and operation – including
potential energy alternatives.
4) Institute a water quality monitoring program to identify a baseline water quality level and
the impacts of alternative maintenance strategies such as this salt-based de-icers. The
program shall include any other actions taken by the lodge development to supplement
City maintenance efforts.
5) Define expectations for level of service and outline triggers that will require more
aggressive maintenance requirements that may include a snow melt system. These triggers
will be utilized at the two year reevaluation to determine if an alternative approach is
required.
6) Within two years of completion of the projects, the applicant teams agree to revisit the
question of safety, maintenance, and potential use of a snow melt system. There is
possible support from the applicant teams for the use of a metro district or alternative to
fund a future system if it is found that a snow melt system is the only mechanism to
respond to winter street conditions and additional traffic impacts. If a decision were made
to require snow melt, the owners of the Lift One Lodge and Gorsuch Haus developments
will not object to joining a taxing district for this purpose.
Section 28:
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
P150
IX.aa 1
DRAFT Working 12-6-18
Ordinance No. 38, Series of 2018
Lift One Lodge, Major Amendment
Page 15 of 17
development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless
amended by an authorized entity.
Section 29:
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 30:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed
a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the 22nd day of October, 2018.
Attest: Approved as to content:
_______________________________ ___________________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this XXth day of December, 2018.
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
__________________________ ______________________________
James R. True, City Attorney Steven Skadron, Mayor
Attest:
_______________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P151
IX.aa 1
DRAFT Working 12-6-18
Ordinance No. 38, Series of 2018
Lift One Lodge, Major Amendment
Page 16 of 17
Exhibits:
Dimensional Table
Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3
Net Lot Size 44,830 sf
Lots 1 and 2 Lodging Unit Size 519 sf (key) NL
1587.5 sf (unit) NL
Gross Floor Area
202,564 sf Commercial Net Leasable 16,125 sf
Floor Area per LUC
Lots 1 and 2
107,651 sf
Allowable 112,075 sf Free Market Units 6
Floor Area Ratio 2.40 : 1
Allowable 2.5 : 1 Free Market Area 21,925 sf FA
18,831 sf - NL
Max. Height
West Building
Interpolated 53.3 ft.
See Height Plan
Average1
Free Market Unit Size
3,139 sf
Net Livable
Max. Height
East Building
Interpolated 47 ft.
See Height Plan
On-Site
Affordable Housing Units
1 BR Unit in East Building
1.75 FTE
Max. Height
Skiers’ Chalet
Steakhouse
Affordable Housing Unit
Size3
623 sf FA
791 sf NL
Max. Height
Skiers’ Chalet Lodge Ratio
Free-Market to Lodge/AH
.343 : 1
Net Livable
Setbacks
West Building
west 8.5’; east 1.5’
south 3.5’ Off-Street Parking
126 – Total
50 – Public
76 – Lift 1 Lodge
Setbacks
East building
west 0’; east 14.9’
north 12’; south 3.5’
Setbacks
Skiers’ Chalet Steakhouse
Notes:
All height measurement shall be from Interpolated grade.
Setbacks
Skiers’ Chalet Lodge
Lodge Units
Keys
Pillows
34 units
104 keys
208 pillows
Lodging
Net Livable Area 53,976 sf NL
P152
IX.aa 1
DRAFT Working 12-6-18
Ordinance No. 38, Series of 2018
Lift One Lodge, Major Amendment
Page 17 of 17
Growth Management Mitigation Calculation
Lodge Use
104 lodge keys, less a reconstruction credit of 38 units from Holland House.
66 (keys) x 0.6 (generation rate) = 39.6 FTE x .4475 (mitigation rated based
on unit size of 519sf) = 17.72 FTE = Lodge Use mitigation
Residential
Use
18,831 sf of net livable, less a reconstruction credit of 586 sf from Holland
House.
18,245 (net livable) / 400sf (code described sf per FTE) = 45.61 FTE x
0.3 (code specified generation rate) = 13.68 FTE = Free Market mitigation
Commercial
Use
16,125 sf (net leasable),
West Building – 11,075 sf (net leasable)
generation rate 4.7 FTE per 1000 sf – w/ .25 discount for area not at grade
47.33 FTE x .4475(mitigation rate based on unit size of 519sf) = 21.8 FTE
Steakhouse – 4,005 sf (net leasable), includes a calculation for 2,429 sf of
existing commercial area and .25 discount for area not at grade
17.65 FTE (generation); 6.1 FTE
27.9 = Commercial Use mitigation
Total
Required
Mitigation
59.3 FTE, Category 4
P153
IX.aa 1
DRAFT: 12-6-18
City Council
Ordinance No. 39, Series 2016
Page 1 of 17
ORDINANCE NO. 39
(SERIES OF 2016)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-PROJECT REVIEW AND ASSOCIATED LAND USE REVIEWS FOR THE
GORSUCH HAUS, A PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE BASE OF ASPEN MOUNTAIN AND 1A LIFT,
ADJACENT TO THE TERMINATION OF S. ASPEN STREET, COMPRISED OF FOUR PARCELS, CITY
OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel IDs: 273513127001, 273513126001, 273513400028
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application for the Gorsuch Haus
lodge from Norway Island LLC, PO Box 12393, Aspen CO 81612 (applicant), where Aspen Skiing
Company, PO Box 1248, Aspen CO 81612 is the owner, represented by Design Workshop for the
following land use review approvals:
Planned Development – Project Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.445, to permit
restaurant and retail uses within the Lodge (L) zone district (Lot 1), and to permit ski lift and ski
facilities within the Conservation (C) zone district and the Lodge (L) zone district (Lot 1 and Lot
2); and,
Rezoning - pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.310; and,
Growth Management Reviews – for lodge, free-market, affordable housing, and commercial
development pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470; and,
Conceptual Commercial Design Review - pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.412; and,
8040 Greenline Review - pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.435; and,
Mountain View Plane - pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.435; and,
Major Subdivision - pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.480; and,
Special Review for Lodge Density Standard – pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.430; and,
Special Review for affordable housing unit net livable standards, pursuant to Land Use Code
Chapter 26.430.040(I); and,
Vested Property Rights (3 years) - pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.308.
WHEREAS, the application was submitted in 2016 and subsequently amended. The amended
application proposes the following development:
81 lodge unit keys.
4 free-market residential units.
1 affordable housing unit.
7,730 square feet of net leasable commercial space.
56 parking spaces;
Ski operations and ski infrastructure and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Environmental Health
Department, Parks Department, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA), and Utilities
P154
IX.aa 2
DRAFT: 12-6-18
City Council
Ordinance No. 39, Series 2016
Page 2 of 17
Department as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting held on September 26th, 2018;
and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.7, Affordable Housing, of the Land Use Code, a
recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority is required and a recommendation by
the board was provided pursuant the APCHPA Board meeting held on October 3rd, 2018; and,
WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the
initial 2016 development application and initially recommended restudy of the project so the design,
mass and scale of the project better fit with the context of the immediate neighborhood; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the initial 2016 application at a duly noticed
public hearing on July 5, 2016, that was continued to July 19, 2016, August 16, 2016, and September 20,
2016, during which the Planning and Zoning Commission made a recommendation of denial of the initial
2016 application via Resolution No. 7 (Series of 2016); and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the initial 2016 development proposal on
December 12, 2016, February 13th, 2017, March 6th, 2017, and March 27th, 2017 and tabled the application for
further study of a revised Lift 1 corridor alignment. This lift corridor study was commissioned by the City of
Aspen. At the conclusion of this study, an amended application was submitted in September of 2018; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed changes in the application for the Gorsuch Haus Subdivision/PD are also in
response to a completed study of the Lift 1A corridor and the proposed relocation of the Lift 1A lift station
to Willoughby Park; and,
WHEREAS, a properly noticed site visit to the property on October 15, 2018 provided additional
information on the project with relationship to site planning and proposed building heights; and,
WHEREAS, The Aspen City Council reviewed and considered the amended application on November 12th,
2018 and November 26th, 2018 under the applicable provisions of the 2016 Municipal Code (application
deemed “complete” on March 29th, 2016) as identified herein. The Aspen City Council has also reviewed and
considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies,
and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, during a continued public hearing on December 3rd, 2018 and December 10, 2018 City
Council, by a ____ to ____ (_ – _) vote, referred to voters Ordinance No.39, Series of 2016 that would grant
approval with conditions for a Rezoning, Project Review, Subdivision, Growth Management Quota
System, Commercial Design, 8040 Greenline, Special Review, Mountain View Plane, Special Review for
Lodge Density, Special Review for Affordable Housing Net Livable Standards, and Vested Rights, as
identified herein, with the recommended changes to the application listed hereinafter; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable
development standards subject to the conditions outlined herein; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public
health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Approvals
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the 2016 Aspen Municipal Code, the City
Council approves the land use reviews needed to redevelop the subject properties as reconfigured Lots 1
P155
IX.aa 2
DRAFT: 12-6-18
City Council
Ordinance No. 39, Series 2016
Page 3 of 17
and 2. Lot 1 development is comprised of a mixed-use building containing a mix of lodging with
restaurant and retail uses, free-market residential, affordable housing, commercial net leasable space, a
new Lift 1A ski corridor alignment, lift tower, and skier return. Lot 2 development and activities are
comprised of a new Lift 1A ski corridor alignment, lift tower, skier return, traditional ski operation
maintenance activities, and a World Cup viewing area.
