HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20140210
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
February 10, 2014
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 on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes)
V. Special Orders of the Day
a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments
b) Agenda Deletions and Additions
c) City Manager's Comments
d) Board Reports
VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion)
a) Resolution #8, 2014 - Burlingame Phase II Construction Contract Buildings 5-7
b) Board Appointments
c) Minutes - January 27, 2014
VII. First Reading of Ordinances
a) Ordinance #4, 2014 - Pacific Avenue Condominiums - Affordable Housing Credits
b) Ordinance #5, 2014 - Erdman Partnership Lot Split - Subdivision Amendment
c) Ordinance #3, 2014 - Amendments to Procurement Code
d) Ordinance #6, 2014 - Approving a Lease Purchase Agreement for the Acquisition
of IT Equipment
VIII. Public Hearings
a) Resolution #10, 2014 - Land Use Code Amendment, Calculations and
Measurements
b) Ordinance #2, 2014 - Code Amendment - Growth Management Deadlines
c) Ordinance #51, 2013 - Hotel Aspen - PUD, Subdivision, Rezoning, CONTINUE
TO 2/24
d) Resolution #9, 2014 - Easement Pitkin County Library
IX. Action Items
a) 2014 Renewable Energy Work Overview and Status of the CCEC
X. Executive Session C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(a) - Property Acquisition
XI. Adjournment
Next Regular Meeting February 24, 2014
COUNCIL’S ADOPTED GUIDELINES
• Invite the Community to Participate with Us in Solution-Making
• Tone and Tenor Matter
• Remember Where We’re Living and Why We’re Here
COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M.
Page 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Cit y Council
FROM: Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager
THRU: Barr y Crook, Assistant City Manager and
Scott Miller, Capital Asset Director
DATE OF MEMO: January 21, 2014
MEETING DATE: January 27, 2014
RE: Burlingame Ranch Phase IIAii GMP Contract for Vertical
Construction of Buildings 5 through 7 (34 housing units)
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests approval of attached (Exhibit D) Guaranteed Maximum
Price (GMP) contract with RA Nelson LLC for the vertical construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii
multifamily buildings 5 through 7 (34 affordable housing units and associated site work). The GMP
contract sum is $11,297,114.00.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: On March 12, 2012, Aspen City Council approved a GMP
contract with Haselden Construction for Burlingame Phase II access/infrastructure site construction.
On January 14, 2013, Aspen City Council approved a GMP contract with Haselden Construction for
the vertical construction of Burlingame Phase IIAi multifamily buildings 1 through 4 (48 affordable
housing units and associated site work). On October 29, 2013, Aspen City Council approved the 2014
budget for the 150 Housing Development Fund which included a 2014 Burlingame Phase II
development budget of $15,056,020.00.
BACKGROUND: Burlingame Ranch Phase II is scheduled for a total of 161 affordable
condominium units in 15 multifamily buildings over numerous construction mobilization efforts.
Construction of the first 48 units in multifamily buildings 1 through 4 is nearing completion and
homeowners have begun moving in. After the next 34 units in buildings 5 -7 are completed, the
phasing plan anticipates that construction of the remaining units in multifamily buildings 8 through 15
would not resume until resume in 2020.
In 2008, staff received direction on the approach to Burlingame Ranch Phase II from City Council
based on input from two citizen groups: (1) the Citizens Budget Task Force and (2) the Construction
Experts Group. Per the direction received, in 2009 staff developed an agreement wit h the executive
board of the Burlingame Ranch Phase I HOA to increase the total number of housing units at
Burlingame Ranch from 236 units to 258 units, and increase of 22 units. In 2010, staff assembled an
Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) team and executed a community outreach program which resulted in
over 500 line items of feedback related to the design of Burlingame Ranch Phase II.
In 2011, staff and the IPD team completed the project design, developed a phasing plan, filed a
development application, presented the plan to City Council in land use hearings and received land use
approval. In October of 2011, Aspen City Council approved the 2012 budget for the Burlingame
Phase II access/infrastructure site construction.
P1
VI.a
Page 2
DISCUSSION: In 2012, staff established a 2014 budget estimate of $15 million for the construction
of 34 affordable housing units at Burlingame Ranch Phase II buildings 5-7. In late summer of 2013,
staff received a draft GMP proposal for the construction of buildings 5-7 from Haselden Construction
which would have required staff to raise the 2014 budget request above the previously estimated $15
million level. Staff issued an RFP to seek market pricing for the construction of buildings 5-7. The
RFP process and the evaluation of the bids received are thoroughly described in Exhibit A. Owner’s
agent personnel from Rider Levett Bucknall also participated in the RFP process and the evaluation of
the bids and qualifications received. The recommendation by staff to select RA Nelson was also
supplemented by a recommendation from Rider Levett Bucknall.
The attached proposed contract with RA Nelson (Exhibit D) is a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP)
contract, but the possibilit y of necessar y changes to the defined work is imminent, thus the contract
describes a change order process which must be followed when work other than the defined scope of
work becomes necessary. Alternatively, there is also a provision in the contract that allows the City of
Aspen and RA Nelson to split any savings 50%/50% which provides both parties with savings
incentive. The attached Exhibit C document from owner’s agent, Rider Levett Bucknall (RLB),
further describes the benefits of the contract and recommends approval to proceed. Upon Notice to
Proceed, work is scheduled to begin on or before April 1, 2014, seasonal weather conditions
permitting.
Throughout the construction thus far at Burlingame Ranch Phase II, staff has enforced an open
and inclusive communications program to the neighborhood residents at Burlingame, and this program
will be continued.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The Burlingame Phase II long range estimate shown below was
communicated to Aspen City Council at the November 13, 2012 budget worksession, and staff is
committed to make every effort to meet or improve upon this goal.
The revenue projections shown above include unit categor y reductions per the November 13, 2012
memo.
P2
VI.a
Page 3
Below are two tables which illustrate that the two tranches of construction (2013) buildings 1 through
4 and (Proposed 2014) buildings 5 through 7 are working toward improving that goal:
Note that the ‘Total Cost’ values shown in the two red summary tables are greater than the
expenditures shown in each year in the blue table because the expenditures from 1997 through 2012
have been apportioned on a square footage basis toward the total cost of the buildings constructed in
2013 and (proposed for) 2014.
Staff will also be requesting carr y-forward of 100% of the remaining 2013 construction budget to
complete buildings 1 through 4. That carry forward will contain some savings against the 2013
budget, but the amount is TBD.
Staff has also budgeted for comprehensive construction oversight, insurance and other work that
will be the City’s responsibility as the d eveloper. Council approval to proceed with the attached
contract will necessitate subsequent Council approval of other expenditures including:
Owner controlled insurance policy (OCIP) premiums
Owner’s agent project management
Architect/engineer constructio n administration
Commissioning agent
Quality assurance construction observation
Material testing, inspection, geotechnical engineering
Condominium plat and building height field verification surveying
These are included in the 2014 budget summary shown be low and are further detailed in Exhibit A:
P3
VI.a
Page 4
The amount of contingency which actually ends up being used may vary depending upon
unforeseeable conditions which may arise during the construction process, but staff anticipates that
there will be a significant amount of savings against the budget, and this is direct result of the RFP
process.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of attached (Exhibit D) Guaranteed
Maximum Price (GMP) contract with RA Nelson LLC for the vertical construction of Burlingame
Phase IIAii multifamily buildings 5 through 7 (34 affordable housing units and associated site work).
The GMP contract sum is $11,297,114.00.
CITY MANAGER CO MMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Proposed Budget Detail
Exhibit B: RFP Evaluation Memo
Exhibit C: Rider Levett Bucknall (owner’s agent) recommendation
Exhibit D: Proposed GMP Contract
P4
VI.a
RESOLUTION#8
(Series of 2014)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND RA NELSON LLC FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS 5 THROUGH
7 AT BURLINGAME RANCH PHASE II, AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for
construction of buildings 5 through 7 at Burlingame Ranch Phase II, between the
City of Aspen and RA Nelson LLC, a true and accurate copy of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit "D";
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract for
construction of buildings 5 through 7 at Burlingame Ranch Phase II, between the
City of Aspen and RA Nelson LLC, a copy of which is annexed hereto and
incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said
agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 27th day of January, 2014.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certif y that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council
of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, January 27, 2014.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
P5
VI.a
Burlingame Ranch Phase IIAii, Buildings 5-7, 34 units
2014 Detailed Budget Estimate (carry-forward from 2013 not yet included)
rev. Jan 17, 2014 ce
SOURCES Budget Actual Variance
2013 Carry-Forward Balance tbd
2014 City Council Budget Approval 15,056,020$
Grant Funding tbd
Total Sources 15,056,020$ -$ -$
USES
A.Construction - General Contractor 11,429,114$ -$ (11,429,114)$
Access/Infrastructure Remaining tbd
Vertical Buildings 1-4 Remaining (HCL)tbd
Vertical Buildings 5-7 including Solar Thermal (RAN)11,279,114$ (11,279,114)$
2014 Irrigation connectivity - design and construction 150,000$ (150,000)$
City of Aspen Parks Contribution (pumps/pumphouse)-$
B. Construction - Developer Responsibilities (City of Aspen)129,000$ -$ (129,000)$
Offsites Sunk -$
Mitigation Sunk -$
Offsite Storm Sewer -$
Site Gas Supply, Electrical Design, Utility Oversight -$
Site Elect Underground -$
Site Elect Supply -$
Site Sanitary Line -$
Owners OCIP Insurance 129,000$ (129,000)$
C. Soft Costs 1,772,003$ -$ (1,772,003)$
Design
Administrative Services
COA PM 200,000$ (200,000)$
Legal 20,000$ (20,000)$
Presales 10,000$ (10,000)$
Owner's Agent 390,880$ (390,880)$
Architect & Consultants 408,609$ (408,609)$
CxA Constr Phase 74,600$ (74,600)$
Enhanced Civil Oversight -$
Enhanced Vertical Oversight 64,130$ (64,130)$
Professional Services
Materials Testing
Geotech (inc materials testing)44,000$ (44,000)$
Survey 40,000$ (40,000)$
Medium voltage electrical oversight 5,000$ (5,000)$
Fees
Sewer Tap Fee 191,784$ (191,784)$
Water Tap Fee - waived
Parks Impact Fee - waived
TDM Impact Fee - when buildings online 37,000$ (37,000)$
School Impact Fee - when buildings online 31,000$ (31,000)$
Road Impact Fee - n/a only for Pitkin County Permit
Building Permit Fee 150,000$ (150,000)$
Stormwater Fee - waived
Land Use Fee
Home Sales Fee
HOA Setup 20,000$ (20,000)$
Burlingame Phase I Parking, Design & Engineering 75,000$ (75,000)$
Other
Construction Power and Water 10,000$ (10,000)$
D. Contingencies 1,725,903$ -$ (1,725,903)$
2013 Contingency 1,725,903$ (1,725,903)$
Project contingency expressed as % of construction cost 15.1%
Total Uses (A + B + C + D)15,056,020$ -$ (15,056,020)$
Page 1 of 1
Exhibit A: Proposed Detailed 2014 Budget P6
VI.a
Page 1 of 4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Barwick, City Manager
FROM: Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager and
Jack Wheeler, Capital Asset Project Manager
THRU: Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager and
Scott Miller, Capital Asset Director
DATE OF MEMO: November 25, 2013
RE: Staff Recommendation of New Burlingame Phase II GC
SUMMARY: Staff recommends selection of RA Nelson as general contractor for next phase of
Burlingame Phase II construction, Phase IIAii, Buildings 5 through 7 (34 affordable housing units).
REQUESTED DIRECTION: Staff requests direction to instruct RA Nelson to (1) utilize their status as
the preferred vendor to compile a best and final GMP based on best and final competitive subcontractor
bids and (2) upon procurement of best and final GMP and verification by staff, to sign a construction
contract based upon the best and final GMP, which will be scheduled for approval by City Council on
January 27, 2014, pending results of the sales process for Buildings 1 through 4 which will be vetted
with City Council at the January 21, 2014 Council work session. The attached Exhibit D: Letter of Intent
is the mechanism we propose to accomplish this.
BACKGROUND: In 2010, Haselden Construction was selected as the “Contractor-at-Risk” for the
Burlingame Phase II IPD design effort. Haselden fulfilled that role sufficiently and provided verifiable,
transparent GMP proposals for the 2012 construction of access and infrastructure for Burlingame Phase
II and for the 2013 vertical construction of buildings 1 through 4. Haselden has done an effective job at
fulfilling all requirements of them, and the project has gone very well. In following the working
paradigm for the proposed 2014 vertical phase, Haselden provided an initial GMP proposal for the 2014
work, but the proposed amount was significantly higher than staff had anticipated. This prompted staff
to release an RFP for the proposed 2014 work.
DISCUSSION: Only two bids were received: (1) Haselden Construction and (2) RA Nelson. The
evaluation team worked with both providers to improve their revised bids over their original bids, and
the table below summarizes the revised GMP base bid pricing subsequently re-submitted by each bidder:
Exhibit B: RFP Evaluation Memo and Staff Recommendation
P7
VI.a
Page 2 of 4
The evaluation team consists of Jack Wheeler and Chris Everson on the City staff and Rob Taylor and
Craig Roth of Rider Levett Bucknall who serve as the owner’s agent for the project. The
recommendation of the evaluation team has been reviewed by Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager,
Scott Miller, Capital Asset Director, and Jim True, City Attorney.
When Haselden Construction was originally selected as the “Contractor-at-Risk” for the Burlingame
Phase II IPD design effort, the long-term phasing plan for the project was not yet conceived. So while
the evaluation team is aware that Haselden Construction is qualified to perform the next phase of the
project, the phasing of smaller tranches of work than was originally anticipated may not be best suited
for Haselden. The evaluation team has pointed out areas of Haselden’s bid which seem high, but
Haselden continues to rationalize that they need to significantly mitigate their own level of risk. The
table below shows the areas of difference in the bids:
Although RA Nelson’s bid is lower than Haselden’s bid in the area of General Conditions by over
$400,000 and their fee is 5% compared to Haselden’s 5.5%, the major difference is in the direct costs of
the work. RA Nelson has proposed with only a few exceptions to use the same subcontractors that
Haselden is currently using. This large difference in direct cost of the work prompted the evaluation
team to interrogate whether or not RA Nelson has the scope of work correct by walking through each
line item with the RA Nelson team to verify the scope included. Additionally, while both bids contain a
2% construction contingency to cover unforeseen conditions, the RA Nelson bid also contains a 3%
escalation contingency which protects the City at the time RA Nelson buys out sub-contracts. In the
event that the escalation contingency is not used, 100% of the balance is returned to the City. Haselden
used this approach last year, but did not include such in their current bid.
During the 2010 evaluations for the “Contractor-at-Risk” role, RA Nelson was a finalist of the RFQ
process, but was not a finalist of the RFP process. This was mainly because the long-term phasing plan
for the project was not yet conceived and thus the project was being looked at a much larger scale
overall project rather than smaller tranches of work as it currently is being executed. The finalists at the
time were CFC, Haselden and Shaw, who were all more financially capable of large-scale bonding. The
size of the 2014 Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7 is well-suited for RA Nelson so the parameters of the
selection are very different than the 2010 selection.
It has also been pointed out that City regulators have observed in the past few years some deficient work
on the part of RA Nelson and with varied remediation results. While this is surely a concern for the
project team, the City will be using a quality-assurance third party who will be observing RA Nelson’s
work and additionally, the large difference in GMP price allows the City to set aside funding to
Exhibit B: RFP Evaluation Memo and Staff Recommendation
P8
VI.a
Page 3 of 4
essentially self-guarantee RA Nelson’s work. So in the event that the City’s thorough quality assurance
program does not catch deficiencies while work is in process, the City can hold aside some funding to
(as a last resort only if necessary) correct any deficiencies which may arise. This creates two levels of
protection for the City, and given the large difference in GMP prices proposed, this appears to be an
easy decision to make.