The following land use reviews are approved: Planned Development- Project Review, Rezoning, Major
Subdivision, Growth Management Quota System Reviews, Conceptual Commercial Design, Mountain
View Plane, 8040 Greenline, Special Review for Lodge Density, Special Review for affordable housing
unit net livable standards, and 3 years of Vested Property Rights approval for the Gorsuch Haus, subject
to the conditions of approval as listed herein for a development containing 81 lodge keys, 4 free-market
residential units totaling 8,000 square feet of net livable floor area, 1-1 bedroom affordable housing unit,
7,7300 sq. ft. of commercial net leasable space, and ski lift and facilities on the reconfigured Lot 1. Ski
operations and associated ski uses for the relocated Lift 1 lift tower alignment, skier return, and World
Cup Viewing area, are approved on the reconfigured Lot 2.
Section 2: Planned Development -Project Review
The approved dimensions, site plan, architectural massing, and character are represented as Exhibits A
and B of this ordinance. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26._445_._090A__, the applicant has one
year from Project Review approval to submit the Detail Review application for this request.
Within 180 days of approval of this ordinance, the applicant shall submit an ‘Approved Plan Set,’
containing the floor plans, site plan, lot configuration, and elevations that were approved by the City
Council.
Once final approval is granted via Detailed Review, recordation documents shall be submitted within 180
days following the date of issuance of the Development Order in accordance with the requirements of
Section 26.490 Approval Documents of the Land Use Code.
a. In accordance in Section 26.490.040, Approval Documents Content and Form, the following plans
are required in the Approved Plan Set:
1. Final Commercial Design Review/ Architectural Character Plan.
2. Planned Development Project and Detail Review Plans.
3. Public Amenity Plans.
4. Public Infrastructure Plan.
5. Subdivision Plat
b. In accordance with Section 26.490.050, Development Agreements, a Development Agreement
shall be entered into with the City. At a minimum, the development agreement will outline the
construction phasing of both projects to ensure that the lift is offline for no greater than two ski
seasons, ensure adequate financial guarantees so that the lift is in place and functioning
regardless of the status of other components of the corridor project.
As part of the approved Planned Development, the Applicant shall comply with the following conditions
of approval:
a) The overall maximum height of the approved lodge is limited to 40’. Rooftop elevators, elevator
overruns may exceed this height by a maximum of 10’. Due to the location of the approved
stairway and associated retaining wall on the western side of Lot 1, portions of the western
P156
IX.aa 2
DRAFT: 12-6-18
City Council
Ordinance No. 39, Series 2016
Page 4 of 17
elevation of the lodge building will exceed the 40’ overall height restriction in the L zone district
as documented in Exhibit A, West Elevation and North Elevation. As part of the Planned
Development approval, the height measurement on the western elevation of the lodge building
shall be taken from the finished grade of the top of the retaining wall located adjacent and west
of this stairway. The lodge building shall not exceed 40’ in height from this approved
measurement point. Lightwells along the east and west façade that do not exceed 100 square
feet shall not be counted towards maximum permissible height
b) Specifically approved as part of the Planned Development review for Lot 1 is the ability for the
mixed-use lodge to contain restaurant and retail uses and for construction of new lift towers and
skier return.
c) Specially approved as part of the Planned Development review for Lot 2 is the ability for the Lot
to contain the relocated Lift 1A ski lift and alignment, development of new lift towers, regrading
for skier return, regrading for the Aspen Mountain service road “Summer Road”, traditional ski
operation maintenance activities, and World Cup viewing area for special event uses. The World
Cup viewing area shall obtain all required special event permits prior to operation, as necessary.
d) Engineering requirements may dictate that the Lift 1A replacement lift towers on Lots 1 and 2
might exceed the height limits and setback requirements for the C and L zone districts. The City
Council approves the replacement lift towers to exceed the height limit and intrude upon the
setback standards in the C and L zone districts, as required by design and as documented in the
attached site plan.
e) The lodge units shall operate under the rules and regulations of the City of Aspen. The four free-
market units shall not be combined. The four free market units are limited to 1,500 square feet
of net livable floor area and are permitted to be expanded up to 2,000 square feet of net livable
floor area upon landing the appropriate number of Transferrable Development Rights (TDR’s).
TDR’s used for additional net livable floor area up to 2,000 square feet per free market unit shall
be submitted and extinguished at building permit submittal.
f) Approved as part of the Planned Development review for Lot 1 is the ability for Public Amenity
Space to be partially covered by overhangs due to the close proximity of this space to the Lift 1A
ski lift alignment. Public amenity space is also approved to be oriented to the eastern ski slope.
g) A service gate is permitted to be placed at the entrance of the realigned Aspen Mountain service
road (Summer Road) on Lot 2. The service gate location, dimensions, materials, and color shall
be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department.
Section 3: Special Review for Lodge Density:
The City Council finds that the proposal to increase lodge unit density complies with the Special Review
criteria pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.430.040. The City Council finds that the lodge includes a
generous amount of non-unit space and amenities for lodge guests in the form of an “accessory lodge”
meeting room and an “accessory lodge” spa both for use by lodge customers only and not the general
public. The lodge also contains a range of lodge unit sizes and configurations. The City Council approves
an increase in lodge unit density by 10% which represents 1 lodge unit/550 square of gross lot area (81
lodge units/44,545 square feet of gross lot area) and the associated floor area, height, and employee
mitigation incentives associated with the density of 1 lodge unit/500 square feet of gross lot area.
Section 4: Alternative Employee Generation Review:
Pursuant to Land Use Code 26.470.100(1)(F), the City Council finds that to incentivize the proposed lodge
project, an alternative employee generation review is appropriate, and that through an efficiency, a
reduction of 4.64 FTE’s from the lodging component of the project via a credit to the free market FTE
generation is approved.
P157
IX.aa 2
DRAFT: 12-6-18
City Council
Ordinance No. 39, Series 2016
Page 5 of 17
Section 5: Special Review for Affordable Housing;
The City Council finds that the proposal to place the onsite 1-bedroom affordable housing unit more than
50% subgrade meets the Special Review criteria pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.430.040. The
location of the unit will not have any adverse impacts to the neighborhood, and the City Council approves
this portion of the request. The unit shall comply with adopted building codes regarding ingress and
egress.
Section 6: Rezoning
The current zoning for the subject properties located with the city’s municipal boundary is Conservation
(C). The City Council approves the rezoning of the reconfigured Lot 1 from C to Lodge (L). The
reconfigured Lot 2 shall remain within the C zone district. The official zone district map shall be amended
upon recordation of a final subdivision plat, recordation of an architectural plan set, and required
development agreements.
Section 7: Subdivision
Currently the subject land area consists of four parcels within the city’s municipal boundary. The
applicant proposes, and the City Council approves the parcels be reconfigured into Lots 1 and 2. The City
Council also approves the vacation of the public rights-of-way, comprised of 8,206 sq. ft. as requested by
the Applicant (a portion of S. Aspen Street and all of Summit Street) to be replaced with all necessary
easements for any existing or future utility infrastructure. The City Council also accepts the dedication
of approximately 3,462 sq. ft. of private property for City of Aspen right of way at the terminus of South
Aspen Street for cul de sac improvements.
Prior to building permit submittal, a subdivision plat shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Community Development Director and City Attorney. This plat shall illustrate the reconfigured Lots 1
and 2.
At Detailed Review submission, the applicant shall submit a draft revocable encroachment license
agreement for the hardscaping, pedestrian lighting, pedestrian benches, and landscaping improvements
within the Hill Street Right of Way. This revocable encroachment license agreement shall be
preliminarily reviewed by the Engineering Department and City Attorney. Final review and execution of
this license agreement shall occur concurrently with recordation of the final subdivision plat.
At Detail Review Submission, the applicant shall submit draft utility easements for any existing or
potentially future utilities within the Summit Street Right of Way and the South Aspen Street Right of
Way. This agreement shall be preliminarily reviewed by the Engineering Department and City Attorney.
Final review and execution of this easement shall occur concurrently with recordation of the final
subdivision plat.
Section 8: Growth Management Allotments
Growth Management Allotments. The following growth management allotments are allocated to the
lodge on Lot 1:
a. 4 free market residential dwelling unit allotments (from 2016 GMQS calendar year)
b. 1 - 1 bedroom affordable housing unit allotment. (from 2016 GMQS calendar year)
c. 7,730 sq. ft. of new commercial net leasable space. (from 2016 GMQS calendar year)
P158
IX.aa 2
DRAFT: 12-6-18
City Council
Ordinance No. 39, Series 2016
Page 6 of 17
d. 112 lodging pillows from the 2016 GMQS calendar year, with approval for 50 lodging pillows to
be granted from the 2017 GMQS calendar year.
Section 9: Growth Management - Affordable Housing Mitigation Requirements:
Mitigation Requirements. The following calculations are based in the Land Use Code in effect at
the time of application, March 29th, 2016. The included calculations are based on conceptual
level depictions of the uses. Updated calculations will be conducted at final review and
confirmed at building permit.
Lodge Use
Average key size: 432 net livable square feet. 81 lodge keys x 0.6 (generation rate)
= 48.6 FTE’s x .2639 (interpolated) = 12.83 FTE Lodge Use mitigation requirement
Free Market
Residential Use
4 Free Market units.
8,000 net livable square feet * .2319 (interpolated) = 1,855 net livable square.
1,855 net livable square feet / 400 (employee square foot conversion) =
= 4.64 FTE mitigation. **Employee generation review granted for a 4.64 FTE
credit. Free Market mitigation requirement = 0.
Commercial
Use
Restaurant, apres ski bar, small retail = 7,730 sq. ft. total net leasable square feet.
5,368 square feet above grade / 1,000 square feet = 5.37
2,362 square feet below grade / 1,000 square feet = 2.36
5.37 above grade * 4.7FTE’s = 25.23FTE’s
[25% reduction for subgrade commercial space x 4.7FTE’s = 3.525] 2.36 below grade
x 3.525 FTE’s = 8.32 FTE’s.
(25.23FTE’s + 8.32 FTE’s) = 33.55FTE’s. 33.55FTE’s x .2639(interpolated) = 8.85 FTE
Commercial mitigation requirement
Total Required
Mitigation 21.68 FTE, Category 4
*Special Review for Lodge Density has been granted and affordable housing mitigation incentives
are incorporated into the calculations above.
**based on an approved Alternative Employee Generation Review, an economy of scale of the
combined lodge/free-market project is achieved, and 4.64 FTEs are waived.
The project includes one (1) one-bedroom affordable housing unit for on-site mitigation (credit 1.75
FTE’s).
Affordable Housing Conditions of approval: Any affordable housing units shall be deed restricted at a
Category 4 income level or lower. The units are permitted to be rental units, and shall comply with the
APCHA Guidelines, now and as amended.
At building permit submittal, that application shall satisfy all affordable housing mitigation requirements
identified above. The Applicant shall comply with the following priority schedule to satisfy the affordable
housing mitigation requirement outlined in this section:
P159
IX.aa 2
DRAFT: 12-6-18
City Council
Ordinance No. 39, Series 2016
Page 7 of 17
1. Onsite deed restricted housing constructed or converted next to
or attached to the proposed development.
2. Offsite deed restricted housing constructed or converted at a
separate location within the Aspen core subject to approval by
APCHA. A single offsite deed restricted unit in an otherwise free-
market housing complex shall not be approved.
3. Use of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits (Housing
Credits).
4. APCHA approved buy-down units
5. The proposed 1 bedroom onsite unit
Cash in lieu is not permitted to satisfy affordable housing mitigation requirements. No Certificate of
Occupancy shall be issued until all affordable housing has been provided via a Certificate of Affordable
housing or a certificate of Occupancy for any physical units.
2 years after the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the lodge, the Applicant shall submit and
audit, for review by the Community Development and APCHA, identifying the actual number of FTE’s
generated for the 4 free market units and the 81 lodging keys. Should the actual amount of FTE’s
generated from the 4 free market units and 81 lodging keys exceed 12.83 FTE’s, the Applicant shall
mitigate for free market FTE generation which equals 4.64 FTE’s.
Section 10: ESA Reviews
The City Council finds the application meets the 8040 Greenline review criteria and finds that the
approved development will have minimal effect on the Wheeler view plane.
Section 11: Engineering Department
The Applicant’s design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21
and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. At Detail
Review, the Applicant shall submit detailed plans that include mudflow analysis, detailed utility plans,
and address all comments provided as part of the Development Review Committee on September 26,
2018. The Applicant shall also submit revised commitments as part of the TIA Review to remedy the 22
point deficit in this analysis.
In order to ensure that development of the Project does not exacerbate naturally occurring ground
movement, an inclinometer shall be installed and maintained by Gorsuch Haus or its successors or
assigns with bi-annual readings taken through the time of issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The
first Building Permit application for the Project shall include a report on the initial readings and a
subsequent report is required prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Section 12: Fire Mitigation
All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is not limited to
access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm
systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907). The proposed cul de sac at the terminus of South Aspen
Street shall meet all District requirements for grade, radius, width, and dimensions.
Section 13: Parks Department
P160
IX.aa 2
DRAFT: 12-6-18
City Council
Ordinance No. 39, Series 2016
Page 8 of 17
Tree removal permits are required prior to issuance of a building permit for any demolition or significant
site work. Mitigation for removals must be met by paying cash in lieu, planting on site, or a combination
of both, pursuant to Chapter 13.20 of the City Municipal Code. Additional materials shall be submitted as
part of the Planned Development Detailed Review application inclusive of, but not limited to, a detailed
plan for existing tree protection and sidewalk development for the property.
A tree protection plan indicating the drip lines of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on
site shall be included in the building permit application for any demolition or significant site work. The
plan shall indicate the location of protective zones for approval by the City Forester and prohibit
excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, and access over
or through the zone by foot or vehicle.
Prior to final approval, the applicant shall finalize the dedication of the proposed public access trail that
provides access from Hill Street to the satisfaction of the Parks Department. The reception number
associated with this dedication shall be crossed referenced on the final plat.
Prior to final approval, the applicant shall finalize the dedication of a proposed public access easement
that permits access across the reconfigured Lot 2 and is commensurate with Aspen Mountain Road to
the satisfaction of the Parks Department. The reception number associated with this dedication shall be
crossed referenced on the final plat.
Section 14: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Requirements
Service is contingent upon compliance with the District’s rules, regulations, and specifications, which are
on file at the District office. Prior to certificate of occupancy for the building, the applicant shall connect
to the recently upgraded sanitation sewer line in the South Aspen Street. Prior to construction of the
connection, the connection shall be approved to the satisfaction of the District.
Section 15: Environmental Health Department
Code requirements to be aware of when filing a building permit include: a prohibition on engine idling,
regulation of fireplaces, fugitive dust requirements, noise abatement and pool designs.
Additional materials shall be submitted as part of the Detail Review application inclusive of but not
limited to appropriate sizing of the trash/utility enclosure, delineation of clearance of the waste
enclosure, and clarity on co-location of trash and utilities to ensure adequate room is provided. Special
Review approval from the Environmental Health Department to satisfy dimensional requirements may
be required.
Section 16: Water/Utilities Department
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. All Water System Distribution standards in
place at the time of building permit shall apply, and all tap fees will be assessed per applicable codes and
standards. Utility placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards.
Section 17: Development Agreement and Cost Sharing
Forthcoming…
Section 18: Lot 2 Development Restriction
P161
IX.aa 2
DRAFT: 12-6-18
City Council
Ordinance No. 39, Series 2016
Page 9 of 17
The property owner/applicant shall include a plat note, for review and approval by the Community
Development Director and the City Attorney, that restricts the reconfigured Lot 2 against all future
residential building and residential development and other land uses and activities that are not
consistent with the intent and approved development outlined in this ordinance. This plat note
shall include a provision that authorizes the construction of all approved ski infrastructure pursuant
to this ordinance and the ability to conduct all related ski operations and related ski uses, including
traditional and routine ski operation maintenance, on the property. This plat note shall also include
a provision for the ability to conduct all approved special events on the property. This language
shall be reviewed, approved, and executed at the time of recordation of the final plat.
Section 19: Public Amenity Spaces
The Applicant has committed to providing a total of 13,786 sq. ft. of public amenity space. These spaces
shall be permanently accessible by the public through stairs and/or elevators. These spaces shall not be
enclosed with temporary or permanent walls/windows or otherwise enclosed as interior conditioned
space.
Section 27: South Aspen Street Winter Maintenance
The city and applicant have considered the potential development impacts the project may have
on the level of service that will be possible during the winter season. The City and Applicant
teams agree to the following process:
1) Evaluate efficacy of City plowing, snow storage, and snow removal techniques in
response to the redesigned and recently installed S. Aspen St.
2) Conduct a detailed traffic study for a more complete understanding of impacts of new
development to S. Aspen Street level of service.
3) Identify the technologies that could be available for a snow melt system and evaluate
the financial and environmental costs of installation, maintenance, and operation –
including potential energy alternatives.
4) Institute a water quality monitoring program to identify a baseline water quality level
and the impacts of alternative maintenance strategies such as this salt-based de-icers.
The program shall include any other actions taken by the lodge development to
supplement City maintenance efforts.