Although the selection of RA Nelson is unanimous, it is not without risk. Like any general contractor,
the project staff must manage the GC closely throughout the construction process. Haselden
Construction has had, over the course of the past year, some construction deficiency items which the
City’s project team has pointed out and had corrected during the construction of Buildings 1-4. This
experience has trained the City’s project team on what to look for during construction and the process
for remediation, so this additionally helps mitigate the risk of switching to a new GC.
The evaluation documentation provided in Exhibits A & B do not intend to find that RA Nelson is
“more qualified” than Haselden. The conclusion is instead that RA Nelson is sufficiently qualified to
perform this particular phase of work, and they have provided a very competitive price which the City
should pursue with an appropriate level of risk mitigation.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The attached Exhibit C document illustrates a line-item
breakdown of the proposed 2014 budget. The table below summarizes, and the GMP price shown in the
table below includes alternates such as the solar thermal systems and two-year warranty as well as
additional design contingency allowance, thus explaining the higher GMP amount shown below as
compared to the base bid amounts shown in the two tables above (See Exhibit C). A contract with RA
Nelson would provide opportunity for a significant project contingency as shown.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Instruct RA Nelson to (1) utilize their status as the preferred vendor to
compile a best and final GMP based on best and final competitive subcontractor bids and (2) upon
procurement of best and final GMP and verification by staff, to sign a construction contract based upon
the best and final GMP, which will be scheduled for approval by City Council on January 27, 2014,
pending results of the sales process for Buildings 1 through 4 which will be vetted with City Council at
the January 21, 2014 Council work session. The attached Exhibit D: Letter of Intent is the mechanism
we propose to accomplish this.
Exhibit B: RFP Evaluation Memo and Staff Recommendation
P9
VI.a
Page 4 of 4
ALTERNATIVES: Staff does not recommend pursuing a construction contract with Haselden
Construction as this would cause a need to request a significant budget increase from City Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Owners Agent Recommendation from Rider Levett Bucknall
Exhibit B: Evaluation Documentation
Exhibit C: Proposed 2014 Line-Item Budget Detail
Exhibit D: Letter of Intent
Exhibit B: RFP Evaluation Memo and Staff Recommendation
P10
VI.a
Page 1 of 2
January 16, 2014
Mr Chris Everson email: chris.everson@cityofaspen.com
Affordable Housing Project Manager
City of Aspen
130 South Galena St
Aspen, CO 81611
BURLINGAME RANCH PHASE II
2014 PHASE 2AiI VERTICAL –BUILDINGS 5 THROUGH 7 – RA NELSON FINAL FGMP
Dear Chris,
The purpose of this letter is to summarize our recommendation of the Final Guaranteed Maximum
Price (fGMP) submitted by RA Nelson in January 2014 for the 34 units (40,000 gsf) for Building 5 , 6
and 7 in Phase 2aii of Burlingame Ranch.
PROCESS
RA Nelson and Haselden construction both submitted bids in response to an open public RFP which
closed on October 24, 2013. Both bidders were interviewed by the review panel and issued revised
bids on November 7, 2013. RA Nelson was recommended by the review panel as the preferred
contractor as they were under budget and had all met all key RFP requirements.
Revised Building 5, 6 and 7 plan sets were issued by OZ in late October and with other CoA requested
inclusions of a full 2 year warranty (defect corrections period), umbrella insurance allowance to meet
the Owners Contracted Insurance Policy (OCIP) and including the add alternate solar thermal hot
water preheat system, the RA Nelson proposal appears comprehensive, inclusive and reasonable.
COST SUMMARY
The fGMP is $11,297,114 and our analysis reveals:
Buildings only - Direct cost of work excluding markups $187/gsf nett
Buildings only - Direct cost of work including markups $221/gsf
Carports only - Direct cost of work excluding markups $14,700 each space nett
Carports only - Direct cost of work including markups $17,400 each space
Gross sf project cost (allocating markups, parking and site) $281/gsf
General Conditions total 9.4% of the direct cost and overall markups on the direct costs total
18.07%
Fee is 5.0% and is appropriate for this contract size and Construction Contingency at 2.0% is
also appropriate for this contract size, schedule, location and design.
Exhibit C: Rider Levett Bucknall Owner's Rep Recommendation P11
VI.a
Jan 16, 2014
Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager
BURLINGAME RANCH PHASE II
2014 PHASE 2AiI VERTICAL –BUILDINGS 5 THROUGH 7 – RA NELSON FINAL FGMP
Page 2 of 2
RLB sees that the Contract, fGMP proposal, General Conditions and Schedule are all in order and that
the Construction Costs summarized above are competitive and complete to construct the 34 units in
Building 5, 6 and 7 in 2014/2015.
The A102/A201 Contracts balance risk and reward and are designed to protect the City of Aspen from
risk, while utilizing the specialist skills of the General Contractor to deliver the project.
SUMMARY
The fGMP proposal from RA Nelson allows the project to remain within the 2014 submitted budget and
to have a comfortable contingency. Ultimately, we hope much of these unallocated funds can be
returned to the City of Aspen for future projects.
RLB recommends that Council award the 2014 vertical construction work for Burlingame Ranch Phase
II Buildings 5, 6 and 7 to RA Nelson and that this work proceeds as soon as possible to:
Maximize early subcontractor input and secure the best teams from available subcontractors
Enhance preplanning and preconstruction
Minimize exposure to escalation is a very hot housing construction market
Continue to utilize a knowledgeable project team to progress this next phase, without losing key
experience, relationships and project understanding
Continue to deliver a quality/robust affordable housing product in a great location that has seen
strong presales once the project has commenced construction
We trust this is of assistance. Please contact me for any queries relating to this memo.
Sincerely,
Rob Taylor
Associate Principal, BE, PSP
Rider Levett Bucknall Ltd
Cc – Jack Wheeler, Scott Miller, Craig Roth
Exhibit C: Rider Levett Bucknall Owner's Rep Recommendation P12
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P13
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P14
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P15
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P16
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P17
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P18
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P19
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P20
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P21
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P22
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P23
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P24
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P25
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P26
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P27
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P28
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P29
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P30
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P31
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P32
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P33
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P34
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P35
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P36
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P37
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P38
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P39
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P40
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P41
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P42
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P43
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P44
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P45
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P46
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P47
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P48
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P49
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P50
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P51
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P52
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P53
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P54
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P55
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P56
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P57
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P58
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P59
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P60
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P61
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P62
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P63
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P64
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P65
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P66
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P67
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P68
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P69
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P70
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P71
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P72
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P73
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P74
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P75
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P76
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P77
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P78
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P79
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P80
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P81
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P82
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P83
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P84
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P85
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P86
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P87
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P88
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P89
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P90
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P91
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P92
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P93
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P94
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P95
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P96
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P97
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P98
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P99
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P100
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P101
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P102
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P103
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P104
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P105
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P106
VI.a
Exhibit D: Proposed CoA - RA Nelson GMP Contract for Vertical Construction of Burlingame Phase IIAii Buildings 5-7
P107
VI.a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
DATE: February 3, 2014
RE: Board Appointments
By approving the consent calendar, Council is making the following appointments:
P&Z Jasmine Tygre
Brian McNellis
Ollie Nieuwland-Zlotnicki
Jason Elliott – alternate
Wheeler Board Tom Kurt
Richie Cohen
P108
VI.b
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 27, 2014
1
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION .......................................................................................................... 2
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS .............................................................................................. 2
CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................... 3
Resolution #7, Series of 2014 - Municipal Facility Master Plan Project Design Services .. 4
Minutes – January 13, 2014 ................................................................................................. 4
ORDINANCE #2, SERIES OF 2014 – Code Amendment – Growth Management Competition . 5
ORDINANCE No. 2 ....................................................................................................................... 5
ORDINANCE #1, SERIES OF 2014 – Creating the Next Generation Advisory Commission and
Initial Appointments ....................................................................................................................... 5
RESOLUTION #9, SERIES OF 2014 – Pitkin County Library Easement .................................... 6
P109
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 27, 2014
2
Mayor Skadron called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with Councilmembers Frisch, Daily,
Romero and Mullins present.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
1. Nikki Mayer presented a letter addressing the complaints of Denise Reich. Ms. Mayer
told Council the city attorney is working with them to get the issues resolved. Jim True, city
attorney, told Council the appropriate way to handle these issues is with the attorney and
community development departments.
2. Neil Siegel told Council he feels it important to recognize the efforts and expertise of
members of the city’s water department. Siegel said their homeowners association received
notice their water meter had to be replaced. The city staff coordinated the work with the HOA’s
plumbing contractor. Siegel commended the department for being proactive in providing
planning, timing and expertise.
3. Broadery Nelson, Straighten out the Rainbow, noted they are bringing attention to the
Sochi Olympics and Russia’s anti-gay stance. Nelson presented Council with Straighten Out the
Rainbow tee-shirts and asked them to wear the tee-shirts to the Olympics send off this week.
4. Larry Meyer said Denise Reich has blocked off the river access and their views and has
built fences so one cannot get to the river.
5. Mike Maple said the city should be taking care of its property and showed a picture of
Lift One chair and building on the site. The city is not being good stewards of their property; one
building on this property fell down from lack of care. Maple brought up the contract for an
outside firm examining all city assets and asked why the city waited so long to address city
assets like the Art Museum and Mountain Rescue when the city has known for some time they
will be vacated soon. Maple noted nothing is being done with the Maroon Creek bridge, which
could be used as a pedestrian corridor. Maple encouraged Council to put the Art Museum
building to effective use and not to create a use to fill the building. Maple pointed out Section
13.4 of the Charter, restrictions on use of city property, requires a public vote to change use of
city property. Maple brought up the housing mitigation fees and that Council directed staff to
review them. Maple pointed out many people who live in single family and duplexes are
employees and are paying sales taxes and contributing to the community. Maple said members
of Boards and commissions should have term limits as do elected officials.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
P110
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 27, 2014
3
1. Councilwoman Mullins thanked citizens for their comments. It is important for Council
to hear these comments.
2. Councilman Frisch said the X-games were good. There are four Aspenites participating
in the Olympics and wished them a medal-filled trip.
3. Councilman Romero agreed the X-games were great. The Abetone school children sister
city exchange was happening during the X-games and the Abetone students enjoyed the X-
games.
4. Mayor Skadron thanked the Aspen Ski Company and ESPN for the great winter X-games
and concerts and stated he is looking forward to 5 more years of X-games in Aspen.
5. Mayor Skadron announced there is a discussion of skateboard park expansion going on
now at the Rio Grande meeting room and public comments are invited.
6. Mayor Skadron expressed condolences to Jackie Lothian’s family. Jackie was a long
term employee of the city.
7. Councilman Daily noted the Sister cities is a healthy, happy program that has five school
relationships with exchanges from Aspen to our sister cities and vice versa. Councilman Daily
said the board is having a strategic planning retreat. This is a bare bones operation with one paid
position. They rely on donations. The Sister Cities exchange program provides opportunities for
kids from Aspen to represent Aspen to the world.
8. Mayor Skadron reported he recently attended the CAST meeting in Jackson, Wyoming,
where funding air service, trails and integrated path system, and VRBO was discussed.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilman Romero requested Resolution #7, 2014 – Municipal Facility Master Plan Project
Design Services be pulled for discussed. Councilman Romero asked for an explanation about
the intent and scope of services so that the community can have more information. Jack
Wheeler, asset department, told Council this project and RFP is in response to one of Council’s
top ten goals, to develop a comprehensive facility master plan. Wheeler said city properties from
Maroon Creek through town have been included. The contractor will do an overall inventory of
city property, buildings and size of the property, they will do site assessment to determine
development potential. Staff and the contractor will develop a 20-year capital maintenance plan
to include structural, mechanical, electrical engineers looking at the buildings to develop both
best practices as well as energy efficiencies for the future. Wheeler reminded Council the city is
renting space for some departments, other departments are spread throughout multiple buildings,
P111
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 27, 2014
4
and departments in county facilities. Wheeler said they will be looking at document storage
requirements and trying to rearrange staff in places that would be better used for storage.
Wheeler told Council there were 4 qualified responses to the RFP that represented teams of
professionals. The team that was selected is from Denver and has an Aspen component, Charles
Cunniffe. The contractor has expertise that is not available in the valley. Wheeler told Council
the bid prices came in between $198,000 and $430,000. Staff had a scoring committee and
agreed this was the best response to meet the needs of the city. Councilman Romero asked why
this project has not been done earlier. Scott Miller, asset department, said staff has worked on
this analysis internally building by building and has only completed 3 or 4 buildings and during
that work realized professional help of an architect, structural and mechanical engineers is
needed. Miller noted circumstances are changing rapidly, the police and housing departments
need new locations. Councilman Romero asked if the result of this plan will give the city usable
action plans. Miller said it will facilitate key decisions that need to be made and give the city
conceptual drawings for proposed solutions. Councilman Romero asked about the earlier work
done on private/public partnerships for city-owned land. Miller said that work was for properties
owned by the housing development fund; those properties are not included in this scope of work.
Councilman Frisch asked if the ten year is too short-sided. Miller said beyond that and the
changing conditions, the city will have to readdress those conditions and staff feels that ten years
is appropriate.
Councilwoman Mullins noted other bidders were also from out of town and that about 40% of
the contract is going to local firms. Councilwoman Mullins agreed staff could do this work but
there are economies having experts brought in. Miller reiterated there are not structural or
mechanical engineers on staff. Councilwoman Mullins asked why not all city properties are
listed. Wheeler said some of the buildings have already had work done and staff did not want to
duplicate that work. Councilwoman Mullins asked when there will be a more detailed schedule.
Miller said after the project is kicked off, staff will return with a schedule and with the proposed
public process. Councilman Daily stated there is a clear need for this work. Mayor Skadron
agreed and noted this is budgeted for and this is one of Council’s top ten goals and is needed to
meet the future operational needs of the city. Some of the cost is for conceptual design work.
One of the questions is whether the existing city hall can be retrofitted to meet future needs or
does the building have to be demolished inside and have a new building built within the historic
structure.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to approve the consent calendar; seconded by Councilman Daily.
The consent calendar is:
• Resolution #7, Series of 2014 - Municipal Facility Master Plan Project Design Services
• Minutes – January 13, 2014
P112
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 27, 2014
5
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #2, SERIES OF 2014 – Code Amendment – Growth Management Competition
Jessica Garrow, community development department, told Council at the last meeting, Council
directed staff to bring forward a code amendment regarding deadlines for certain projects within
the growth management competition; the current deadlines are February 15 and August 15 to
apply for allotments. This amendment would eliminate those deadlines and allow any project to
come in on first come first serve basis at anytime. Ms. Garrow stated amending the deadlines
renders the growth management competition obsolete. Ms. Garrow reported since the
competition was implemented in 2006, there has never been a competitive environment. There
have always been more allotments than applications.
Councilman Romero moved to read Ordinance #2, Series of 2014; seconded by Councilwoman
Mullins. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE No. 2
(Series of 2014)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO
CHAPTER 26.470 – GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM, OF THE CITY OF ASPEN
LAND USE CODE
Councilman Romero moved to adopt Ordinance #2, Series of 2014, on first reading; seconded by
Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Romero, yes; Mullins, yes; Daily, yes;
Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #1, SERIES OF 2014 – Creating the Next Generation Advisory Commission
and Initial Appointments
Mayor Skadron opened the public hearing.
Skippy Mesirow thanked Council for trusting the next generation with this responsibility and the
Commission members look forward to working hard and meeting Council’s expectations.
Mayor Skadron closed the public hearing.
Mayor Skadron requested (1)(b) that the commission consist of no more than 7 and no less than
12 be changed to 7 members plus an alternate.
P113
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 27, 2014
6
Mayor Skadron moved to adopt Ordinance #1, Series of 2014, on second reading; amending
Section 1 (b) to read up to 7 members and 1 alternate; seconded by Councilman Romero. Roll
call vote; Councilmembers Daily, yes; Frisch, yes; Romero, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron,
yes. Motion carried.
RESOLUTION #9, SERIES OF 2014 – Pitkin County Library Easement
Jim True, city attorney, told Council the proposed library expansion has been rolled back from
the previous approval. The expansion will require an easement over the garage for support and
will extend 16’ beyond the current easement. True requested this be continued to the next
meeting to complete the details of the agreement. True said the library’s expansion will not
have an impact on the garage; the easement will be extended 16’ for support so there does not
have to be separate supports driven through the garage. Staff is working with the library and
with the county to try and move this forward with the Galena Plaza remodel. True reminded
Council a 44’ easement was reserved to the county for library expansion. Chris Bendon,
community development department, noted the library has an existing approval that will need to
be amended for this new plan.
Mayor Skadron opened the public hearing.
Kathy Chandler, library, told Council city staff has worked to get this coordinated with the city’s
project and so that the project can begin this summer.
Councilman Romero moved to continue Resolution #9, Series of 2014, to February 10, 2014;
seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to go into executive session at 6:25 p.m. pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-
402(4) (b) Conferences with an attorney for the local public body for the purposes of receiving
legal advice on specific legal questions and (e) Determining positions relative to matters that
may be subject to negotiations; developing strategy for negotiations; and instructing negotiators;
seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to come out of executive session at 7:05 p.m.; seconded by
Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Romero moved to adjourn at 7:05 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in
favor, motion carried.
Kathryn Koch
City Clerk
P114
VI.c
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
FROM: Justin Barker, Planner
RE: First Reading of Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2014 – Pacific Avenue
Condominiums Affordable Housing Credits
DATE: February 10, 2014 (Second Reading scheduled February 24, 2014)
______________________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT:
Peter Fornell
LOCATION:
Unit B, Pacific Ave Condominiums,
according to the Plat thereof recorded
August 9, 2006 in Plat Book 80 at Page 79.
Within the Airport Business Center.
CURRENT ZONING:
AH/PUD Pitkin County Zoning
SUMMARY:
The Applicant proposes to develop 8 three-
bedroom affordable housing units and is
requesting recommendation to City Council
to approve development of affordable
housing units outside City limits and to
establish a Certificate of Affordable
Housing Credit for 24 FTEs at the Category
2 level.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends City Council approve the
development of units outside City limits and
the establishment of a Certificate of
Affordable Housing Credits at a percentage
reduction.
Locator Map
Aerial Image
P115
VII.a
2
LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURE:
Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning
Commission:
• Provision of required affordable housing units outside City limits – The provision of
affordable housing, as required by Chapter 26.470, Growth Management, with units to be
located outside the City boundary, upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning
Commission, shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by City Council.
City Council is the decision-making body.
• Establishment of Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit – An application for issuance
of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, pursuant to Section 26.540.040, Authority,
requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to approve, approve
with conditions, or deny an application for the establishment of a Certificate of
Affordable Housing Credit. City Council is the decision-making body as part of a
Combined Review.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
In 2004, the Board of County Commissioners approved the Alpine Grove Subdivision/PUD. The
subdivision included one lot of existing condominiums and a second lot intended for 17
affordable housing units, built in two phases. The first phase was completed as mitigation for the
Residences at the Little Nell development and contains 9 of the units. The applicant is proposing
to complete the remaining 8 three-bedroom units of the development.
The vested rights for this project were extended by the Board of County Commissioners in 2007.
Having still not been built, the vested rights for the project expired on September 26, 2010. The
applicant has received a new site plan approval from the Pitkin County Community Development
Department establishing new vested rights for the project.
The applicant is requesting to establish a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit for 24 FTEs at
the Category 2 level for the development of these units.
STAFF EVALUATION:
Provision of units outside City limits – In order to establish Certificates of Affordable Housing
Credit, the units must comply with the affordable housing review criteria outlined in the Growth
Management chapter of the Land Use Code. The standards include size, relation to grade and
form of ownership, as well as the requirement that the units be located within City limits.
However, City Council has the ability to accept units outside City limits, as long as they are
located within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Affordable housing units for the purpose of
mitigation, have been accepted within the UGB in the past, including the first phase of this
project in 2004.
One of the review criteria associated with the development of housing within the UGB requires
that the applicant has received all necessary approvals from the governing body with jurisdiction
of the off-site parcel.
P116
VII.a
3
Affordable Housing Credits - The purpose of the Housing Credit program is to establish an
option for housing mitigation that immediately offsets the impacts of development. Under most
circumstances, mitigation for that development is provided within City limits. Although housing
mitigation may be accepted outside of City limits with Council approval, it is considered a
secondary option to development inside City limits. The Affordable Housing Credits Code
Section was not written with the anticipation that affordable housing units would be developed
outside City limits. If the City decides to establish Affordable Housing Credits for units that are
developed outside of the City limits, there should be a trade-off by the recipient of the Credits as
recognition of this prioritization.
Staff recommends that Affordable Housing Credits for this project should potentially be
established at a percentage reduction from the FTEs produced by the project. As part of the
acceptance of affordable housing units outside City limits, Council has the ability to accept any
percentage of the projects total affordable housing, including all or none. Staff is suggesting 75%
of the FTEs produced by the project as a benchmark number to consider. This would recognize
the less than optimum location of these units. Council needs to discuss whether a reduction
would be considered appropriate, and if so, how much of a reduction is reasonable.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends City Council approve the development of affordable housing outside City
limits and the establishment of Affordable Housing Credits for 18 FTEs at the Category 2 level
(75% of the 24 FTEs produced by the project) as recognition of the development outside City
limits.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval of the affordable housing units
outside City limits but within the UGB, and establishment of a Certificate of Affordable Housing
Credit for 24 FTEs at the Category 2 level (100% of the FTEs produced by the project).
Members of P&Z were not against the concept of a reduction, but did not support a reduction at
this time when it is not explicitly stated in the code with review criteria to determine an
appropriate reduction amount.
APCHA RECOMMENDATION:
APCHA supports the establishment of affordable homes within the UGB, considering them still
an added benefit to the community and within the pattern of development that is desired. The
proposed units meet the housing guidelines and Category 2, three-bedroom homes are considered
a desirable housing type for the current housing pool.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
“I move to approve Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2014, approving the development of affordable
housing outside City limits and the establishment of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit
for 18 FTEs (75% of the 24 FTEs produced by the project) at the Category 2 level, on First
Reading.”
P117
VII.a
4
EXHIBITS:
A. Review Criteria – Provision of affordable housing units outside City limits
B. Review Criteria – Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit
C. P&Z Minutes – 12/17/2013
D. Application
P118
VII.a
Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2014
Page 1 of 3
ORDINANCE NO. 4
(SERIES OF 2014)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING OUTSIDE CITY
LIMITS AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CERTIFICATE OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING CREDITS FOR THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS UNIT B,
PACIFIC AVE CONDOMINIUMS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF
RECORDED AUGUST 9, 2006 IN PLAT BOOK 80 AT PAGE 79 AND COMMONLY
DESCRIBED AS 412 AABC.
PARCEL ID: 2643-344-18-002
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Peter
Fornell, requesting approval to develop affordable housing units outside City limits and establish
a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit; and,
WHEREAS, the property is located at 412 AABC in unincorporated Pitkin County, and is
currently zoned Affordable Housing/PUD (AH/PUD); and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.090.2, Provision of required affordable housing units
outside City limits, City Council shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application
for provision of required affordable housing units outside City limits; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.304.060.B.1, Combined Reviews, City Council shall
approve, approve with conditions or deny the application for the establishment of a Certificate of
Affordable Housing Credit; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable Land Use Code standards, the
Community Development Department recommends approval of this application; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on December 17, 2013, the Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 22, Series of 2013, by a 4 to 0 vote,
recommending City Council to approve the provision of affordable housing units outside City limits
and approving the establishment of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit; 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
recommendation the Planning & Zoning Commission, Community Development Director, the
applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February 24, 2014, the City Council
approved Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2014, by a ____ to ____ (__ –__) vote, approving the
development of affordable housing units outside City limits and establishing a Certificate of
Affordable Housing Credit; and,
P119
VII.a
Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2014
Page 2 of 3
WHEREAS, City Council finds that the proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development
standards; 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, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1: Affordable Housing Units
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City
Council hereby approves the provision of eight (8) affordable housing units to be located outside
the City of Aspen limits, but located within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).
Section 2: Certificate of Affordable Housing Credits
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City
Council hereby approves the establishment of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit for 18
FTEs at a Category 2 income level (75% of the FTEs produced by the project). Such certificate
is to be granted by the Community Development Department, pursuant to Section 26.540.040
and according to Section 26.540.080, subsequent to filing of approved, executed and recorded
deed-restrictions for all 8 units in compliance with APCHA Guidelines, issuance of a Certificate
of occupancy for the units, and transfer of the units pursuant to APCHA procedures.
Section 3: Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be
deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
Section 4: Existing Litigation
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 5: Approvals
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, 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 5: Public Hearing
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 24th day of February, 2014, 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.
P120
VII.a
Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2014
Page 3 of 3
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the ____day of February, 2014.
Attest:
__________________________ ____________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of _____________, 2014.
Attest:
__________________________ ___________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
Approved as to form:
___________________________
Jim True, City Attorney
P121
VII.a
EXHIBIT A
26.470.090.2. Provision of required affordable housing units outside City limits.
The provision of affordable housing, as required by Chapter 26.470, Growth Management, with
units to be located outside the City boundary, upon a recommendation from the Planning and
Zoning Commission, shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the City Council
based on the following criteria:
a. The off-site housing is within the Aspen Urban Growth Boundary.
Staff Finding: The proposed units are located in the AABC, which is just outside of City
limits, but still within the Urban Growth Boundary. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
b. The proposal furthers affordable housing goals by providing units established as priority
through the current Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines and provides a
desirable mix of affordable unit types, economic levels and lifestyles (e.g., singles,
seniors and families). A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority shall be considered for this standard.
Staff Finding: APCHA has reviewed the proposal and stated that three-bedroom
Category 2 units are a desirable unit type that would be a great addition to the housing
stock. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
c. The applicant has received all necessary approvals from the governing body with
jurisdiction of the off-site parcel.
Staff Finding: The vesting period for these approval expired on September 26, 2010. The
applicant is currently in the process of receiving new approvals from Pitkin County.
Staff does not currently find this criterion to be met.
City Council may accept any percentage of a project's total affordable housing mitigation to be
provided through units outside the City's jurisdictional limits, including all or none.
P122
VII.a
EXHIBIT B
26.540.070 Review criteria for establishing an affordable housing credit
An Affordable Housing Credit may be established by the Planning and Zoning Commission if all
of the following criteria are met. The proposed units do not need to be constructed prior to this
review.
A. The proposed affordable housing unit(s) comply with the review standards of Section
26.470.070.4(a-d).
Staff Finding: See Section 4 below.
B. The affordable housing unit(s) are not an obligation of a Development Order and are not
otherwise required by this Title to mitigate the impacts of development.
Staff Finding: The proposed units are not an obligation of a Development Order or required as
mitigation. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4. Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed-restricted in accordance
with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with
conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria:
a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be
required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to
hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors.
Staff Finding: APCHA has found the proposed units comply with the Housing Guidelines.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly
built units or buy-down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City limits.
Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant
to Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full unit, a
cash-in-lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a
recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the mitigation
requirement is one (1) or more units, a cash-in-lieu payment shall require City Council
approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. A Certificate of Affordable Housing
Credit may be used to satisfy mitigation requirements by approval of the Community
Development Department Director, pursuant to Section 26.540.080 Extinguishment of
the Certificate. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these
methods.
Staff Finding: The proposed units are not located within City limits, but are located
within the Urban Growth Boundary as required by Section 26.470.090.2. The units are
not required for mitigation, but since they are outside City limits, they require City
Council approval.
P123
VII.a
c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent
(50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade,
whichever is higher. This dimensional requirement may be varied through Special
Review, Pursuant to Chapter 26.430.
Staff Finding: All of the proposed units will be located entirely above grade with the
exception of shared mechanical space below grade. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
d. The proposed units shall be deed-restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified
purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The
owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned
qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The
deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to
own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing
Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended.
The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by
an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the
City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages
affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with
the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge.
Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin
County or other similar governmental or quasi-municipal agency shall not be subject to
this mandatory "for sale" provision.
Staff Finding: The proposed units will be deed-restricted as “for sale” to be placed in the
APCHA lottery. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P124
VII.a
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 17,2013
U Erspamer, Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Tygre, Myrin and Gibbs
present.
Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn,Jennifer Phelan and Justin Barker
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Mr. Myrin stated that he abstained from voting at the last meeting on the second vote and there was a
lot of pressure from the applicant. He asked if under those conditions if it is possible to adjourn the
meeting until a later date where they are not being pressured because of others timelines. Ms.Tygre
stated that other than abstaining she is unsure how P&Z can make the applicant table something if they
don't want to. Mr. Erspamer said he agrees with procrastinating and sometimes one meeting is not
enough. Ms.Tygre asked if the commission does not feel they have enough time to make a decision can
they continue it even if the applicant does not want to. Ms.Quinn,Assistant City Attorney,stated she
thinks they can. Mr. Gibbs said he feels a continuance is perfectly in order. Ms. Quinn stated that
inappropriate behavior by an applicant is grounds to continue a meeting.
Mr. Erspamer read the thank you from Steve Skadron and presented the calendars. He asked to pass on
a thank you from Planning and Zoning to the mayor.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Ms. Phelan stated there is an item for the first meeting in January. Ms. Phelan said they are looking at
the first week in February to have a work session with City Council. She also said the second meeting in
January will be the year in review meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
No public comments.
MINUTES - November 19, 2013
Ms.Tygre wanted criteria and criterion changed when needed. Mr. Erspamer page 10, 2nd paragraph
walk off" needs changed to "lock off", page 17,4th paragraph wants added " Mr. Erspamer asked Mr.
Brown to state this in a more respectful manner".
Mr. Myrin motion to approve, seconded by Mr. Gibbs. All in favor motion passed.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
No Declaration of conflict of interest.
Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits - AABC
Mr. Erspamer opened the public hearing.
Ms. Quinn has reviewed the affidavit of public notice and it is appropriate.
1
P125
VII.a
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 17,2013
Justin Barker, community development planner, said the application is for the development of
affordable housing units outside of city limits but within the urban growth boundary and the
establishment of a certificate of affordable housing credit. The property is located in unincorporated
Pitkin County and was originally approved as Lot 2 of the Alpine Grove Subdivision. This included one lot
of existing condos as well as this lot which was intended for 17 affordable housing units to be built in
two phases. The first phase was built and condominimized to become the Pacific Avenue
Condominiums and includes nine units completed as mitigation for the Residences at the Little Nell. As
well as completing the remaining eight units,the applicant is requesting to establish a certificate of
affordable housing credit for the 24 FTE's that would be generated by this development at the category
two level.
P&Z is the recommending body to City Council regarding the establishment of units outside of city limits
and the affordable housing credit. Units that are establishing affordable housing credits must meet the
criteria of the land use code including being located within city limits. City Council does have the
authority to accept units outside city limits as long as they are located within the urban growth
boundary. APCHA supports these units mostly because they are three-bedroom units being offered at
the category two level.
Another review criteria for establishing units within the urban growth boundary outside city limits is all
approvals must be obtained from the governing body with jurisdiction over that particular parcel, Pitkin
County. The vested rights from the original approval of the 17 units had expired in 2010 but the
applicant is working on an administrative approval. The City Council hearing will not be scheduled until
the approval has been obtained.
Staff is recommending approval of the units outside city limits.
The affordable housing credit program was designed to establish an option to offset the impacts of
development that occurs within city limits. Mitigation can be accepted within the urban growth
boundary but is considered a secondary option. Staff is recommending a prioritization that would
reflect the idea that Staff prefers things established within city limits rather than outside. Staff is
presenting a reduced percentage of credits being established versus what is actually being generated.
Staff recommendation is currently 75 percent of the 24 FTE's which would create 18 total FTE's of credit.
Staff is also recommending that P&Z and Council evaluate if a reduction in credits would be appropriate.