5) Define expectations for level of service and outline triggers that will require more
aggressive maintenance requirements that may include a snow melt system. These
triggers will be utilized at the two year reevaluation to determine if an alternative
approach is required.
6) Within two years of completion of the projects, the applicant teams agree to revisit the
question of safety, maintenance, and potential use of a snow melt system. There is
possible support from the applicant teams for the use of a metro district or alternative
to fund a future system if it is found that a snow melt system is the only mechanism to
respond to winter street conditions and additional traffic impacts. If a decision were
made to require snow melt, the owners of the Lift One Lodge and Gorsuch Haus
developments will not object to joining a taxing district for this purpose.
P162
IX.aa 2
DRAFT: 12-6-18
City Council
Ordinance No. 39, Series 2016
Page 10 of 17
Section 20: Vested Rights
Vested rights period of three years is granted conditioned on the applicant receiving final approval of the
project.
Section 21: Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid
or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct
and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 22: Existing Litigation
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 23: Representations Preserved
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 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 24: Public Hearing
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 12th day of November, 2018, at a meeting of the Aspen
City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, a
minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper
of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
P163
IX.aa 2
DRAFT: 12-6-18
City Council
Ordinance No. 39, Series 2016
Page 11 of 17
INTRODUCED, READ ON 2ND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 12th day of November, 2018, the 26th day of November, 2018, the 3rd day
of December, 2018, and the 10th day of December, 2018.
Attest:
__________________________ ____________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 10th day of December, 2018.
Attest:
__________________________ ___________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
Approved as to form:
___________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
Attachments:
Exhibit A – Site plan and elevations
Exhibit B - Dimensional standards
Exhibit C – Legal description
P164
IX.aa 2
DRAFT: 12-6-18
City Council
Ordinance No. 39, Series 2016
Page 12 of 17
Exhibit A – Site Plan and elevations
P165
IX.aa 2
DRAFT: 12-6-18
City Council
Ordinance No. 39, Series 2016
Page 13 of 17
North elevation:
East elevation:
P166
IX.aa 2
DRAFT: 12-6-18
City Council
Ordinance No. 39, Series 2016
Page 14 of 17
South elevation:
West elevation:
P167
IX.aa 2
DRAFT: 12-6-18
City Council
Ordinance No. 39, Series 2016
Page 15 of 17
Exhibit B – Dimensional Standards
Dimensions Lodge
Zoning
Minimum lot size 44,545 (Lot 1)
Minimum net lot area
per dwelling unit NA
Minimum lot width +/- 60 ft.
Front yard 5 ft.
Side yard 5 ft.
Rear yard 5 ft.
Maximum height 40 ft.
Floor area 64,023 sq. ft.
Lodging floor area 42,077 sq. ft.
Commercial floor area 7,730 sq. ft.
Multi-family floor area 8,633 sq. ft.
Affordable housing
floor area
1-1 bedroom
unit. 730 sq.
ft.
Maximum multi-family
size cap
4 units. 1,500
sq. ft./per
unit. Up to
2,000 sq.
ft./per unit
via use of
TDR’s
Minimum
off-street
parking
spaces
Lodge 81 keys = 41
spaces
Residential 4 units = 4
spaces
Commercial 7,730 sq. ft. =
7.7 spaces
Public Amenity Space 13,783 sq. ft.
P168
IX.aa 2
DRAFT: 12-6-18
City Council
Ordinance No. 39, Series 2016
Page 16 of 17
Exhibit C – Legal Description
The legal descriptions are as follows:
PARCEL 1: LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 AND 14, BLOCK 10, EAMES ADDITION TO THE
CITY OF ASPEN
PARCEL 2: LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 AND 7, BLOCK 12, EAMES ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN
PARCEL 3: A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE
DOCUMENT RECORDED JULY 15, 1985 AS RECEPTION NO. 156038 IN BOOK 270 AT PAGE 21 OF THE
PITKIN COUNTY RECORDS AND THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED JULY
13, 1971 AS RECEPTION NO. 146439 IN BOOK 256 AT PAGE 506; SAID PARCEL OF LAND ALSO BEING
SITUATED IN GOVERNMENT LOT 1 IN SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE
SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN; SAID PARCEL BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF BLOCK 10 EAMES ADDITION TO
THE CITY OF ASPEN, WHENCE THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 7 OF SAID BLOCK 10 BEARS
N.15°46'58"E. A DISTANCE OF 41.96 FEET; SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
CARIBOU CONDOMINIUMS, ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF RECORDED APRIL 24, 1973 IN
PLAT BOOK 4 AT PAGE 379; THENCE S.70°03'10"E. ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF
SAID CARIBOU CONDOMINIUMS A DISTANCE OF 1.01 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
MOUNTAIN QUEEN CONDOMINIUMS, ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF RECORDED
SEPTEMBER 27, 1974 IN PLAT BOOK 4 AT PAGE 489; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY
BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID CARIBOU CONDOMINIUMS S.11°25'30"E. ALONG THE WESTERLY
BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID MOUNTAIN QUEEN CONDOMINIUMS A DISTANCE OF 110.77 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY
BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID MOUNTAIN QUEEN CONDOMINIUMS S.89°55'06"W. ALONG SAID
SOUTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1 A DISTANCE OF 53.70 FEET TO A POINT ON THE
EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF BLOCK 12 EAMES ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN; THENCE
LEAVING SAID SOUTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1 N.15°46'58"E. ALONG THE EASTERLY
BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 12 EAMES ADDITION A DISTANCE OF 5.21 FEET TO THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 12 EAMES ADDITION, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SUMMIT STREET RIGHT OF WAY; THENCE CONTINUING N.15°46'58"E.
ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID RIGHT OF WAY A DISTANCE OF 20.00 FEET TO THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 10 EAMES ADDITION; THENCE CONTINUING N.15°46'58"E.
ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 10 EAMES ADDITION A DISTANCE OF
88.05 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINING 2,973 SQUARE
FEET OR 0.068 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
PARCEL 4: A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE
DOCUMENT RECORDED DECEMBER 19, 1946 AS RECEPTION NO. 094502 OF THE PITKIN COUNTY
RECORDS; SAID PARCEL OF LAND ALSO BEING SITUATED IN GOVERNMENT LOT 31 IN SECTION 13,
TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN AS DESCRIBED BY
THE DEPENDENT RESURVEY AND SURVEY PLAT OF TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST, OF
THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, FILED MAY 30, 1980 IN THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT OFFICE IN DENVER, COLORADO ("BLM PLAT");
SAID PARCEL OF LAND IS LOCATED ENTIRELY WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND IS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF MOUNTAIN QUEEN
CONDOMINIUMS, ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF RECORDED SEPTEMBER 27, 1974 IN PLAT
BOOK 4 AT PAGE 489, WHENCE THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID MOUNTAIN QUEEN
CONDOMINIUMS BEARS N.11°25'30"W. A DISTANCE OF 110.77 FEET; THENCE S.11°25'30"E. ALONG
P169
IX.aa 2
DRAFT: 12-6-18
City Council
Ordinance No. 39, Series 2016
Page 17 of 17
SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF MOUNTAIN QUEEN CONDOMINIUMS A DISTANCE OF 197.75
FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE S.45°00'00"W. A DISTANCE
OF 6.42 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID MOUNTAIN QUEEN CONDOMINIUMS;
THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE S.45°00'00"W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF
SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 31 A DISTANCE OF 281.39 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY
BOUNDARY LINE OF THE SOUTH ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLO, ACCORDING TO
THE MAP THEREOF RECORDED MARCH 24, 1967 IN PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE 132; THENCE LEAVING
SAID EAST LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 31 N.70°37'00"W. ALONG THE SOUTHERLY
BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID SOUTH ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN A DISTANCE OF 757.26
FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 31; THENCE N.14°40'13"E. A
DISTANCE OF 35.71 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY MOST POINT OF GOVERNMENT LOT 38,
ACCORDING TO SAID "BLM PLAT"; THENCE ALONG THE COMMON LINE BETWEEN SAID
GOVERNMENT LOT 31 AND SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 38 THE FOLLOWING TWO (2) COURSES:
1) N.38°38'25"E. A DISTANCE OF 72.34 FEET
2) N.45°13'35"W. A DISTANCE OF 33.86 FEET;
THENCE LEAVING THE EAST LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 38, CONTINUING ALONG THE WEST
LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 31 N.14°42'57"E. A DISTANCE OF 30.93 FEET TO A POINT ON THE
NORTH LINE OF THE SE1/4NE1/4 OF SECTION 13, ALSO BEING A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF
SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 31; THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 31
N.89°55'06"E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SE1/4NE1/4 OF SECTION 13, ALSO BEING THE
NORTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 31, A DISTANCE OF 598.23 FEET TO A POINT ON THE
WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF BLOCK 12, EAMES ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN THENCE
LEAVING SAID NORTH LINES S.14°50'49"W. ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID
BLOCK 12 EAMES ADDITION A DISTANCE OF 6.17 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
BLOCK 12 EAMES ADDITION; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID BLOCK
12 EAMES ADDITION S.75°09'11"E. ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 12
EAMES ADDITIONS A DISTANCE OF 181.46 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 12
EAMES ADDITION; THENCE N.15°46'58"E. ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID BLOCK
12 EAMES ADDITION A DISTANCE OF 54.79 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID NORTH LINE OF SAID
SE1/4NE1/4 OF SECTION 13, SAID POINT ALSO BEING A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID
GOVERNMENT LOT 31; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 12
EAMES ADDITION N.89°55'06"E. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SE1/4NE1/4 OF SECTION 13,
ALSO BEING THE NORTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 31, A DISTANCE OF 53.70 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINING 240,375 SQUARE FEET OR 5.518
ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
P170
IX.aa 2
-PQ( c Om M e e4 f�c-(j joW
Peck.Feigenbaum.,
LUCAS PECK
lucas®rHaw.com
December 7,2018
By Email
Mr. Mike Kraemer
Senior Planner—City of Aspen
mike.kraemer@i yofaspen.com
Re: Gorsuch Haus Application / Lift 1A
Dear Mr. Kraemer:
We represent Shadow Mountain Townhomes Association and in connection therewith
we would like to share some concerns over the Gorsuch Haus developer's application. The
Shadow Mountain Townhomes are and have been for several decades the southernmost
development on South Aspen Street,including certain improvements that have occupied a
portion of the South Aspen Street right of way (SASROW) under a license agreement with the
City. The Gorsuch Haus Proposal (GHP) has immediate and permanent impacts on the
Shadow Mountain Townhomes that have thus far been ignored. To that end,we respectfully
urge council to consider the following:
Zoning Change—Conservation to Lodge
The purpose of the City's land use regulations is "to promote and protect the ... citizens
and City through the establishment and enforcement of comprehensive,efficient, clear and
consistent standards... for the planning, evaluation, approval and implementation of land uses and
development within the City." LUC § 26.104.020. "In furtherance of this purpose,all
development and uses of land shall be analyzed witbin the context of... the legitimate rights and
masonable expectations of pmpery owners." LUC §26.104.020.