Mr. Gibbs asked if there was any reduction when the Residences at Little Nell were built. Mr. Barker
replied no, it was a combination of different types of mitigation.
Ms.Tygre asked if phase one satisfies the requirement of the Little Nell and Mr. Barker replied it does.
Mr. Erspamer asked for clarification on the use of"prioritization". Mr. Barker stated the mitigation is
preferred to be within city limits. Mr. Erspamer stated it is priority to want it in,or they have to go
through the P&Z process. Mr. Barker stated the 25 percent reduction is a reflection of that
prioritization. They prefer to have units within city limits. Mr. Erspamer asked if this is a penalty in the
code. Mr. Barker stated it is not specifically listed within the code but is an option instead of just
accepting units outside of city limits at the exact way it would be presented within city limits. Mr.
Erspamer noted the initial approval was for the 24. Ms.Tygre said it is for the same thing it just didn't
get built. Mr. Barker noted it is a little different since that was specifically for the one development and
this proposal is providing credits to be opened up to any type of development. Ms.Tygre stated it was
an already approved plan. Ms. Phelan said it was approved by the County Commissioners. Mr.
Erspamer noted their vested rights have expired and they are re-applying. Ms. Quinn stated they are
2
P126
VII.a
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 17,2013
not going through this because of vested rights but because the applicant is requesting certificates of
credit.
Mr. Myrin asked if the discussion tonight is whether it qualifies for 100 or 75 percent of the mitigation.
Ms. Phelan stated the affordable housing credit program, created in the past three years, did not talk
about this type of situation, where someone would offer to voluntarily build affordable housing units
outside the city boundaries and ask for credits from the city. There is a process in the land use code to
accept affordable housing outside the city limits but within the urban growth boundary and are
proposing that these credits have a value and affordable housing has a value, however this program is
not within the city and should perhaps be discounted. Mr. Myrin said that the current code could let
something happen outside the city with a reduction and P&Zjust needs to figure out how to come up
with that number. Ms. Phelan stated that Council has the discretion to accept housing outside the city
limits. Mr. Myrin asked if going forward with the 25 percent reduction would set a precedent that 25
percent would also be the reduction the next time this came up. Mr. Barker stated that is part of the
discussion that needs to happen. Ms.Tygre asked if the current code takes this reduction into account.
Ms. Phelan replied that it is not written in the code. Mr. Myrin asked staff how they came up with the
25 percent reduction instead of some other number. Mr. Barker stated it was considered a roughly
reasonable number at this point versus 50 percent.
Mr. Erspamer turned the floor over to the applicant.
Peter Fornell,the applicant, stated the affordable housing credit program is designed to benefit the
applicant that builds lower category housing. Less money is collected from the person buying the unit
and more from the development community. He stated that the two projects he has completed have
been just that. At 301 Hyman they completed eight one-bedroom units. Six of those went into the
lottery and 63 applicants applied to purchase the units at$104,000 apiece. At 518 Main Street,they
restored a historic cabin. Eight of the eleven units will be category two two-bedroom units for
124,000. He stated he wanted to show that his mind and heart are in the right place with what he has
completed so far.
Mr. Fornell stated that it is his notion to put housing in the city,and at the AABC the property was
earmarked as affordable housing with a PUD overlay ten years ago. He said that 24 FTE's take a pretty
big project to offset. Mr. Fornell said that building for credits at this location is the only way to see
affordable housing get built here in the near future.
Mr. Fornell mentioned the discounting of some sort for affordable housing units outside the c
ity limits. He stated that to an extent he agrees with it but also not. He stated if he was going to Basalt
or somewhere outside our transportation center he might agree with what Staff says about the
discounting. He said you need to look at the project for where it is and the AABC is a central location
with the exception that it is not inside the city limits. He said that if he would build these eight units and
sell them for$1.3 million the credits are worth 5.8 and if he gets discounted it will be for the majority of
the revenues that he is trying to create. If it is a category four, he would be discounted for a lesser
percentage of overall revenues and is a larger burden for building category two housing.
Mitch Hass said outside the city limits is a very broad term. He stated that this is a location at the AABC
and has already been approved by the City as a place for mitigation at 100 percent credit for the
Residences at the Little Nell. He said it is a location surrounded by employee housing by a large part.
Phase one has already been built as well as a playground and park. He stated this is an appropriate
place for employee housing. He said the AACP makes it very clear in pushing for employee housing
3
P127
VII.a
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 17,2013
without public subsidy and looking for ways to get public/private partnerships for employee housing
development. He stated the AACP also talks about developing employee housing that is transit
oriented. He said it is not far outside the city and compared it to the location of the City's employee
housing at Burlingame. He stated the City is not developing other employee housing and it is up to the
private sector and Mr. Fornell is the only one doing so. Mr. Hass said these are eight three-bedroom
units sized at the category four level but Mr. Fornell is willing to deed restrict them at the category two
level and hold on to the credits and assume the risk and the time it takes to sell them.
Mr. Fornell stated that in regards to the discounting,when he goes out to the market to sell credits to
potential users they already have a number in their head that they get from the Community
Development Department. He stated he has to compete with a number that is not realistic and to
further discount is crippling.
Mr. Myrin asked if phase one was discounted. Mr. Hass replied it was not. He said that phase one met
close to 89 percent of total mitigation requirement for the Residences of Little Nell and the remainder
was met elsewhere. Mr. Myrin asked if there are examples where there has been a discount. Mr. Hass
replied no. Ms. Phelan stated there has been no credit program and Mr. Fornell stated he is the only
builder to build for credits. Mr. Myrin asked if it works for Mr. Fornell because the 24 FTE's require an
enormous project in town where Mr. Fornell can distribute it to multiple projects. Mr. Fornell stated
you rarely see anyone who needs 24 FTE's at one time.
Mr. Gibbs asked what the delta in construction between categories two and four are. Mr. Fornell stated
there is no real difference in construction costs other than in the size of the units. Mr. Fornell said it is a
year less for him in building permits to build category four instead of category two.
Mr. Erspamer asked if there is a risk of the project failing because the gap between the time he puts the
money in until the time he gets it out is too far. Mr. Fornell said there is a risk in a lesser return than in
other markets. Mr. Fornell said the risk is to him. It took four years to sell his first credit but he has sold
12 this year. He can't get the credit or sell it until someone is living in the unit.
Mr. Erspamer opened the hearing to public comment. There was no public comment. Mr. Erspamer
closed the public comment.
Mr. Erspamer opened the hearing to commissioner comments. Mr. Myrin commented that the staff
recommendation has "75 percent of the 24 FTE's produced by the project" does not carry forward to
section 2 of the resolution which talks about 18 FTE's. He asked if there would be a drawback to having
that as part of the resolution. Staff replied it would not be a detriment to add it in because it is just
stating what it would be with the 25 percent reduction. Mr. Myrin stated he would be in approval with
thatchange.
Ms.Tygre disagreed with Staff recommendation in this particular instance based on the fairness issue. If
another project in the same location got 100 percent FTE she does not feel there is justification for them
to have 100 percent FTE but this applicant only gets 75 percent. She said it is treating the applicant
unfairly and inappropriately considering the previous approval. She said she hates the idea that City
Council uses the AABC and allows this but they started it and it is in the code. Her concern is that P&Z is
to enforce the code as it exists not as they wish it to exist. Ms.Tygre stated that there may need to be a
discussion that if affordable housing is going to be built outside the city limits but within the urban
growth boundary there should be an adjustment in the amount of credit given. She stated there should
be criteria by which P&Z can decide what that reduction should be. She said that arbitrarily saying 25
percent is ill considered and would set a precedent that may not be the appropriate precedent. She
4
P128
VII.a
Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission December 17,2013
stated she would rather see no housing out there rather than a reduced one and P&Z has to judge this
project by the code and she does not think they should start changing code for one particular
application until it has been discussed and is a matter of policy. Ms.Tygre stated she does not see any
reason why the applicant should not get the 100 percent which they have had all along.
Mr. Gibbs stated he agrees with Ms.Tygre. It is arbitrary and not based on the code as it is currently
written. He also thinks since it is not really a development project where the developer is choosing to
relocate its mitigation. He said that for a developer like Mr. Fornell where the site already exists it is not
going to drive any choice of the siting. He said the code is trying to say to build in town if you can and
only if Council agrees will you be able to do it outside city limits. He said that is as far as it needs to go
and that is what the code says. He stated that is what he has to support. He said it is a well proposed
project and if Mr. Fornell is successful it will provide a lot of housing.
Mr. Erspamer stated that Ms.Tygre and Mr. Hass said it best. He said he was hoping the
recommendation would not have said 75 percent. He stated it would have been better to leave the
figure out. By just picking a number makes everyone look not good and he is against penalizing this one
group. He said the project is great but he will not approve 75 percent but will vote for 100 percent
mitigation.
Mr. Myrin made a motion to approve Resolution 22 series of 2013 recommending City Council approve
it with the following modification; section two changing 18 to 24 and will have 100 percent of the FTE's
produced by the project (identical to the staff language on page three). Seconded by Ms.Tygre.
Mr. Gibbs commented that he understands where Staff is coming from and he agrees with the concept
but he thinks it would bear good discussion with Staff and Council and then a code amendment.
Mr. Myrin stated that fixing the code is something P&Z needs to do and he thinks it is broken. He said
they need to honor what the last approval was at this similar location. He said it makes no sense to him
to create a reduction when there wasn't one at the same location previously. He said he commends Mr.
Fornell for coming up with something that is 24 FTE's and it is rare to have a large project in town and
Mr. Fornell is able to split it out.
Mr. Fornell stated that there are two parking spaces per unit and four guest spaces. He said they are
more than doubling the code for parking.
Roll call Ms.Tygre yes, Mr. Gibbs yes, Mr. Myrin yes, Mr. Erspamer yes. Motion carried.
Mr. Myrin made a motion to adjourn seconded by Mr.Gibbs. All in favor meeting adjourned.
5
P129
VII.a
P130
VII.a
P131
VII.a
P132
VII.a
P133
VII.a
P134
VII.a
P135
VII.a
P136
VII.a
P137
VII.a
P138
VII.a
P139
VII.a
P140
VII.a
P141
VII.a
P142
VII.a
P143
VII.a
P144
VII.a
P145
VII.a
P146
VII.a
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
FROM: Justin Barker, Planner
RE: First Reading of Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2014 - Erdman Partnership Lot Split –
Subdivision Amendment
MEETING DATE: February 10, 2014 (Second Reading scheduled March 10, 2014)
____________________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT:
Bell 26, LLC
REPRESENTATIVE:
Steev Wilson, Forum Phi
LOCATION:
Erdman Partnership Lot Split,
360 Lake Avenue
CURRENT ZONING & USE:
R-6, single-family home + ADU/vacant lot
PROPOSED LAND USE:
One single-family home per lot
SUMMARY:
The Applicant requests an amendment to
Ordinance 66, Series of 1990 which created the
Erdman Partnership Lot Split. The applicant
requests to amend the Ordinance to remove
Condition 6 of the Ordinance that requires an
ADU for affordable housing mitigation for each
lot. The property would be required to meet
affordable housing mitigation requirements in
the Code at the time of building permit submittal.
This would allow for the use of Affordable
Housing Credits or cash-in-lieu as mitigation
options.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals:
• Subdivision Amendment to remove Condition 6 of Ordinance 66, Series of 1990 pursuant
to Land Use Code Section 26.480.080.B (City Council is the final review authority).
PROJECT BACKGROUND:
The Applicant has requested an “Other Amendment” to the subdivision approval granted for the
Erdman Partnership Lot Split through Ordinance 66, Series of 1990. A copy of the original
Ordinance is included in the Application, attached as Exhibit B. In 1990, the property was
divided into two (2) lots: Lot 1, which includes an existing single-family home with ADU, and
Lot 2 which is vacant. The approval required an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) to be included
on each lot as mitigation for when new development occurs. This was the only housing
P147
VII.b
2
mitigation option outlined in the 1990 code, which is why it was included as a condition. Lot 2
has remained undeveloped.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
Lot 1 currently contains an ADU that is approximately 628 square feet. The ADU is deed-
restricted as a Resident Occupied (RO) dwelling unit and is currently un-rented and unoccupied.
The Applicant requests that the Ordinance condition requiring housing mitigation in the form of
an ADU be removed to enable the applicant to use today’s code, which outlines a number of
different options for housing mitigation. This includes providing an ADU, paying a cash-in-lieu
fee, or purchasing an Affordable Housing Credit. The applicant has stated that purchasing an
Affordable Housing Credit or paying a cash-in-lieu fee for the existing structure would serve
more as a benefit to the community than an unoccupied ADU. Any structure on Lot 2 would be
granted the options for mitigation under the Code at time of building permit.
STAFF EVALUATION:
Subdivision Amendment – The Applicant is requesting to remove Condition 6 of Ordinance 66,
Series of 1990. The condition currently reads: “An Accessory Dwelling Unit must be included
on each lot for which development is proposed as a requirement of this Lot Split. Each Accessory
Dwelling Unit must comply with the Housing Authority’s requirements and must receive
Conditional Use approval by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission.”
At the time, this was the only form of housing mitigation allowed for a Lot Split under the Land
Use Code. Today, an applicant has the following six (6) options for mitigating new
development, pursuant to Section 26.470.060 of the Land Use Code:
1) Providing an above-grade, detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or a carriage
house pursuant to Chapter 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses;
2) Providing an accessory dwelling unit, or a carriage house, authorized through special
review to be attached and/or partially or fully subgrade, pursuant to Chapter 26.520;
3) Providing an off-site affordable housing unit within the Aspen Infill Area accepted
by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and deed-restricted in accordance
with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended;
4) Paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended; or
5) Recording a resident-occupancy (RO) deed restriction on the single-family dwelling
unit being constructed.
6) Providing a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to
Section 26.540.060 Authority of the Certificate, commensurate with the net increase
of square footage, according to Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines,
as amended.
P148
VII.b
3
The applicant is requesting to remove Condition 6. This will enable any future development on
the property to be subject to the affordable housing mitigation in place at the time of any
building permit.
In addition, Condition 7 of the Ordinance states, “Prior to issuance of any building permits,
Deed Restrictions for the Accessory Dwelling Units shall be approved by the Housing Authority
and recorded by the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder’s Office.”
Condition 7 becomes obsolete if Condition 6 is removed – if the applicant chooses a different
form of mitigation this section is unenforceable and could create confusion. The applicant has
not requested to amend this language, but staff recommends the language be eliminated.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
APCHA has reviewed this project and recommended in favor of the proposal.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff finds the request meets the Subdivision review criteria. The request will bring the property
into conformance with current Code and the different options for mitigating new development
when it occurs. The six options currently outlined in the code may change in the future as the
City continues to refine its growth management system. Staff therefore recommends that the
amendment allow any development to be subject to the affordable housing requirements in place
at the time of a building permit. Specifically, Staff recommends in favor of eliminating
Conditions 6 & 7, as Condition 7 becomes confusing if Condition 6 is removed from the
Ordinance and other mitigation methods are used.
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the request.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
“I move to approve the request to remove Conditions 6 and 7 of Ordinance 66, Series of 1990
which granted the Erdman Partnership Lot Split, as noted in Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2014 on
First Reading.”
EXHIBITS:
A. Review Criteria – Other Amendment
B. Ordinance 66, Series of 1990
C. Application
P149
VII.b
Ordinance No 5, Series 2014
Page 1 of 3
ORDINANCE NO. 5
(SERIES OF 2014)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS 6 AND 7 OF ORDINANCE 66,
SERIES 1990, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE ERDMAN PARTNERSHIP LOT SPLIT,
LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS: LOTS 1 & 2, ERDMAN LOT SPLIT, ACCORDING TO
THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED NOVEMBER 26, 1990 IN PLAT BOOK 25 AT
PAGE 42, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
PARCEL IDs: 2735-121-32-001, 2735-121-32-002
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Bell 26,
LLC, represented by Steev Wilson, Forum Phi, requesting approval of an amendment to
Ordinance 66, Series of 1990 which established the Erdman Partnership Lot Split; and,
WHEREAS, the property is zoned Medium Density Residential, R-6; and,
WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the
Community Development Department recommended in favor of the proposed amendment; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.480.080, the City Council may approve a Subdivision
Amendment, during a duly noticed public hearing after considering comments from the general
public, a recommendation from the Community Development Director, and recommendations
from relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under
the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered
the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and
has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on March 10, 2014, the City Council approved
Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2014, by a ____ to ____ (__ –__) vote, approving an amendment to
Ordinance 66, Series of 1990 through a Subdivision Amendment; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable
development standards; 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:
P150
VII.b
Ordinance No 5, Series 2014
Page 2 of 3
Section 1: Approvals
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City
Council herby amends Conditions 6 and 7 of Ordinance 66, Series of 1990 to state:
6. Condition 6 is hereby stricken in its entirety.
7. Condition 7 is hereby stricken in its entirety.
Section 2: 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 3: 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 4: Approvals
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before
the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan
development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless
amended by an authorized entity.
Section 5: Public Hearing
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 10th day of March, 2014, 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.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the ____day of February, 2014.
Attest:
__________________________ ____________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
P151
VII.b
Ordinance No 5, Series 2014
Page 3 of 3
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of _____________, 2014.
Attest:
__________________________ ___________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
Approved as to form:
___________________________
City Attorney
P152
VII.b
EXHIBIT A
26.480.080. Amendment to subdivision development order.
B. Other amendment. Any other amendment shall be approved by the City Council, provided
that the proposed change is consistent with the approved plat. If the proposed change is not
consistent with the approved plat, the amendment shall be subject to review as a new
development application for plat.
Staff Findings: The applicant proposes to amend the language in the original approval
Ordinance, Ordinance 66 Series of 1990. That ordinance approved a lot split for the property,
creating Lot 1 and Lot 2 of the Erdman Partnership Lot Split Subdivision. At the time, the land
use code required that any new home have an Accessory Dwelling Unit provided as affordable
housing mitigation. Today, the land use code establishes a number of options for the
development of a new home. These include Cash-in-lieu, the use of an Affordable Housing
Credit, or the construction of an ADU. The applicant is interested in amending the approval to
take advantage of the existing options outlined in the code. Today’s code provides more
flexibility then the code in place in 1992. Staff finds that the request is consistent with the
original approval because it reverts to the code in place at the time of the proposed development.
Staff recommends in favor of the change.
P153
VII.b
P154
VII.b
P155
VII.b
P156
VII.b
P157
VII.b
P158
VII.b
P159
VII.b
P160
VII.b
P161VII.b
P1
6
2
VI
I
.
b
P1
6
3
VI
I
.
b
P1
6
4
VI
I
.
b
P1
6
5
VI
I
.
b
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: R. Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager
THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager
DATE: January 29, 2014
MEETING DATE: February 10, 2014
RE: Procurement Policy Threshold Limits
Ordinance No 3 Series 2014
Summary:
The City’s procurement policy specifies different levels of review and Council involvement, based on the
amount of proposed purchases. The current review thresholds were initially established in 1991. Staff is
requesting that Council reconsider the threshold limits in light of the effect of inflation on purchasing prices
and the desire to simplify the purchasing process for lower cost services and equipment.
Previous Council Action:
Current purchasing practices have remained unchanged since the adoption of Ordinance 46-1991 in 1991.
Background/Discussion:
Current Procurement Thresholds:
The City’s current practice includes three primary procurement options, each based on the dollar amount
of the purchase:
1. Department Purchases: For purchases of $5,000 or below, department heads may approve the
purchase, and a formal competitive process is not required.
2. Competitive Quotes: At least two competitive quotes must be obtained on purchases between
$5,000 and $10,000, and the City Manager must sign off on the contract.
3. Formal Contract Procedure: The competitive invitation to bid (ITB) or request for proposal
(RFP) process must be used on purchases of $10,000 or more.
For purchases up to $25,000, the City Manager can sign off on the contract.
For purchases over $25,000, the City Council must approve of the expenditure before the
City Manager can sign off.
Recommended Changes to Thresholds:
P166
VII.c
2
Staff is recommending increases to the thresholds for each of the three primary purchasing processes.
The purpose of the changes is to simplify the City’s procurement practices, bring spending limits more in
line with those used by other jurisdictions and recognize the effect of inflation on the price of purchases.
These changes all assume that the budget for the procurement is available, and has been previously
approved by Council as a part of the budget process or as part of a supplemental budget request:
1. Department purchases: Raise the limit for purchases requiring Department heads approval only
(no City Manager signoff required) from $5,000 to $9,999.
2. Competitive Quotes: Increase the limits for competitive quotes requiring City Manager signoff to
purchases costing between $10,000 and $24,999.
3. Formal Contract Procedure: Increase the threshold limit for ITB/RFPs to purchases costing at
least $25,000.
For purchases of up to $24,999, allow the City Manager to signoff.
For purchases of $25,000 or more, require approval by the City Council prior to City
Manager signoff – as is the case today.
4. Emergency Procurement: raises the threshold for an emergency procurement that must be reported
to Council to $25,000.
In addition to these changes in the procurement threshold limits, staff recommends the following:
an increase in the threshold limit for construction contract performance and payment bonds, from
$10,000 to $100,000
Finally, we recommend that these thresholds be subject to an annual change in the threshold amounts, to be
determined by the change in CPI. In this fashion the limits will increase in conjunction with inflation. This
amount would be rounded up to the nearest 1000 dollar amount.
Comparison to Thresholds in Other Jurisdictions:
Table 1 provides examples of the procurement thresholds used by Aspen and six other Colorado jurisdictions.
In most cases, the threshold for Council approval is much higher than in the City of Aspen, and in many cases
is higher than the change proposed by staff. In addition, the proposed new threshold for RFB/RFPs is equal
to, or lower than, the RFB/RFP threshold currently used in most other jurisdictions.
Table 1. Example Procurement Thresholds in Colorado
Entity Limit for Dept.
Approval
Competitive Quote
Range
Threshold for Formal
RFP/RFB
Council/Mayor/BOCC
approval
Aspen Up to $4,999 $5,000 - $9,999 $10,000 and over $25,000
Colorado
Springs
Up to $19,999 $20,000 - $199,999 $200,000 Mayor signs contracts
Vail Up to $25,000 Up to $25,000 $25,000 $50,000 construction only
Glenwood
Spring
Up to $25,000 Up to $25,000 $25,000 $25,000
Denver Up to $2,000 $25,000 $500,000
Ft. Collins $2,000 Up to $30,000 Over $30,000 Over $199,999 CM can
approve up to $199,999
Pitkin
County
Up to $10K $10K $50,000 If budget exists, BOCC not
involved.
Pueblo City
Schools
$25,000 $50,000 $50,000 and up
City of Up to $5,000 $5,000 - $49,999 $50,000 and up If expenditure is in existing
P167
VII.c
3
Table 1. Example Procurement Thresholds in Colorado
Entity Limit for Dept.
Approval
Competitive Quote
Range
Threshold for Formal
RFP/RFB
Council/Mayor/BOCC
approval
Lakewood budget, no additional approval
is needed
Garfield
County
Up to $9,999 $10,000 - $25,000 $25,000 and up $25,000 and up
State of
Colorado
Up to $9,999 $10,000 - $150,000 $150,000 and up If expenditure is in existing
budget, no additional approval
is needed
Recommendation:
Staff recommends increasing the thresholds for each of the three primary purchasing processes. The
purpose of the changes is to simplify the City’s procurement practices, bring spending limits more in line
with those used by other jurisdictions and recognize the effect of inflation on the price of purchases.
These changes all assume that the budget for the procurement is available, and has been previously
approved by Council as a part of the budget process or as part of a supplemental budget request:
1. Department Purchases: Raise the limit for purchases requiring Department heads approval only
(no City Manager signoff required) from $5,000 to $9,999.
2. Competitive Quotes: Increase the limits for competitive quotes requiring City Manager signoff to
purchases costing between $10,000 and $24,999.
3. Formal Contract Procedure: Increase the threshold limits for formal IFB/RFPs to purchases
costing at least $25,000.
For purchases of up to $24,999, allow the City Manager to signoff.
For purchases of $25,000 or more, require approval by the City Council prior to City
Manager signoff.
4. Emergency Procurement: raises the threshold for an emergency procurement that must be reported
to Council to $25,000.
In addition to these changes in the procurement threshold limits, staff recommends the following:
an increase in the threshold limit for construction contract performance and payment bonds, from
$10,000 to $100,000
these thresholds be subject to an annual change in the threshold amounts, to be determined by the
change in CPI (CPI for all Urban Consumers – CPI-U)
Request of Council:
Approval of the recommended changes in procurement thresholds.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Recommended Changes to Procurement Code
Attachment B: Existing Procurement Process Diagram
Attachment C: Ordinance No. 3-2014
P168
VII.c
4
ATTACHMENT A: RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO TITLE 4 –
PROCUREMENT CODE
Section 4.04.070 Specifications
(b) Preparation. Before appropriate approvals are obtained in accordance with Section 4.08.040
above, for a procurement in excess of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), the Procurement Officer shall
cause to be prepared written specifications detailing the City's requirements for the supplies, services or
construction.
Sec. 4.08.040. Approvals.
No procurement shall be made without the prior written approvals required to be made in accordance with
this section. The following shall be the approval limits in effect in 2014. After 2014, these limits will be
adjusted annually, corresponding with changes in the CPI:
(a) City Council. All procurements subject to the terms of this Chapter in excess of twenty-five
thousand dollars ($25,000.00) shall be approved by City Council by motion or resolution.
(b) City Manager. All procurements subject to the terms of this Chapter in excess of ten thousand
dollars ($10,000.00) shall be approved by the City Manager.
(c) Department heads. Department heads shall have the authority to approve procurements in an
amount which does not exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00), without the prior approval
of the City Manager or City Council; provided, however that sufficient funds are available in
the department head's department budget for the item(s) purchased.
All dollar approval amounts listed above shall be increased each year by the percentage increase in the
CPI, as measured by the national CPI for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U), rounded up to the nearest $1000.
Such increase shall be calculated for the prior year and the amount increased on January 1st of each
subsequent year.
No procurement shall be divided so as to avoid the approvals that would otherwise be required by the
above. (Code 1971, § 3-11; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1)
Sec. 4.08.050. Formal contract procedure.
Except as otherwise provided herein, all procurement in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars
($25,000.00), or whenever a department head or City Manager requests the same, shall be purchased by a
formal written contract approved as to form by the City Attorney. Unless the department head seeking
approval from the City Manager explains the lack of a need for same, all procurement in excess of two
thousand dollars ($2,000.00) shall be purchased by formal written contract approved as to form by the
City Attorney and executed by the City Manager. (Code 1971, § 3-12; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1)
Sec. 4.12.060. Emergency procurement.
(c) A full written report of the circumstances of all emergency purchases over twenty five thousand
dollars ($25,000.00) shall be made by the City Manager to the City Council. The report shall be received
by the City Council at a regular meeting and such report shall be open to public inspection. (Code 1971, §
3-18; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1)
P169
VII.c
5
Sec. 4.12.120. Contract performance and payment bonds.
(a) When required; amounts. When a construction contract is awarded in excess of one hundred thousand
dollars ($100,000.00) or it is deemed necessary by the Procurement Officer or the City Manager, the
following bonds or security shall be delivered to the City and shall become binding on the parties upon
the execution of the contract:
(1) A performance bond or other security satisfactory to the City, executed by a surety
company authorized to do business in this state or otherwise secured in a manner satisfactory to
the City; and
(2) A payment bond or other security satisfactory to the City, executed by a surety company
authorized to do business in this state or otherwise secured in a manner satisfactory to the City,
for the protection of all persons supplying labor and material to the contractor or its
subcontractors for the performance of the work provided for in the contract.
(b) Amount of bonds or other security. The amount of the performance and payment bonds or
other security specified in Subsection (a) above shall be determined by the City Manager. In determining
the amounts required, the City Manager shall weigh the following policy considerations:
(1) The Colorado State Legislature has determined that for construction contracts in excess of
fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00), it is prudent to obtain performance and payment bonds in
amounts equal to fifty percent (50%) of the price specified in the contract. (See Sections 24-
105-202 and 38-26-106, C.R.S.)
(2) The City has a policy of encouraging local, minority- and women-owned businesses to
participate in the City's procurement process. (See Section 4.08.020(b)(9) herein.) The cost of
obtaining performance and payment bonds may discourage local, minority- and women-
owned businesses from bidding on City construction projects.
(3) It is in the City's interest to ensure that construction projects will be completed according to
the contract documents without the City having to expend more than the contract amount.
(4) It is in the City's interest to ensure that payment is made for all labor and materials
supplied to City construction projects by contractors and subcontractors.
(5) Certain construction projects may be required by state or federal law to be bonded in a
particular manner or in a certain amount. (See Section 31-25-516, C.R.S., special
improvement districts.)
(6) Phasing of bond amounts should be considered, when appropriate, for projects that are
constructed in discrete and identifiable phases. (Code 1971, § 3-24; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1)
P170
VII.c
ATTACHMENT B: EXISTING PROCUREMENT PROCESS
ATTACHMENT B: EXISTING PROCUREMENT PROCESS DIAGRAM
6
DIAGRAM
P171
VII.c
7
P172
VII.c
8
ATTACHMENT C: ORDINANCE AMENDING PROCUREMENT THRESHOLDS
ORDINANCE N0. 3
(Series of 2014)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
AMENDING TITLE 4 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE, PROCUREMENT CODE.
WHEREAS, Title 4 sets forth requirements for the expenditure of public funds through the
procurement of goods and services; and
WHEREAS, The City’s procurement policy specifies different levels of review and Council
involvement, based on the amount of proposed purchases; and
WHEREAS, The current review thresholds were initially established in 1991, while changes in
circumstances during the past 24 years, including the effect of inflation justifies review and
modification of certain threshold limits set forth in the procurement code; and,
WHEREAS, the amendments to the Code are delineated as follows:
• Text being removed is delineated with strikethrough. Text being removed looks like this.
• Text being added is bold and underline. Text being added looks like this.
• Text which is not highlighted is not affected; 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, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1: The City Council hereby amends Title 4, of the Aspen Municipal Code to read as
follows:
Sec. 4.08.040. Approvals.
No procurement shall be made without the prior written approvals required to be made in accordance
with this section. The following shall be the approval limits in effect in 2014. After 2014, these
limits will be adjusted annually, corresponding with changes in the CPI:
(d) City Council. All procurements subject to the terms of this Chapter in excess of twenty-five
thousand dollars ($25,000.00) shall be approved by City Council by motion or resolution.
(e) City Manager. All procurements subject to the terms of this Chapter in excess of ten
thousand dollars ($10,000.00) shall be approved by the City Manager.
P173
VII.c
9
(f) Department heads. Department heads shall have the authority to approve procurements in
an amount which does not exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00), without the prior
approval of the City Manager or City Council; provided, however that sufficient funds are
available in the department head's department budget for the item(s) purchased.
All dollar approval amounts listed above shall be increased each year by the percentage increase
in the CPI, as measured by the national CPI for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U), rounded up to
the nearest $1000. Such increase shall be calculated for the prior year and the amount increased
on January 1st of each subsequent year.
No procurement shall be divided so as to avoid the approvals that would otherwise be required by the
above. (Code 1971, § 3-11; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1)
Sec. 4.08.050. Formal contract procedure.
Except as otherwise provided herein, all procurement in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars
($25,000.00), or whenever a department head or City Manager requests the same, shall be purchased
by a formal written contract approved as to form by the City Attorney. Unless the department head
seeking approval from the City Manager explains the lack of a need for same, all procurement in
excess of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) shall be purchased by formal written contract approved as
to form by the City Attorney and executed by the City Manager. (Code 1971, § 3-12; Ord. No. 46-
1991, § 1)
Sec. 4.12.060. Emergency procurement.