The GHP proposes a zoning change from Conservation to Lodge. The purpose of the
Conservation zone district is "to provide areas of low density development" and"to contain
urban development." LUC §26.710.220. The purpose of the Lodge zone district is to
"encourage construction,renovation and operation of lodges" and"[t]he City encourages high-
occupancy lodging development." LUC § 26.710.190.
It is difficult to overstate the degree to which the reasonable expectations of the
Shadow Mountain property owners would be marginalized by allowing land once
MICHAEL FEIGENBAUM LUCAS PECK HEATHER MANOLAKA.S,Of Counsel PETER P.DELANY,Paralegal
Mtutwron MAU
132 Midland Avenue,Suite 4,Basalt Colorado 81621
Tel 970.925.51961 Fax 970.925.4559 1 www.rfvlaw.com
Peck.Feigenbaum,
intended for low-density development,virtually overnight,become a high-occupancy
lodging development. Nor would it be contrary to the legitimate rights of the Gorsuch Haus
developers to require that they conform to the existing zoning. The dramatic change from
Conservation to Lodge is a windfall for the Gorsuch Haus developers that comes at the expense
of Shadow Mountain in direct conflict with the purpose of the land use code to establish clear
and consistent standards that protect the legitimate rights and reasonable expectations of
property owners.
Increasing Shadow Mountain's concern,not only does the GHP seek a zoning change,
but it has decided the twenty-eight-foot maximum height does not serve its purposes and
immediately seeks the maximum variance for a towering forty feet. Like so many elements of
the GHP, the impacts of this 43%increase in height is further compounded by additional
requests and concessions that both directly and indirectly impact the Shadow Mountain owners.
Not only does the GHP contemplate high-density lodging in place of low-density development,
not only does the GHP seek a variance to construct forty-foot walls,but GHP is asking for
half of the SASROW so that it can push its forty-foot walls thirty feet closer to Shadow
Mountain on property it doesn't even own.
Partial Vacation of SASROW
Shadow Mountain has previously weighed in on this aspect of the GHP. It is
fundamentally unfair to and inconsistent with Shadow Mountain's reasonable expectations to
vacate half of the SASROW in favor of the Gorsuch Haus developers to allow an already
unanticipated and outsized lodge development to be built virtually on top of Shadow Mountain.
While there has been a focus on the necessity of such a move to "allow" the ski lift to move
down to Dean Street, there has been no consideration of whether the GHP is necessary at all, or
of the impact of putting Shadow Mountain literally into the shadow of this giant lodge project.
In addition,Shadow Mountain has occupied a portion of the SASROW pursuant to a
license agreement for many years,and long before any of the development put forth in the GHP
was publicly considered. The partial vacation of the SASROW in favor of the Gorsuch Haus
project effectively narrows the SASROW and enhances the importance of the remaining half of
the SASROW,making any future vacation in favor of Shadow Mountain less likely.
Furthermore,it makes the City objecting to Shadow Mountain's existing improvements in the
SASROW more likely,despite the established prior use of the SASROW by Shadow Mountain.
Finally,moving the development closer to Shadow Mountain means that drainage,
already a known problem that can cause dramatic soils movement in the area,will be
consolidated nearer Shadow Mountain. While engineers are weighing in on the viability of the
Page 1 2
Peck.Feigenbaum.
GHP, Shadow Mountain owners are relying on the City to ensare that Shadow Mountain's fears
do not come to fruition.
Traffic and Parking
The GHP promises to increase both pedestrian and vehicular traffic without regard to
Shadow Mountain. The GHP includes a roundabout that abuts the Shadow Mountain parking
lot,meaning that in times of even moderate traffic the Shadow Mountain owners may be unable
to efficiently access, enter, and exit their own parking lot. Mo over,it is unavoidable that
visitors looking for temporary loading and unloading parking will use and block access to
Shadow Mountain's lot.
Shadow Mountain already has parking issues that arose from the elimination of parking
along South Aspen Street as a result of the Lift One Lodge pr ject consuming the half of the
SASROW that previously provided Zone B parking. The Lift One Lodge developers worked
with Shadow Mountain to alleviate some of the parking impacts,including the provision of
public parking spaces within its garage. The GHP does not include parking available to Shadow
Mountain owners despite presumably increasing the demand f r the Lift One Lodge public
spaces by dramatically increasing the number of visitors to the South Aspen Street corridor.
The GHP also offers a reduction of solar snowmelt that would result from the
construction of the Lift One Lodge and Gorsuch Haus buil dinn into the SASROW,yet the
developers balk at snowmelt. South Aspen Street has long bee a a safety issue,but due to the
light needs of the low-density development that currently exis ,coupled with the lack of
obvious draw of additional traffic,South Aspen Street has not equired more. The GHP
changes all of that and the developers should be required to pr vide snowmelt in connection
with any approvals that increase traffic along South Aspen Stre t in such dramatic fashion.
If Approval Is Inevitable
The GHP and Lift One Lodge proposals have been cot Lsidered mutually dependent,but
the reason is not clear. A ski lift can be built to Dean Street. I is unlikely that Aspen Skiing
Company would reject a proposal to bring the lift down to De Street if the GHP is rejected.
Lift One Lodge was already approved and was acceptable to the City and the neighbors. There
is simply no convincing reason that the GHP needs to be approved as part of the Lift One
Lodge application or lift realignment. That said, the clear direc ion of Council is to approve the
GHP and in fact to help fund the development. If such a result is inevitable,Shadow Mountain
Page 1 3
Peck.Feigenbaum..
asks at the very least that Council take appropriate steps to mitigate the outsized impact of the
Gorsuch Haus development on Shadow Mountain.
First, coupling the partial vacation of the SASROW with the full height variance is
stifling for Shadow Mountain. Reducing the maximum height of the Gorsuch Haus
project and reducing the proximity of the lodge to Shadow Mountain should be
considered.
Second,if Lot 1 is rezoned Lodge and Lot 2 remains Conservation, Conservation
zoning or a similar restriction on development of Lot 2 should be made permanent to
ensure that the reasonable expectations of neighboring owners are not further eroded.
Third, Shadow Mountain asks that Council consider their parking and traffic impacts of
the GHP. Snowmelt is critical to the safety and efficiency of traffic flow on South Aspen
Street introduced by the GHP. Because this is necessitated by the GHP, the cost of snowmelt
should be an expense attributed to the Gorsuch Haus development and not Shadow Mountain.
Third, the GHP should include a plan for replacement parking accessible to
Shadow Mountain to reduce traffic and illegal parking, as well as mitigate the impact of the
GHP on the Shadow Mountain owners.
Fourth, the development is going to be massively impactful on Shadow Mountain
owners. The developers should be required to finish what they start in an efficient and
purposeful manner. A stalled project would be horrible for Aspen as a whole,but especially for
Shadow Mountain. Shadow Mountain suggests that the City reconsider requiring a
performance bond to ensure that Gorsuch Haus does not meet the same fate as Base Village.
The GHP has come down in an extremely fast and unanticipated sequence, particularly
when compared to the care and attention given by Council to Lift One Lodge. We regret not
being a part of the conversation sooner,but we now urgently seek and appreciate the City's
consideration of Shadow Mountain's concerns.
Sincerely,
Lucas Peck I Peck.Feigenbaump,
B3 -
Cc: Karen Hartman
Page 14
BALCOMB # GREEN
I Ile WATER LAW I REAL ESTATE I LITIGATION I BUSINESS EST4 1953
December 6, 2018
City of Aspen
City Council
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Use of Gilbert Street pursuant to proposed Ordinance No. 38 (Series
of 2018) and the Land Use Application to amend Ordinance No. 28, Series of
2011 (the "Application") submitted by Lift One Lodge Aspen LLC (the
"Applicant").
Dear Council:
We represent the Homeowners' Association for the Aspen Mountain
Townhomes ("AMT") located at 623 S. Monarch Street in Aspen. AMT engaged
us to advocate on their behalf regarding the use of Gilbert Street as proposed in
the Application. AMT has serious safety and capacity concerns related to the
proposed use of the very narrow Gilbert Street as access to the redeveloped Lift
One base area, and specifically, the "East Building" (as described in the
Application).
The Aspen Mountain Townhomes consist of three separate residential
units at the corner of Monarch and Gilbert Streets. Each unit has a front
entrance directly on Gilbert Street, which is an extremely narrow (approximately
15ft. wide) alleyway currently running one-way westward from S. Monarch Street
to S. Aspen Street. Attachment 1 provides a few images of Gilbert Street showing
(1) pedestrian traffic during the last World Cup, (2) the facade of the Aspen
Mountain Townhomes, and (3 - 6) demonstrate the near impossibility of two
vehicles to proceed down the street in opposite directions (please excuse the
minor traffic infraction).
AMT is concerned because the Applicant seeks to repurpose Gilbert
Street from a narrow one-way residential alleyway into a just-as-narrow two-way
street terminating in a cul-de-sac. Gilbert Street cannot safely handle the
increased two-way traffic that would be generated by public vehicular access to
the East Building and the Lift One base area- especially with any accumulation
of snow. It's also easy to imagine shuttle/Uber/cab drivers using this new cul-
de-sac as a convenient drop-off/pick-up spot for their guests and customers. As
a former Hotel Jerome valet, I would've loved to drop-off and pick-up guests on
this quiet street instead of dealing with traffic on Dean or Durant St.
ASPEN I BASALT I BUENA VISTA I GLENWOOD SPRINGS I LAMAR
Post Office Box 5039 1 Buena Vista,Colorado 81211 1800.836.5928 1 719.395.9280 1 BalcombGreen.com
C B A L C O M B G R E EN Aspen City Council
- December 6,2018
WAiERIAW I REFEESIhiE I LITIGATION I BUSINESS ESTI 19;3
Further, Gilbert Street is currently used as a pedestrian way for
residents of Aspen St. to walk to and from tow:z. The addition of residential units
to the neighborhood (new S. Aspen Street condominium project), and the
inevitable increased traffic resulting from a redeveloped Lift One Base Area will
make Gilbert Street an even more popular pedestrian way.
In short, while AMT is excited by the possibility of a new lift and active
base area in their backyard, their quiet residential street stands to become a
busy thoroughfare for vehicles and pedestrians alike. AMT is voicing concerns
not because of any potential annoyance factor, but because full two-way public
vehicular access on Gilbert Street would produce dangerous conditions right
outside their front door— quite literally.
Proposal
AMT has been in discussions with ti-Le Applicant and the City of Aspen
Engineering Department about a potential fn, that would restrict Gilbert Street
vehicular access to those who reside on the street, including residents of the
East Building. Access would also be available for emergency and public works
vehicles. This could be accomplished by installing a retractable bollard system
at the intersection of Gilbert Street and S. Mu-iarch Street. See Attachment 2 for
example images of a retractable bollard system. Such a system could be
activated by remote control devices provided to residents of Gilbert Street, and
would be equipped with override mechanism 3 that allow emergency vehicles to
quickly lower the barrier.
This bollard system would allow free movement of pedestrians through
the intersection, but prevent Gilbert Street from becoming overrun with
vehicular traffic accessing the redeveloped Lift One base area. The result would
be a safe public pedestrian way that allows limited vehicular access keeping
Gilbert Street clear for emergency and public works vehicles.
The Ordinance
The current working draft of the Ordinance No. 38 briefly addresses
Gilbert Street in Section 14 where it generally approves a conceptual design for
a Gilbert Street cul-de-sac. While we understand that much of the final design
of Gilbert Street will be left to Planning and Zoning, it would be beneficial to their
work to have a bit more direction on this aspect of the project. Accordingly, we
ask that the applicable section of the final draft of Ordinance 38 (Series of 2018)
read as follows:
"Improvements to Dean Street and the creation of a cul-
de-sac at the terminus to Gilbert Street are approved
ASPEN I BASALT I BUENA VISTA I GLENWOOD SPRINGS I LAMAR
Post Office Box 5039 1 Buena Vista,Colorado 81211 1 800.836.5928 1 719.395.9280 1 BalcombGreen.com
• C B A L C O M B &GREEN Aspen City Council
- December 6,2018
WATE9LAW I NEALESTATE I LITIGATION I BUSINESS EST! 1953
and conceptual design is depicted as an exhibit to this
Ordinance. The Applicant and the Engineering
Department shall evaluate the efficacy of restricting
Gilbert Street vehicular access to residents of Gilbert
Street by the installation of traffic control measures at
the intersection of S. Monarch Street. Final design will
be evaluated by the Engineering Department and a
recommendation made to the Planning and Zoning
Commission at Detailed review."
There is precedent in Aspen for this type of traffic restriction (Dean St.
at the Gondola Plaza) and we realize that installation at this intersection will
require input from emergency services, public works and other interested
parties. That is why our proposed language does not mandate such installation,
but merely directs the Applicant and the Engineering Department to evaluate
the possibility. In the end, our primary concern is the safety of all users of Gilbert
Street, and we think that restricting vehicular access as set forth in this letter is
the best way to ensure safety.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
J. Casey Martin
Attorney
Enc.
JCM
Cc: (via e-mail)
Steve Skadron, Mayor, City of Aspen
Bert Myrin, Aspen City Council
Ward Hauenstein, Aspen City Council
Ann Mullins, Aspen City Council
Adam Frisch, Aspen City Council
Bart Johnson, Waas Campbell Rivera Johnson 8v Velasquez, LLP Counsel for
the Applicant
Marley Hodgson, President, Aspen Mountain Townhomes Homeowners Assoc.
Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
Tricia Aragon, City Engineer
ASPEN I BASALT I BUENA VISTA I GLENWOOD SPRINGS I LAMAR
Post Office Box 5039 1 Buena Vista,Colorado 81211 1 800.836.5928 1 719.395.9280 1 BalcombGreen.com
"IF
• i ,,,y,y.r ek �r`r tiff r ,t 1
I
it
:i
•
1 �� r �•�� ` ,k4x:
N)mIL
IF4 ,.
�iIF •�' I11 ��.
WR
�i•. V� N
•9
i
y �
a'
1.
t
art ,SSS r �,�'ti^�-��~ •, �- ! e - I t' �` ,
'7011�
k. t
Ir yrl
S.