(c) A full written report of the circumstances of all emergency purchases over twenty five thousand
dollars ($25,000.00) shall be made by the City Manager to the City Council. The report shall be
received by the City Council at a regular meeting and such report shall be open to public inspection.
(Code 1971, § 3-18; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1)
Sec. 4.12.120. Contract performance and payment bonds.
(a) When required; amounts. When a construction contract is awarded in excess of one hundred
thousand dollars ($100,000.00) or it is deemed necessary by the Procurement Officer or the City
Manager, the following bonds or security shall be delivered to the City and shall become binding on
the parties upon the execution of the contract:
(1) A performance bond or other security satisfactory to the City, executed by a surety
company authorized to do business in this state or otherwise secured in a manner satisfactory to
the City; and
(2) A payment bond or other security satisfactory to the City, executed by a surety company
authorized to do business in this state or otherwise secured in a manner satisfactory to the City,
for the protection of all persons supplying labor and material to the contractor or its
subcontractors for the performance of the work provided for in the contract.
Section 2: 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.
P174
VII.c
10
Section 3. Existing Litigation.
This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein provided, and
the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4. Notice
A public hearing on the ordinance was held on February 24, 2014, in the Rio Grande Meeting Room,
Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of
the City of Aspen on the 10th day of February 2014.
________________________
Steve Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of ____, 2014.
________________________
Steve Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________ ________________________
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk James R. True, City Attorney
P175
VII.c
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Don Taylor, Director of Finance
THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager
DATE OF MEMO: February 3rd, 2014
MEETING DATE: February 10th, 2014
RE: Approving a Lease Purchase Contract for the Acquisition of IT
Related Equipment
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: This is for the City Council to approve on first reading, an
ordinance to approve a lease purchase agreement for the acquisition of equipment that will serve
as a firewall for the City County Network.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The City Council approves each year as part of its annual
budget an amount to maintain the existing firewall, including support and to replace the
equipment as necessary.
BACKGROUND: The City maintains a firewall around its network systems in order to prevent
unauthorized access. This is standard security measures and the city needs to keep this “state of
the art” in order to prevent intrusions.
DISCUSSION: The City needs to upgrade the firewall equipment and software in order to have
better control over who connects to the network with unauthorized devices. The annual payment
for the lease purchase agreement costs about the same as our current support agreement. The
$12,487.77 annual payment provides for the acquisition of the hardware appliance the, the
software and annual updates, annual support, and the interest cost over the three year term of the
lease.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The financial impacts of the lease is a $12,487 lease
payment. This is the amount that we are currently paying for support only.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of the lease.
P176
VII.d
Page 2 of 2
ALTERNATIVES: The alternative would be to either purchase the equipment outright or not
enter into a lease and not upgrade the firewall at this time.
PROPOSED MOTION: Move adopt Ordinance #6 at first reading.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Lease agreement
P177
VII.d
ORDINANCE NO. 6
(SERIES OF 2014)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING A LEASE PURCHASE
AGREEMENT.
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen (the "City"), in the County of Pitkin and State of
Colorado (the "State"), is a legally 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 home rule charter of the City (the "Charter") (all capitalized terms used and not
otherwise defined in the recitals hereof shall have the respective meanings assigned in Section I
of this Ordinance); and
WHEREAS, under the Charter, the City is possessed of all powers which are necessary,
requisite or proper for the government and administration of its local and municipal matters, all
powers which are granted to home rule municipalities by the Colorado Constitution, and all
rights and powers that now or hereafter may be granted to municipalities by the laws of the State
of Colorado; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 1.4 of the Charter, the City is authorized to enter into
one or more leases or lease-purchase agreements for land, buildings, equipment and other
property for governmental or proprietary purposes; and
WHEREAS, the City has received a proposal to enter into a lease purchase agreement
with Hewlett-Packard Financial Services Company for the purpose of leasing under a lease-
purchase arrangement certain firewall equipment; and
WHEREAS, the Lease shall expire on December 31 of any City fiscal year (a "Fiscal
Year") if the City has, on such date, failed, for any reason, to appropriate sufficient amounts to
pay all Payments (as defined in the Lease) scheduled to be paid, and shall not constitute a
mandatory charge or requirement against the City in any ensuing budget year unless the City
decides to renew the Lease by appropriating the necessary such amounts; and
WHEREAS, no provision of the Lease or any other document described herein shall be
construed or interpreted (a) to directly or indirectly obligate the City to make any payment in any
Fiscal Year in excess of amounts appropriated for such Fiscal Year; (b) as creating a debt or
multiple fiscal year direct or indirect debt or other financial obligation whatsoever of the City
within the meaning of Article XI, Section 6 or Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution
or any other constitutional or statutory limitation or provision; (c) as a delegation of
governmental powers by the City; (d) as a loan or pledge of the credit or faith of the City or as
creating any responsibility by the City for any debt or liability of any person, company or
corporation within the meaning of Article XI, Section 1 of the Colorado Constitution; or (e) as a
donation or grant by the City to, or in aid of, any person, company or corporation within the
meaning of Article XI, Section 2 of the Colorado Constitution; and
P178
VII.d
WHEREAS, in order to implement the transaction described above, the City Council desires
(a) to authorize and approve the execution and delivery by the City of, and the performance by the City
of its obligations under, the State and Local Government Single Schedule Lease Purchase Agreement;
and (b) to authorize, approve, ratify, make findings and take other actions with respect to the foregoing and
related matters.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO:
Section 1. Approval and Authorization of Documents. The City Council hereby approves the
Equipment Lease Purchase Agreement, attached as Exhibit A, and authorizes the Mayor, the Mayor Pro
Tern and all other appropriate officers and employees of the City to execute and deliver, and to affix the
seal of the City to, such documents in the forms made available to the City Council, with such changes
therein, not inconsistent herewith, as are approved by the persons executing the same (whose signature
thereon shall constitute conclusive evidence of such approval) and authorizes and directs the performance
by the city of its obligations under such documents in the forms in which they are executed and delivered.
Section 2. Year to Year Obligations of the City. No provision of this Ordinance, or the Lease,
shall be construed or interpreted (a) to directly or indirectly obligate the City to make any payment in any
Fiscal Year in excess of amounts appropriated for such Fiscal Year; (b) as creating a debt or multiple fiscal
year direct or indirect debt or other financial obligation whatsoever of the City within the meaning of
Article XI, Section 6 or Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution or any other constitutional or
statutory limitation or provision; (c) as a delegation of governmental powers by the City; (d) as a loan or
pledge of the credit or faith of the City or as creating any responsibility by the City for any debt or
liability of any person, company or corporation within the meaning of Article XI, Section I of the
Colorado Constitution; or (e) as a donation or grant by the City to, or in aid of, any person, company or
corporation within the meaning of Article XI, Section 2 of the Colorado Constitution.
Section 3. Severability. It is hereby expressly declared that all provisions hereof and their
application are intended to be and are severable. In order to implement such intent, if any provision hereof
or the application thereof is determined by a court or administrative body to be invalid or unenforceable, in
whole or in part, such determination shall not affect, impair or invalidate any other provision hereof or the
application of the provision in question to any other situation; and if any provision hereof or the application
thereof is determined by a court or administrative body to be valid or enforceable only if its application is
limited, its application shall be limited as required to most fully implement its purpose.
Section 4. Public Hearing A public hearing on this ordinance will be held the 24th day of
February 2014 at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the
City of Aspen on the 10th day of February, 2014.
_______________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
P179
VII.d
ATTEST:
_______________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this _____ day of ______, 2014.
_______________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
P180
VII.d
Page 1 of 4
GEM SSLPA - 04/03
When we use the words you and your in this Lease, we mean you, our customer, which is the Lessee indicated below. When we use the words we, us and our in this
Lease, we mean the Lessor, Hewlett-Packard Financial Services Company. Our address is 200 Connell Drive, Suite 5000, Berkeley Heights, NJ 07922
CUSTOMER
INFORMATION
Lessee Name
City of Aspen
Tax ID #
Billing Street Address/City/County/State/Zip
130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611
Phone No.
Lease # 572E25E8
Equipment Location Street Address/City/County/State/Zip
Phone No.
Schedule # 572E25E8
SUPPLIER
INFORMATION
Supplier Name (“Supplier”)
RootGroup
Phone No. Fax No.
Street Address/City/State/Zip
Contact Name:
EQUIPMENT
DESCRIPTION
Quantity
Make/Model
Refer to Quote Number IBN-ASPEN-122013-CPAP12200 Attached
Price Each/Extension
TERM AND
LEASE PAYMENT
SCHEDULE
Lease Term (Months)
36
Lease Payment
$12,487.77
Documentation Fee
N/A
Payment Timing (Check one)
Advance
Arrears
Plus
Applicable
Taxes and
Insurance
Additional Provisions
N/A
Total Cash Price
$35,708.89
Payment Frequency (Check one)
Monthly
Quarterly
Semi Annual
Annually
Other
Annual Rate of Interest
5.0%
Latest Commencement Date
March 31, 2014
PART I
You agree to lease the equipment described above (collectively, “Equipment”) on the te rms and conditions of this lease agreement (“Lease”). The term of this Lease is set forth above. This Lease shall
be effective with respect to the Equipment from and after the date of your acceptance of the Equipment. Each Lease Payment (singly, a Lease Payment and collectively, the “Lease Payments”) are to be
made in the manner specified above and shall commence on the date the Equipment is accepted by you as evidenced by your execu tion and delivery to us of a Delivery and Acceptance Certificate with
respect to the Equipment. You must notify us of any change in the Equipment to be included in any proposed Lease and we reserv e the right to accept or reject such change. Our acceptance of this
Lease shall be evidenced by our execution hereof.
PART II
1. TERMS AND CONDITIONS. In consideration of our purchase of the Equipment selected
by you, we lease to you, and you lease from us, the Equipment identified above pursuant to
the terms and conditions set forth herein. THIS LEASE AND THE DOCUMENTS REFERRED
TO HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE FULL AND ENTIRE AGREEMENT between you and us in
connection with the Equipment and MERGES ANY OTHER UNDERSTANDING. In no case
shall the preprinted terms and conditions on the Supplier's standard transactional
documentation (e.g., order forms and invoices) apply to us. Neither you nor we rely on any
other statement, representation or assurance of cure . This lease can be neither canceled nor
modified except by a written agreement signed by both parties.
2. YOUR WARRANTIES TO US. You expressly represent and warrant to us, and we rely on,
each of the following statements: (a) you have read and understood this Lease; (b) you have
selected the equipment and specifications, and the equipment will meet your needs; (c)
you will authorize us to pay for the Equipment only after you have received and accepted the
Equipment as fully operable for your purposes; (d) the interest portion of the Lease Payments
shall be excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes, and you will do nothing
to cause, nor fail to take action which results in, the interest portion of the Lease Payments
being includible in gross income for federal income tax purposes; (e ) NEITHER THE
SUPPLIER OF THE EQUIPMENT NOR ANY OF ITS SALESPERSONS ARE, OR HAVE
ACTED AS, OUR AGENTS OR EMPLOYEES; (f) financial information and other statements
provided to us are accurate and correct and will be updated upon our request during the term
of this Lease; g) you are a political subdivision or agency or department of a State; (h) the
entering into and performance of this Lease are authorized under the laws and constitution of
your state and do not violate or contradict any judgement, law, order, or regulation, or cause
any default under any agreement to which you are a party; (i) you have complied with all
bidding requirements and, where necessary, have properly presented this Lease for approval
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SINGLE SCHEDULE LEASE
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
P181
VII.d
Page 2 of 4
GEM SSLPA - 04/03
and adoption as a valid obligation on your part; j) this Lease is a legal, valid and binding
obligation enforceable in accordance with its terms; (k) you have sufficient appropriated funds
or other moneys available to pay all amounts due under this Lease for your current fiscal
period; (l) the use of the Equipment is essential for your proper, efficient and economic
operation, you will be the only entity to own, use or operate the Equipment during the term of
this Lease and you will use the Equipment only for your governmental purposes ; (m) You do
not and will not: 1) export, re-export, or transfer any Equipment, software, source code or any
direct product thereof to a prohibited destination, or to nationals of proscribed countries
wherever located, without prior authorization from the United States and other applicable
governments; and 2) use any Equipment, software or technology, technical data, or technical
assistance related thereto or the products thereof in the design, development, or production of
nuclear, missile, chemical, or biological weapons or transfer the same to a prohibited
destination, or to nationals of proscribed countries, without prior authorization from the United
States and other applicable governments. You are not an entity or person designated by the
United States government or any other applicable government with which transacting
business without the prior consent of such government is prohibited. Upon our request, you
agree to provide us with an opinion of counsel as to clauses (g) through (j) above, a certificate
of appropriations as to clause (k) above, an essential use letter as to clause (l) above, and
any other documents that we request, including information statements to be filed with the
Internal Revenue Service, with all such documents being in a form satisfactory to us.
3. YOUR WAIVER OF DAMAGES AND WARRANTIES FROM US. YOU LEASE THE
EQUIPMENT FROM US "AS IS, WHERE IS." EXCEPT AS TO QUIET ENJOYMENT, WE
MAKE ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY
WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. IF
THE EQUIPMENT IS NOT PROPERLY INSTALLED, DOES NOT OPERATE AS
REPRESENTED OR WARRANTED BY THE SUPPLIER, OR IS UNSATISFACTORY FOR
ANY REASON WHATSOEVER, YOU SHALL MAKE ANY CLAIM ON ACCOUNT THEREOF
SOLELY AGAINST THE SUPPLIER AND YOU HEREBY WAIVE ANY SUCH CLAIM
AGAINST US. ALL WARRANTIES FROM THE SUPPLIER TO US, TO THE EXTENT
ASSIGNABLE, ARE HEREBY ASSIGNED TO YOU FOR THE TERM OF THIS LEASE FOR
YOUR EXERCISE AT YOUR EXPENSE. YOU SHALL HOLD US HARMLESS AND SHALL
BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY LOSS, DAMAGE OR INJURY TO PERSONS OR PROPERTY
CAUSED BY THE EQUIPMENT. NO REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY BY THE
SUPPLIER OR SALESPERSON IS BINDING ON US NOR SHALL BREACH OF SUCH
WARRANTY RELIEVE YOU OF YOUR OBLIGATIONS TO US. IN NO CASE SHALL WE BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES.
4. PAYMENTS. You agree to make Lease Payments as set forth above and to pay such other
charges as provided herein. IT IS SPECIFICALLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED THAT
THIS LEASE SHALL BE NON-CANCELABLE (EXCEPT AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 6
HEREOF), AND THAT THIS LEASE IS A NET LEASE. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE AN
ABSOLUTE AND UNCONDITIONAL OBLIGATION TO PAY ALL LEASE PAYMENTS AND
OTHER AMOUNTS WHEN DUE. You hereby authorize us to reduce the lease payments by
up to twenty percent (20%) in the event that the actual total cost of the equipment at the time
of closing is less than the estimate. Lease Payments shall be increased by any cost or
expense we incur to preserve the Equipment or to pay taxes, assessments, fees, penalties,
liens, or encumbrances. Unless we give written notice of a new address, all pa yments under
this Lease shall be sent to us at the address provided at the beginning of this Lease. Each
payment received, at our discretion, will be applied first to the oldest charge due under this
Lease. YOU AGREE THAT TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE AND TO MAKE PAYMENTS
REGARDLESS OF ANY PROBLEMS YOU MIGHT HAVE WITH THE EQUIPMENT
INCLUDING ITS OPERATION, CAPABILITY, INSTALLATION, OR REPAIR AND
REGARDLESS OF ANY CLAIM, SETOFF, DEFENSE YOU MIGHT HAVE AGAINST THE
SUPPLIER, MANUFACTURER, SALESPERSON, OR OTHER THIRD PARTY. Without our
prior written consent, any payment to us of a smaller sum than due at any time under this
Lease shall not constitute a release or an accord and satisfaction for any greater sum due, or
to become due, regardless of any endorsement restriction, unless otherwise agreed by both
parties in a signed writing.