4
I !
f�<{ •.rte�w �.,,r:,'`
\'A",44 )1P," O
s
1. 1
M � i
•�
NTUJ
E
� U
U LTZ
M
a--J
Q �—
>
a
a
o y m C C O
_ w u
r� c
w m d r d d o z m c o
L E .O L d N d d m Y O
'F N EY O a);5 >+ d CL Cfn
O N E m f0 O. m e d d m
E m Y O N d•_ Y C r_•
d Ud N N Q mr y n 'G
E > = n m y 0 o i s
d E V NO O mC J N .d+(n N
O.`1
ac,
t7 d
N C �j .a O m O 00 d C m
rm- ui C w O C.N n._ d
f0
0.1 Q lC`4 m
N O Od— L
7 E m O' - ?i d C Y m M O O
0 i .i" N a'� m .0 N
0 c `m L E E t c ai m
A m y =o C o L- o
rn c E a
_crN ti N M d Q�-' y
0 . T Co
0 y m3 m daQN > O 7 7 O 0
Q N O L
mCmC
n E o 0) Cm c c
a) Od
DL d _
m U N O
a) pc0
)
E
C 0 N L +�•. m
c,�. N`o d'C d N Y c 3 E
Y m u
Q 'p O T N T e •Z
O•d a Oj t mm L d d
O N O) m N m •j d tm.D N
C 2 a C) �i c C m E m m .m
m�N a m N Y d V Lo > d
t m a y c E o ; m ami L
s O N C d T N C T N _
N •N G m r' C U. C d C G)
C L'C >' Q CC d L O O d d n y
- � E_. EL
m E a u o
E o o > o c a r lu E D o v r
° u E v p 0 n E u " o cn
C O C Y d 0 Gj n y O C a, N N
O m O L a 1 lJ C O um d m�
m E o d m c > > d E m 15
p.0 c m
U E d n T Uj u 0 n.. `y a L 'C m
r c N E v °� o n o 0 0 a
U o m o d 0 c m
5 c y aa)) 0 E y Lm d o �a� m e
E V o ^ a N v w o U i<'S E
s 0 o c E a LC E d m rn L c 'o Y a
m o ° c a CD �" _o c w
EE o
O '�O' O1 rd. Im d 0
0
O d '.' Lo J O
�• .0 Z Tn7 NA '0m'm C E(� d C �
.L o
d E 0 C -2
N '7 L d 0 L) .•"--N a g Q d?o ff Ol O
r OfU- L N �) N o �} 0) N R
CL C m m 3 O .u) c1 a) �' C d E •.t.. N
r
: (D :E E �� � � _ " of
m n V d c 0) mO N T O
d o d E >,C N N N O� > O C d
d 0 'S N j O 00 d
U
N A C
O G C y Y= o L E N 7 a L
m
r2O
f0
C O E'
� (m
LL E U d C fN0 N C C .L.. C V C O d
- m y d t O= 0 .0 d 0-d,n O
Q C d d C C 'O d O O.rd C m N n V
d o f d _ a C 0 O m a d 0
c C N ~ c y E ,= N a L E d o ,L..
m m o
O m N a d .� N n la C d a y 3
Oi 0 d C N Q'm N N m - -D N O—
Ln 0 d a m m p Q «� C j� d Y
> O C ~m d O > d 0 0 d V y
T O U - m n' i d d C O)i Y N
O
to 0 y« N « a Y m C O d)
CL v lL0 Q0� 0 d - c Y s N c E
a m N N�'i d L m� D y C= y C C O
P. T M.0N t iO N'� Y E O` 0 A
E ,� dm 9. N C N N O' N L
O O O d d L d C 0 0 p)n.fl 2-2 0) d 0 m
> a) c E 0 0 0 u v m e
J 0 Ou
d•jp 2 O co O cm o m X11 O o .L-. N a) d
L N C d O m•a Fo > T N C is --0
v = C Q'y d N C L C E N m a m Y ai m
a m N d ,O' >i 'O N > C d
E p Q o d fO v a a' a) c >, m C m >, o c
v o a>i Si �i E o O m e d 3 a ami v
A �, a y T N L O a u) Q O N j O d o d ._. T m L C J r
V o 1IdOa > � d co 30)n �i.� s -� o en
LL 00 'D V C.) N y "b ai •'-" -0 L N ca N 0 d c E c a 0 m C-4 q
v c a)d n n N �`y '� C c `u d= d a> C O' ,«O- i' O
U 0 O� 0 N m C N N Q C N r d.0 y 2:,j i (a d E d t L 001 1� CD
Q V vi Q C ( U N O U t o d d C > O N .L. E C ., y
2 E c 0 d T E c c `' c N N m o m L t Mo� d c� E U o N m d F
v O a > E m o o N L ai c o - u a 0 N O a a� 3 co c
v N �'a c o m m c C m L c o c m d m > ° L > 5 ao c J y
7 L L O > d O L L O !O m •U 0 "d 0
S L E d O�' 3 � c
a m u 'S m u 5 u w U E'm t r �^ O E t V a m E
2 E > N- O CO _ E T y o E y e -i o
W N 'L" • • • • Y N f6 O Y N OO d H
c c
ni c H E U m u
�i m O S,°�' ` UO- m Ya p FE oD m FO-• o m n O m
E §
k § { k \
} \ �
� \ \
\ kk \ (
\ \} { \
\ 2 :
f 7
\ \\ \ }
Dz
k
\
k £«\ )
Z a - f a
\ \//
k «w ) _
I §5
_ !a2 ■ { � �
kkk ) { { \ k
- {\{
| !f » /IR
(
jE § \ _
/ § 5) \
A - _
-
�z� -
i�J -
10 c
� � ,
k §!§ 22 §
A
\)\\ § § )k\ { - � # \ - � /
\ } / /
k / { \�)
� , ! « ■ ; �� _ ,
/
Peck.Feigenbaum,,,
LUCAS PECK
lucas®rfvlaw.com
December 7,2018
By Email
Mr. Mike Kraemer
Senior Planner—City of Aspen
mike.kraemer@doofaspen.com
Re: Gorsuch Haus Application /Lift 1A
Dear Mr. Kraemer:
We represent Shadow Mountain Townhomes Association and in connection therewith
we would like to share some concerns over the Gorsuch Haus developer's application. The
Shadow Mountain Townhomes are and have been for several decades the southernmost
development on South Aspen Street,including certain improvements that have occupied a
portion of the South Aspen Street right of way (SASROW) under a license agreement with the
City. The Gorsuch Haus Proposal (GHP) has immediate and permanent impacts on the
Shadow Mountain Townhomes that have thus far been ignored. To that end,we respectfully
urge council to consider the following:
Zoning Change—Conservation to Lodge
The purpose of the City's land use regulations is "to promote and protect the ... citizens
and City through the establishment and enforcement of comprehensive, efficient, clear and
consistent standards... for the planning,evaluation,approval and implementation of land uses and
development within the City." LUC §26.104.020. "In furtherance of this purpose,all
development and uses of land shall be analyzed within the context of... the legitimate rights and
reasonable expectations of pmper y owners." LUC §26.104.020.
The GHP proposes a zoning change from Conservation to Lodge. The purpose of the
Conservation zone district is "to provide areas of low density development" and"to contain
urban development." LUC §26.710.220. The purpose of the Lodge zone district is to
"encourage construction,renovation and operation of lodges" and"[t]he City encourages high-
occupancy lodging development." LUC § 26.710.190.
It is difficult to overstate the degree to which the reasonable expectations of the
Shadow Mountain property owners would be marginalized by allowing land once
MICHAEL FEIGENBAUM LUCAS PECK HEATHER MANOLAKAS,Of Counsel PETER P.DELANY, Paralegal
MIDIAND MMu.
132 Midland Avenue,Suite 4,Basalt Colorado 81621
Tel 970.925.51961 Fax 970.925.4559 1 www.rfvlaw.com
M Peck.Feigenbaum..
intended for low-density development,virtually overnight, become a high-occupancy
lodging development. Nor would it be contrary to the legitimate rights of the Gorsuch Haus
developers to require that they conform to the existing zoning. The dramatic change from
Conservation to Lodge is a windfall for the Gorsuch Haus developers that comes at the expense
of Shadow Mountain in direct conflict with the purpose of the land use code to establish clear
and consistent standards that protect the legitimate rights and reasonable expectations of
property owners.
Increasing Shadow Mountain's concern,not only does the GHP seek a zoning change,
but it has decided the twenty-eight-foot maximum height does not serve its purposes and
immediately seeks the maximum variance for a towering forty feet. Like so many elements of
the GHP,the impacts of this 43%increase in height is further compounded by additional
requests and concessions that both directly and indirectly impact the Shadow Mountain owners.
Not only does the GHP contemplate high-density lodging in place of low-density development,
not only does the GHP seek a variance to construct forty-foot walls,but GHP is asking for
half of the SASROW so that it can push its forty-foot walls thirty feet closer to Shadow
Mountain on property it doesn't even own.
Partial Vacation of SASROW
Shadow Mountain has previously weighed in on this aspect of the GHP. It is
fundamentally unfair to and inconsistent with Shadow Mountain's reasonable expectations to
vacate half of the SASROW in favor of the Gorsuch Haus developers to allow an already
unanticipated and outsized lodge development to be built virtually on top of Shadow Mountain.
While there has been a focus on the necessity of such a move to "allow" the ski lift to move
down to Dean Street,there has been no consideration of whether the GHP is necessary at all, or
of the impact of putting Shadow Mountain literally into the shadow of this giant lodge project.
In addition, Shadow Mountain has occupied a portion of the SASROW pursuant to a
license agreement for many years, and long before any of the development put forth in the GHP
was publicly considered. The partial vacation of the SASROW in favor of the Gorsuch Haus
project effectively narrows the SASROW and enhances the importance of the remaining half of
the SASROW,making any future vacation in favor of Shadow Mountain less likely.
Furthermore,it makes the City objecting to Shadow Mountain's existing improvements in the
SASROW more likely,despite the established prior use of the SASROW by Shadow Mountain.
Finally,moving the development closer to Shadow Mountain means that drainage,
already a known problem that can cause dramatic soils movement in the area,will be
consolidated nearer Shadow Mountain. While engineers are weighing in on the viability of the
Page 12
M Peck.Feigenbaum.