5. FUNDING INTENT. You reasonably believe that funds can be obtained sufficient to make
all Lease Payments and other payments during the term of this Lease. You agree that your
chief executive, chief financial or administrative officer will provide for funding for such
payments in your annual budget request submitted to your governing body. You and we
agree that your obligation to make Lease Payments under this Lease will be your curr ent
expense and will not be interpreted to be a debt in violation of applicable law or constitutional
limitations or requirements. Nothing contained in this Lease will be interpreted as a pledge of
your general tax revenues, funds or moneys.
6. NONAPPROPRIATIONS OF FUNDS. If (i) sufficient funds are not appropriated and
budgeted by your governing body in any fiscal period for all Lease Payments and all other
payments due under this Lease for such fiscal period, and (ii) you have exhausted all funds
legally available for such payments, then you will give us written notice and return the
Equipment to us, and this Lease will terminate as of the last day of the fiscal period for which
funds are available to pay amounts due under this Lease. Such termination is without any
expense or penalty, except for the portions of the Lease Payments and those expenses
associated with your return of the Equipment in accordance with this Lease for which funds
have been budgeted and appropriated or are otherwise legally ava ilable.
7. TAXES, ASSESSMENTS AND FEES. You will pay when due, either directly or to us upon
our demand, all taxes, fines and penalties relating to this Lease or the Equipment that are now
or in the future assessed or levied by any state, local or othe r government authority. We will
file all personal property, use or other tax returns (unless we notify you otherwise in writing)
and you agree to pay us a fee for making such filings. We do not have to contest any taxes,
fines or penalties. You will pay estimated property taxes with each invoice or annually, as
invoiced. In addition, you authorize us to file at our option informational financing statements
and/or fixture filings without your signature. If we request, you will execute such financing
statements and/or fixture filings. To the extent permitted by law, you hereby grant us a
security interest in all Lease Payments and Equipment, and all of your interest therein, and all
proceeds and products thereof. You agree to pay us a documentation fee to be billed with the
first Lease Payments to cover account setup and administrative costs. You agree to
reimburse us for reasonable costs incurred in collecting taxes, assessments, or fees for which
you are liable, and any collection charges attributabl e thereto, including reasonable attorney
fees.
8. NOTICE. All notices shall be given in writing by the party sending the notice and shall be
effective when deposited in the U.S. mail, addressed to the party receiving the notice at its
address shown on page 1 of this Lease (or to any other address specified by that party in
writing) with first class postage prepaid.
9. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNMENTS. YOU AGREE NOT TO TRANSFER, SELL,
SUBLEASE, ASSIGN, PLEDGE OR ENCUMBER EITHER THE EQUIPMENT OR ANY
RIGHTS UNDER THIS LEASE WITHOUT OUR PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT, and even with
our consent, you shall remain jointly and severally liable to the full extent with your assignee.
WE MAY, AT OUR OPTION ASSIGN OUR RIGHTS AND INTERESTS UNDER THIS LEASE
WITH NOTICE TO YOU BUT WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT. You agree that our assignee will
have the same rights and remedies that we have now. You agree that the rights of our
assignee will not be subject to claims, defenses, or setoffs that you may have against us. You
agree that we are not an agent of our assignee and that we have no affiliation with such
assignee except for such assignment. You stipulate that any such assignment by us shall not
materially change your duties, obligations or risks under this Lease. You agree to
acknowledge each such assignment in writing if so requested and keep a complete and
accurate record of all such assignments in a manner that complies with §149 of the Code, and
the regulations promulagated thereunder.
P182
VII.d
Page 3 of 4
GEM SSLPA - 04/03
10. OWNERSHIP AND TITLE, You will have title to the Equipment upon your acceptance of
it; provided, however, that title will immediately vest in us or our assignee if this Lease is
terminated because you have not appropriated funds for payment of Lease Payments or other
amounts due hereunder, as provided in Section 6 of this Lease or if you are in default of this
Lease pursuant to the terms of Section 16 of this Lease. We have the right to inspect the
Equipment, and have the right to affix and display a notice of our security interest in the
Equipment. The Equipment shall remain personal property whether or not affixed to realty
and shall not be part of any real property on which it is located. At our request, you shall
obtain a landlord and/or mortgage waiver for the Equipment. All additions, a ttachments, and
accessories placed on the Equipment become part of the Equipment unless removed prior to
the termination of this Lease. You agree to maintain the Equipment so that it may be removed
from the property or building where located without damage.
11. OPERATION AND TERMINATION. You shall be solely responsible for the installation,
operation, and maintenance of the Equipment, shall keep it in good condition and working
order, and shall use and operate the Equipment in compliance with applicable laws. If the
Equipment is of the type not normally maintained by you, then you, at your expense, shall
maintain in full force and effect throughout the term of this Lease Supplier's standard
maintenance contract. You agree to keep and use this Equipment only at the address
specified above, to never abandon or move the Equipment from that address, nor relinquish
possession of the Equipment except to our agent. If you are required to return the Equipment
to us for any reason, you shall, at your expense, wipe clean or permanently delete all data
contained on the Equipment, including without limitation, any data contained on internal or
external drives, discs, or accompanying media, immediately crate, insure and return the
Equipment to the designated location in as good a condition as when you received it,
excepting only reasonable wear and tear. In the case of any item of Software to be returned to
us, you will also deliver to us the original certificate of authenticity issued by the licensor of
such Software, if any.
12. RISK OF LOSS AND INSURANCE. During the term of this Lease, you bear the entire
risk of loss or damage to the Equipment. You shall immediately notify us of the occurrence of
any loss or other occurrence affecting our interests and shall ma ke repairs or corrections at
your expense. In such event, and to the extent permitted by law, you agree to continue to
meet all payment and other obligations under this Lease. You agree to keep the Equipment
insured at your expense against risks of loss or damage from any cause whatsoever. You
agree that such insurance shall not be less than the unpaid balance of this Lease plus the
then-current fair market value of the Equipment. You also agree that the insurance shall be in
such additional amount as is reasonable to cover us for public liability and property damage
arising from the Equipment or your use of it. You agree to name us as the loss payee and an
additional insured. Upon our request, you agree to furnish proof of each insurance policy
including a certificate of insurance and a copy of the policy. The proceeds of such insurance
shall be applied at our sole election toward the replacement or repair of the Equipment or
payment towards your obligations. If you so request and we give our prior written consent, in
lieu of maintaining insurance as described herein, you may self insure against such risks,
provided that our interests are protected to the same extent as if the insurance had been
obtained by third party insurance carriers and provided further that such self insurance
program is consistent with prudent business practices with respect with such insurance risk.
You will give us certificates or other evidence of such insurance on the commencement date
of this Lease, and at such times as we request. Such insurance obtained will be in a form,
amount and with companies acceptable to us, and will provide that we will be given 30 days’
advance notice of any cancellation or material change of such insurance.
13. INDEMNITY. You agree, to the extent permitted by law, to indemnify and hold us
harmless from and against, any and all losses, damages, injuries, claims, demands, and
expenses (a "Claim"), including any and all attorney's fees and legal expenses, arising from or
caused directly or indirectly by any actual or alleged use, possession, maintenance, condition
(whether or not latent or discoverable), operation, location, delivery or transportation of any
item of Equipment.
14. TRANSFER OF EQUIPMENT AT END OF TERM OF LEASE AND PURCHASE OPTION.
When you have paid all Lease Payments and all other amounts due under this Lease and
have satisfied the other terms of this Lease, we shall transfer all of our interest in the
Equipment to you “AS IS, WHERE IS,” without any warranty, express or implied , from us.
With 30 days prior written notice, you may purchase the Equipment (other than software that
we may not be authorized to sell) on any Lease Payment date for an amount equal to the rent
due on the Lease Payment date, the remaining Lease Payments due under this Lease
discounted at the annual rate of 4% and all other amounts due under this Lease. You may
exercise this purchase option only if you are not in default under the terms of this Lease.
15. COLLECTION CHARGES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES. If any part of any sum is not paid
when due, you agree to pay us: (i) in the first month, a late charge to compensate us for
collecting and processing the late sum, such late charge is stipulated and liquidated at the
greater of $.10 per dollar of each delayed sum or $15; plus (ii) a charge for every month after
the first month in which the sum is late to compensate us for the inability to reinvest the sum,
such charge is stipulated and liquidated at 1 1/2% per month, or when less, the maximum
allowed by law.
16. DEFAULT. You shall be in default of this Lease on the occurrence of any of the following
events: (a) you fail to pay any Lease Payments or any other amounts due under this Lease
within 10 days after it first becomes due; (b) you assign, move, pledg e, sublease, sell or
relinquish possession of the Equipment, or attempt to do so, without our written authorization;
(c) you breach any warranties or other obligations under this Lease, or any other agreement
with us, and fail to cure such breach within ten days after we send notice of the existence of
such breach; (d) any execution or writ of process is issued in any action or proceeding to
seize or detain the Equipment; or (e) your filing of a voluntary petition in bankruptcy, your
adjudication as a bankrupt, the filing of any proceeding against you of a petition under the
bankruptcy or similar laws of the United States or the state where the Equipment is located,
and the failure to dismiss the proceeding within 60 days after filing.
17. REMEDIES. Should you default, we have the right to collect and to exercise any or all of
the following: (a) we may cancel or terminate this Lease or any or all other agreements that
we have entered into with you or withdraw any offer of credit; (b) we may require you to pay
us, as compensation for loss of our bargain and not as a penalty, all Lease Payments for the
remainder of your current fiscal period; (c) we have the right to immediately retake possession
of the Equipment without any court order or other process of law and for such purpose may
enter upon any premises where the Equipment may be, remove the same and apply any
proceeds from any sale or lease of the Equipment to the payment of amounts which would
have been due, if the default had not occurred; and (d) we have the right to exercise any
remedy at law or equity, notice thereof being expressly waived by you. Our delay or failure to
exercise a remedy constitutes neither a waiver of any other remedy or a release of your
liability to return the Equipment or for any loss or Claim with respect thereto. You shall be
liable for all reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the repossession, recovery, storage,
repair, sale, re-lease or other disposition of the Equipment.
18. SEVERABILITY. The provisions of this Lease are severable and shall not be affected or
impaired if any one provision is held unenforceable, invalid, or illegal. Any provision held in
conflict with any statute or rule of law shall be deemed inoperative only to the extent of such
conflict and shall be modified to conform to such statute or rule.
19. RELEASES. To the extent permitted by applicable law, you hereby waive your rights to:
(a) cancel or repudiate this Lease; (b) revoke acceptance of or reject the Equipment; (c) claim
a security interest in the Equipment; (d) accept partial delivery of the Equipment; (e) sell or
dispose of the Equipment upon rejection or revocation; (f) seek "cover" in substitution for this
Lease from us.
P183
VII.d
Page 4 of 4
GEM SSLPA - 04/03
20. MITIGATION OF DAMAGES. Should we use or dispose of any returned or repossessed
Equipment, we will credit the amount that you owe with any excess which we actually recover
over the cost of retaking and disposing of the Equipment. Any action under this Lease by you
for claims against us for indemnity, misrepresentation, breach of warranty and contract default
or any other matter shall be commenced within one (1) year after any such cause of action
accrues. The provisions of this Section 20 shall be applied only to the extent permitted by the
laws of the state where the Equipment is located.
21. MISCELLANEOUS. Regardless of any conflicting provisions in this Lease, this Lease will
be governed by the laws of the state in which you are located. Any change in any of the terms
and conditions of this Lease must be in writing and signed by us. If we delay or fail to enforce
any of our rights under this Lease, we will still be entitled to enforce those rights at a later
time. It is the express intent of the parties not to violate any applicable usury laws or to
exceed the maximum amount of time price differential or interest, as applicable, permitted to
be charged or collected by applicable law, and such excess payment will be applied to Lease
Payments in inverse order of maturity, and any remaining excess will be refunded to you. If
you do not perform your obligations under this Lease, we have right, but not the obligation, to
take any action or pay any amounts that we believe are necessary to protect our interests.
You agree to reimburse us immediately upon our demand for any such amounts that we pay.
All representations, warranties and covenants made by you hereunder shall survive the
termination of this Lease and shall remain in full force and effect. All of our rights, privileges
and indemnities under this Lease, to the extent they are fairly attributable to events or
conditions occurring or existing on or prior to the expiration or termination of this Lease, shall
survive such expiration or termination and be enforceable by us and our successors and
assigns. You agree that we may disclose any information provided by you to us or created by
us in the course of administering this Lease to any of our parent or affiliates.
BY SIGNING BELOW YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND ALL OF THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF THIS LEASE.
CITY OF ASPEN HEWLETT-PACKARD FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY
X _______________________________________________ X _______________________________________
Authorized Signature Authorized Signature
_______________________________________________ _______________________________________
Print Name & Title Date Print Name & Title Date
CERTIFICATION
I, the undersigned, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I am a duly elected or appointed and acting officer (or duly authorized designee o f such officer) of City of Aspen
(the “Customer”), a political subdivision or agency or department of the State of Colorado and that I have custody of the records of the Customer; that the individual
executing the above State and Local Government Single Schedule Lease Purchase Agreement (the "Lease") on behalf of the Customer is incumbent in the office
printed or typed below his/her signature and is duly authorized to execute and deliver the Lease and all related documents, i n the name and on behalf of the Customer;
and that the signature of such individual is his/her authentic signature.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereto set my hands and affixed the seal of the Customer this ____ day of ___________, 2014.
SEAL _____________________________________________________________________
Certifier’s Signature [To be executed by person other than individual executing above lease.]
_____________________________________________________________________
Print Name
_____________________________________________________________________
Print Title
P184
VII.d
ATTACHMENT A
TO
SCHEDULE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SINGLE SCHEDULE LEASE PURCHASE AGREEMENT NUMBER: 572E25E8
The first payment of Rent will be due on the Acceptance Date and all payments will be due annually thereafter.
Rent No. Rent
Amount
Interest Principal
Principal Balance
0 $35,708.89
1 $12,487.77 $0.00 $12,487.77 $23,221.12
2 $12,487.77 $1,160.19 $11,327.58 $11,893.54
3 $12,487.77 $594.23 $11,893.54 $0.00
Totals $37,463.31 $1,754.42 $35,708.89
Lessee Please Initial and date: _____________________________
P185
VII.d
Calculations & Measurements Policy Direction
2/10/2014
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: Policy Resolution: Miscellaneous Calculations and Measurements, Code
Amendments
Resolution 10, Series of 2014
MEETING DATE: February 10, 2014
SUMMARY:
The attached Resolution outlines Council policy direction for amendments to the Calculations and
Measurement regulations of the City. The objective of the code amendment is to update and clarify
the process to measure floor area, allowances in setbacks, and the process to measure height. This
update intends to provide predictability in zoning review by adding examples and, in some cases,
more specific language. The update is not intended to change our policy.
If the Policy Resolution is approved, staff will bring an Ordinance to City Council that amends
the Calculations and Measurements regulations.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed resolution.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
This meeting is to review potential changes to the Calculations and Measurements regulations of
the City. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310, City Council is the final review authority
for all code amendments.
All code amendments are subject to a three-step process. This is the second step in the process:
1. Public Outreach
2. Policy Resolution by City Council indicating if an amendment should be pursued
3. Public Hearings on Ordinance outlining specific code amendments.
BACKGROUND & OVERVIEW:
The City’s Calculations and Measurements section of the Land Use Code is very technical and
very specific. It explains what does and does not count toward floor area, how to count internal
spaces, how to measure height, what is allowed in setbacks, etc. Every few years this section of
the Code needs updating to remain relevant to current building practice, to create more
predictability in zoning review, and to ensure that the purpose of the requirement is met.
P186
VIII.a
Calculations & Measurements Policy Direction
2/10/2014
Page 2 of 2
City Planning Staff maintain a “redline” version of the Land Use Code, largely for the
calculations and measurements section, which highlight areas that need to be updated, clarified
or rewritten. These highlights are largely informed by complex projects that expose existing
loopholes or confusing language. The “redline” changes and recent Code interpretations are
incorporated into the proposed Code amendment.