GHP, Shadow Mountain owners are relying on the City to ensure that Shadow Mountain's fears
do not come to fruition.
Traffic and Parking
The GHP promises to increase both pedestrian and vehicular traffic without regard to
Shadow Mountain. The GHP includes a roundabout that abuts the Shadow Mountain parking
lot,meaning that in times of even moderate traffic the Shadow Mountain owners may be unable
to efficiently access,enter, and exit their own parking lot. Moreover,it is unavoidable that
visitors looking for temporary loading and unloading parking will use and block access to
Shadow Mountain's lot.
Shadow Mountain already has parking issues that arose from the elimination of parking
along South Aspen Street as a result of the Lift One Lodge project consuming the half of the
SASROW that previously provided Zone B parking. The Lift One Lodge developers worked
with Shadow Mountain to alleviate some of the parking impacts,including the provision of
public parking spaces within its garage. The GHP does not include parking available to Shadow
Mountain owners despite presumably increasing the demand for the Lift One Lodge public
spaces by dramatically increasing the number of visitors to the South Aspen Street corridor.
The GHP also offers a reduction of solar snowmelt that would result from the
construction of the Lift One Lodge and Gorsuch Haus buildings into the SASROW,yet the
developers balk at snowmelt. South Aspen Street has long been a safety issue,but due to the
light needs of the low-density development that currently exists, coupled with the lack of
obvious draw of additional traffic, South Aspen Street has not required more. The GHP
changes all of that and the developers should be required to provide snowmelt in connection
with any approvals that increase traffic along South Aspen Street in such dramatic fashion.
If Approval Is Inevitable
The GHP and Lift One Lodge proposals have been considered mutually dependent,but
the reason is not clear. A ski lift can be built to Dean Street. It is unlikely that Aspen Skiing
Company would reject a proposal to bring the lift down to Dean Street if the GHP is rejected.
Lift One Lodge was already approved and was acceptable to the City and the neighbors. There
is simply no convincing reason that the GHP needs to be approved as part of the Lift One
Lodge application or lift realignment. That said,the clear direction of Council is to approve the
GHP and in fact to help fund the development. If such a result is inevitable, Shadow Mountain
Page 1 3
M Peck.Feigenbaum.
asks at the very least that Council take appropriate steps to mitigate the outsized impact of the
Gorsuch Haus development on Shadow Mountain.
First, coupling the partial vacation of the SASROW with the full height variance is
stifling for Shadow Mountain. Reducing the maximum height of the Gorsuch Haus
project and reducing the proximity of the lodge to Shadow Mountain should be
considered.
Second,if Lot 1 is rezoned Lodge and Lot 2 remains Conservation, Conservation
zoning or a similar restriction on development of Lot 2 should be made permanent to
ensure that the reasonable expectations of neighboring owners are not further eroded.
Third, Shadow Mountain asks that Council consider their parking and traffic impacts of
the GHP. Snowmelt is critical to the safety and efficiency of traffic flow on South Aspen
Street introduced by the GHP. Because this is necessitated by the GHP, the cost of snowmelt
should be an expense attributed to the Gorsuch Haus development and not Shadow Mountain.
Third,the GHP should include a plan for replacement parking accessible to
Shadow Mountain to reduce traffic and illegal parking, as well as mitigate the impact of the
GHP on the Shadow Mountain owners.
Fourth, the development is going to be massively impactful on Shadow Mountain
owners. The developers should be required to finish what they start in an efficient and
purposeful manner. A stalled project would be horrible for Aspen as a whole,but especially for
Shadow Mountain. Shadow Mountain suggests that the City reconsider requiring a
performance bond to ensure that Gorsuch Haus does not meet the same fate as Base Village.
The GHP has come down in an extremely fast and unanticipated sequence, particularly
when compared to the care and attention given by Council to Lift One Lodge. We regret not
being a part of the conversation sooner,but we now urgently seek and appreciate the City's
consideration of Shadow Mountain's concerns.
Sincerely,
Lucas Peck I Peck.Feigenbaump,
-Z
By
Cc: Karen Hartman
Page 14
3:51 �i ?
FYI sent my comments re
tonite to your COA email.
EM
•
eceived your email -spend the money
yep, whatever it costs
Thursday 8:41 PM
What • • you
exchange oran
unlimited amount •
How much of a
guarantee • • you
exchange for giving an
unlimited amount •
L money away?
,t:.. ® 0 ® fid
3617 Yr F
E93 an
Friday 12=18 AM
A development that
revitalizes the western
portal to 1A. Period. At
any public cost. The
embarrassment of riches
that is the city budget
(funded by the
taxpayers) should
absolutely kick down to
pay whatever it takes to
make this happen. After
a S5mil railing on the CC
bridge, the huge hydro
expenditures including
the turbine that's still out
at the lumberyard, the
geothermal drilling
experiments, etc etc etc
etc, how about spending
taxpayer money on
cnmpthinn that hPnPfit.-
k
+ '' 00 D :
3:52
Elizabeth 1.1 has
at the lumberyard, the
geothermal drilling
experiments, etc etc etc
etc, how about spending
taxpayer money on
something that benefits
us all???? No not a tax
district, we already give
S150 million to you each
year. Do something good
for a change_ Not storm
drains. Not land banking.
I'm so glad the election is
after this decision
because it will be great
to see how y'all come
down on this. Maybe get
something good and
tangible and beneficial
done, and no one is
saying that's a mobility
lab.
Linda Manning
From: Adam Frisch
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2018 5:02 PM
To: Linda Manning;Ashley Perl
Subject: FW: SHIFT
Morning to you both.
I am not sure if this made it into staff files as Debbie had requested.....(my blue highlight below)
Thank you
-a
Ak ►
��Oil
CITY OF ASPEN
adam b. frisch
council member
130 south galena st.
aspen, co 81611
p: 970.925.5199
f: 970.925.5119
adam.frisch@cityofaspen.com
www.citvofaspen.com
91 C3 Is
From: Debbie Braun <dbraun@aspenchamber.org>
Date: Monday, December 10, 2018 at 12:03 PM
To: Adam Frisch <adam.frisch@cityofaspen.com>, Ann Mullins<mullins.ann@gmail.com>, Cuthbert Myrin
<bert@myrin.com>, Ward Hauenstein <ward.hauenstein@cityofaspen.com>, Steven Skadron
<steve.skadron@cityofaspen.com>
Cc: Donnie Lee <dlee@destination hotels.com>, Maria Morrow<maria@okglaw.com>, Cristal Logan
<crista1.logan@aspeninst.org>, Charles Bantis<charles.bantis@myfw.com>, Lisa LeMay<atc@obosent.com>,
Jeff Bay<jeff.bay@haymaxhotels.com>,John Davies <jdavies@aspenchamber.org>, Claire Sacco
<csacco@aspenchamber.org>
Subject: SHIFT
Hi all, can you please add to the public record regarding our support of the SHIFT program. I hoped to attend the
meeting tonight but I cannot. Other Chamber representatives may comment tonight, but I wanted to make sure you
knew where the organization stands.
1
Chuck Frias emailed the council, lodging community and the chamber in 2016 asking for solutions to the traffic problems
—over the last few years the City has worked hard to address these concerns. With a bold, forward thinking council
SHIFT has materialized as the best bet to date in trying and tackle this overwhelming challenge. The Chamber can
support this experiment because it's just that—a test over 90 days in the summer to see if we can be effective in
reducing traffic. The City staff has met with our PA committee and other business stakeholders to find good
solutions. While we don't agree with all the aspects of the experiment,trying nothing doesn't seem appropriate.
Many industries are dealing with the New Economy—our lodging community had to make room in their operation and
business plans for AirBNB and other overnight accommodation providers. Our retailers face similar challenges with
Amazon and other on-line shopping outlets—and found creative solutions to be successful. And now locally,
transportation is seeing the likes of disruption with the SHIFT program—(not to mention Uber.)
We hope the City will make way for new innovations while being respectful of community—a fine balance for sure. The
best solutions will rise up during the experiment and the others will fall by the way side. I will share the most consistent
feedback we've received is more about process—and lack of communication then the actual stated goal of traffic
reduction.
PS—I do believe the partnership with Lyft would be more beneficial in the winter vs the summer. Simply because most
traffic congestion in the summer is from day-trippers who bring their own cars verses winter destination guests who fly,
stay longer and have these services available in their home communities. We also hope that public safety and education
about the program will be of highest priority when rolling out.
Thank you—and happy holidays.
Debbie Braun, IOM,CDME
President and CEO
`ASPEN
ASPEN CHAMBER RESORT ASSOCIATION
590 N.Mill Street I Aspen, CO 81611
tel.970.920.71401 fax 970.920.1173 1 cell 970.948.5050
y 93 Follow ACRA on Twitter and Facebook! I www.aspenchamber.org
w
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
2