There are very few policy changes proposed. Most of the changes are clarifications and slight
adjustments. The proposed changes to current zoning policy include: how rooftop amenities are
included in height calculations, how lightwells are included in height calculations (resulting from
Council direction regarding the 201 E. Hyman project), and how decks are calculated for non-
residential building types.
PUBLIC OUTREACH:
Staff sent out a description of the changes and a link to the proposed language in the Community
Development newsletter that reaches 586 professionals including contractors, architects,
attorneys, and planners. Staff also sent the proposed changes directly to some of the local
architecture firms to solicit feedback.
Due to the technical nature of the proposed amendment, the Planning and Zoning Commission
and the Historic Preservation Commission were not specifically asked to comment. Many of the
members subscribe to the newsletter.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the attached Policy Resolution.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
“I move to approve Resolution No. 10, Series of 2014, approving a Policy Resolution regarding
subdivision code amendments.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:_____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Staff Findings
P187
VIII.a
Resolution No __, Series 2014
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION N0. 10
(SERIES OF 2014)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING
AMENDMENTS TO MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS OF
THE LAND USE CODE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(A), the Community Development
Department received direction from City Council to explore amendments to the City’s
miscellaneous supplemental regulations; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development
Department conducted Public Outreach local architects, contractors, and planners; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended changes to the
miscellaneous supplemental regulations in the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendment policy
direction, and finds it meets the criteria outlined in Section 26.310.040; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public
hearing on February 10, 2014, the City Council approved Resolution No. __, Series of
2014, by a ________ vote, requesting code amendments to the miscellaneous supplemental
regulations in the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, this Resolution does not amend the Land Use Code, but provides
direction to staff for amending the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary
for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Code Amendment Objective and Direction
The objective of the proposed code amendments is to update the miscellaneous
supplemental regulations, specifically the calculations and measurements section, in the
Land Use Code.
Section 2:
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the resolutions or ordinances
repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded
under such prior resolutions or ordinances.
P188
VIII.a
Resolution No __, Series 2014
Page 2 of 2
Section 3:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
FINALLY, adopted this 10th day of February 2014.
_______________________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________ ______________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk James R True, City Attorney
P189
VIII.a
Calculation and Measurements Policy Direction
Exhibit A
2/10/2014
Page 1 of 1
Exhibit A: Staff Findings
26.310.040. Amendments to the Land Use Code standards of review – Initiation
In reviewing a request to pursue an amendment to the text of this Title, per Section
26.310.020(B)(2), Step Two – Public Hearing before City Council, the City Council shall
consider:
A. Whether there exists a community interest to pursue the amendment.
Staff Findings:
Staff believes there is a community interest in updating the code to clarify the calculations and
measurements section of the Land Use Code. The proposed update intents to create more
certainty and reliability on how floor area and other aspects of zoning are calculated. Staff finds
this criterion to be met.
B. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment furthers an adopted policy,
community goal, or objective of the City including, but not limited to, those stated in
the Aspen Area Community Plan.
Staff Findings:
The 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan includes a policy to “create certainty in zoning and the
land use process.” Updating the calculations and measurements section of the Code is in
concert with this policy by clarifying certain zoning regulations. Staff finds this criterion to be
met.
C. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment are compatible with the
community character of the City and in harmony with the public interest and the
purpose and intent of this Title.
Staff Findings:
The intent of the proposed amendment is to ensure a predictable and clear zoning review. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
P190
VIII.a
1.27.2014 – First Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: Growth Management Submission Deadlines Code Amendment
Ordinance 2, Series of 2014, First Reading
MEETING DATE: February 10, 2014
SUMMARY:
The attached Ordinance includes a proposed code amendment to eliminate the twice yearly Growth
Management submission deadlines. The objective of the proposed code amendments is to eliminate
the February 15th and August 15th submission deadlines for growth management applications, and
instead allow rolling submissions all year long. In addition, the code amendment eliminates the
competitive scoring system, as it becomes obsolete when the application deadlines are eliminated.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Ordinance.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
This is the 2nd reading of proposed code amendments to eliminate the Growth Management
application submission deadlines and the competitive scoring system in the Growth Management
Chapter of the Land Use Code. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310, City Council is the
final review authority for all code amendments.
All code amendments are subject to a three-step process. This is the third step in the process:
1. Public Outreach
2. Policy Resolution by City Council indicating if an amendment should the pursued
3. Public Hearings on Ordinance outlining specific code amendments.
Steps 1 and 2 occurred as part of the public hearing on Hotel Aspen on January 13, 2014. At
that meeting City Council directed staff to pursue this code amendment.
BACKGROUND & OVERVIEW:
Growth Management Deadlines: The Growth Management code is divided into four (4) types
of development applications – Administrative Applications, Minor P&Z Applications, Major
P&Z Applications, and City Council Applications. Only applications under the Major P&Z
category are limited to when they can be submitted. All other applications can be made at any
time of the year and can request growth management allotments on a first-come, first-served
P191
VIII.b
1.27.2014 – First Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment
Page 2 of 2
basis. Major P&Z applications can only be submitted on February 15th and August 15th. If the
allotments have been used by other projects by these dates, an applicant is forced to wait until the
next submission deadline, which could be a year away. Similarly, if a project receives other
requisite land use approvals after the deadline, the applicant must wait until the next submission
date to receive their allotments. This can create significant time delays for an applicant.
The proposed code amendment eliminates the Major P&Z applications, moving those reviews
into the Minor P&Z application category and allowing an applicant to apply at any time during
the year.
Competitive Scoring: Major P&Z projects are required to comply with “Community Objective
Scoring” as part of their review. No other projects are subject to this review. The review is done
administratively, and scores a project against community goals, including providing more
affordable housing than is required by code, achieving LEED Certification, and providing lodge
units that average 400 sq ft in size or less. The intent of the system was to “reward” projects that
exceed code in these areas by allowing them to be reviewed first, and therefore have “first dibs”
on the available allotments.
Since the system was adopted in 2006 there have always been more allotments available than
requests, so the scoring system has not impacted which projects move forward. In fact, in some
years multiple projects have applied that received zero points in the scoring system, so the intent
of the system has not matched the reality of what applicants are requesting.
Because only Major P&Z applications are required to go through scoring, eliminating this
section and allowing all growth management applications to be reviewed on a first-come, first-
served basis renders the competition provision of the code obsolete.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the attached Ordinance. The changes Council has requested have
been on staff’s list of amendments related to the lodging work, and staff had planned to bring
these forward in March as part of that work. This Ordinance speeds the implementation of this
and eases the burden for existing projects needing 2014 growth management allotments.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
“I move to approve Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2014, approving amendments eliminating the
Growth Management application submission deadlines and the competitive scoring system in the
Growth Management Chapter of the Land Use Code.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:_____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Staff Findings
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Amendment Language
P192
VIII.b
GMQS competition Code Amendment
Ordinance 2, Series 2013
Page 1 of 5
ORDINANCE No. 2
(Series of 2014)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO
CHAPTER 26.470 – GRWOTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM, OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN LAND USE CODE.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.208 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen
Land Use Code, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the Community Development
Department to craft a code amendment to eliminate the twice yearly submission deadlines in
the Growth Management Code s; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the
Municipal Code shall begin with Public Outreach, a Policy Resolution reviewed and acted on by
City Council, and then final action by City Council after reviewing and considering the
recommendation from the Community Development; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development
Department conducted Public Outreach with City Council regarding the code amendment; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing
on January 13, 2014, the City Council directed staff to draft a code amendment that would
eliminate the twice yearly submission deadlines in the growth management code; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the
proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.470; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendments and
finds that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310.050;
and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1: Code Amendment Objective
The objective of the proposed code amendments is to eliminate the February 15th and August 15th
submission deadlines for growth management applications, and instead allow rolling submissions
all year long. This Code amendment shall apply to all applications made in the 2014 growth
management year.
P193
VIII.b
GMQS competition Code Amendment
Ordinance 2, Series 2013
Page 2 of 5
Section 2: Section 26.470.030.D, subsection “Annual allotment”, shall be amended as follows:
Annual allotment. The annual allotment reflects each year's potential growth within the City,
applied to each type of land use. The annual allotment may be reduced if multi-year allotments
are granted by the City Council. The following annual allotments are hereby established:
Development Type Annual Allotment
Residential — Free-Market 18 units
Commercial 33,300 net leasable square
feet
Residential — Affordable
Housing
No annual limit
Lodging 112 pillows
Essential public facility No annual limit
Allotments shall be considered not granted upon denial of the project and completion of any
appeals. Allotments shall be considered vacated by a property owner upon written notification
from the property owner.
[All other portions of Section 26.470.030.D remain unchanged]
Section 3: Section 26.470.030.E, Available allotment in each of two (2) annual application
sessions, shall be deleted. All subsequent sections shall be renumbered as follows:
Section F becomes Section E
Section 4: Section 26.470.070, Minor Planning and Zoning Commission applications, shall be
renamed to “Planning and Zoning Commission applications,” and all references to “Minor
Planning and Zoning Commission applications” are hereby renamed “Planning and Zoning
Commission applications.”
Section 5: Section 26.470.080, Major Planning and Zoning Commission applications, is deleted
and the five subsections are moved to Section 26.470.070, Planning and Zoning Commission
applications. Subsections 1-5 that are being moved from 26.470.080 to 26.470.070 shall be
renumbered as follows:
6. Expansion or new commercial development.
7. New free-market residential units within a multi-family or mixed-use project.
8. Lodge development.
9. Residential development – sixty percent (60%) affordable.
P194
VIII.b
GMQS competition Code Amendment
Ordinance 2, Series 2013
Page 3 of 5
10. Residential development – seventy percent (70%) affordable.
Section 6: Section 26.470.110.B, Growth management review procedures, Application review
procedures – administrative review applications, minor P&Z review application and City Council
review applications, shall be amended as follows:
B. Application review procedures
1. Application submission dates. An application for growth management allocation may be
submitted to the Community Development Director on any date of the year.
2. Administrative applications. Growth management applications for Community
Development Director review shall be submitted to the Community Development
Director who shall, based on the applicable standards identified in Section 26.470.060,
approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the application.
3. Planning and Zoning Commission applications. Growth management applications for
Planning and Zoning Commission review shall be reviewed by the Community
Development Director, who shall forward a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning
Commission, based on the applicable standards identified in Section 26.470.070, that the
application be approved, approved with conditions or disapproved.
The Planning and Zoning Commission shall review the application according to the
applicable standards, consider the recommendation of the Community Development
Director and, during a public hearing, adopt a resolution approving, approving with
conditions or disapproving the application. Notice of the hearing shall be by publication,
posting and mailing, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.E.
4. City Council applications. Growth management review applications for City Council
review shall be submitted to the Community Development Director, who shall forward a
recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission, based on the applicable
standards identified in Section 26.470.090, that the application be approved, approved
with conditions or disapproved.
The Planning and Zoning Commission shall review the application during a public
hearing according to the applicable standards and, by resolution, recommend to City
Council that the application be approved, approved with conditions or disapproved.
Notice of the hearing shall be by publication, posting and mailing, pursuant to Subsection
26.304.060.E.
City Council shall review the application according to the applicable standards, consider
the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the recommendation of the
Community Development Director and, during a public hearing, adopt an ordinance
approving, approving with conditions or disapproving the application. Notice of the
hearing shall be by publication, posting and mailing, pursuant to Subsection
26.304.060.E.
P195
VIII.b
GMQS competition Code Amendment
Ordinance 2, Series 2013
Page 4 of 5
City Council review applications that require major Planning and Zoning Commission
review shall be reviewed pursuant to the process outlined in Subsection 26.470.110.C.
Section 7: Section 26.470.110.C, Growth management review procedures, Application review
procedures – major Planning and Zoning Commission review, shall be deleted. All subsequent
sections shall be renumbered as follows:
Section D becomes Section C
Section E becomes Section D
Section F becomes Section E
Section 8: Section 26.470.110.F.10 (renumbered to 26.470.110.E.10) shall be deleted.
Section 9: Section 26.470.120, Community objective scoring criteria, shall be deleted.
Section 10: Section 26.470.150.A Appeals – Appeals of community objective scoring, shall be
deleted. All subsequent sections shall be renumbered as follows:
Section B becomes Section A
Section C becomes Section B
Section D becomes Section C
Section 11: Effect Upon 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 12: Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 13: Effective Date.
In accordance with Section 4.9 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter, this ordinance shall
become effective thirty (30) days following final passage.
Section 14:
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 10th day of February, 2013, 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.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the 27th day of January, 2013.
P196
VIII.b
GMQS competition Code Amendment
Ordinance 2, Series 2013
Page 5 of 5
Attest:
__________________________ ____________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of ______, 2013.
Attest:
__________________________ ___________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
Approved as to form:
___________________________
City Attorney
P197
VIII.b
2.10.2014 – 2nd Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment; Exhibit A
Page 1 of 1
Exhibit A: Staff Findings
26.310.050 Amendments to the Land Use Code Standards of review - Adoption.
In reviewing an application to amend the text of this Title, per Section 26.310.020(B)(3), Step
Three – Public Hearing before City Council, the City Council shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this
Title.
Staff Findings:
The proposed code amendment is consistent with the Land Use Code. It updates a code section
that is already in place. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
B. Whether the proposed amendment achieves the policy, community goal, or objective
cited as reasons for the code amendment or achieves other public policy objectives.
Staff Findings:
City Council has identified a number of AACP implementation priorities, including streamlining
the development process and bolstering the lodging base. This amendment eliminates the twice
yearly growth management competition deadlines that are currently in place for certain projects
and allows all growth management applications to be made at any time during the year. All
applications will continue to be required to meet the applicable review criteria. Staff is
recommending the scoring section of the code be eliminated as well, as it becomes obsolete once
the competition deadlines are eliminated. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
C. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment are compatible with the
community character of the City and in harmony with the public interest and the
purpose and intent of this Title.
Staff Findings:
The intent of the proposed amendment is to ensure a predictable and fair review of land use
applications. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P198
VIII.b
2.10.2014 – 2nd Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment; Exhibit B
Page 1 of 19
Chapter 26.470
GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMQS)
Sections:
Sec. 26.470.010. Purpose.
Sec. 26.470.020. Applicability.
Sec. 26.470.030. Aspen metro area development ceilings and annual allotments.
Sec. 26.470.040. Exempt development.
Sec. 26.470.050. General requirements.
Sec. 26.470.060. Administrative applications.
Sec. 26.470.070. Minor Planning and Zoning Commission applications.
Sec. 26.470.080. Major Planning and Zoning Commission applications.
Sec. 26.470.090. City Council applications.
Sec. 26.470.100. Calculations.
Sec. 26.470.110. Growth management review procedures.
Sec. 26.470.120. Community objective scoring criteria.
Sec. 26.470.130. Reconstruction limitations.
Sec. 26.470.140. Amendment of a growth management development order.
Sec. 26.470.150. Appeals.
26.470.030. Aspen metro area development ceilings and annual allotments.
D. Annual development allotments. The Growth Management Quota System establishes
annual development allotments available for use by projects during each growth management
year, January 1 to December 1. The number of development allotments available within a single
growth management year varies based on the following factors:
1. The type of land use.
2. The annual allotment available for each land use.
3. The number of allotments granted the previous year and whether or not the City Council
permits an accumulation from year to year.
4. The number of multi-year allotments granted by the City Council from future years.
5. The number of allotments already granted in the current growth management year.
The Community Development Director shall calculate the development allotments available for
each type of land use as follows:
Available development allotments = annual
allotment +
Carry-forward
allotment from
prior year
Where the above terms are defined and established as follows:
P199
VIII.b
2.10.2014 – 2nd Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment; Exhibit B
Page 2 of 19
Annual allotment. The annual allotment reflects each year's potential growth within the City,
applied to each type of land use. The annual allotment may be reduced if multi-year allotments
are granted by the City Council. The following annual allotments are hereby established:
Development Type Annual Allotment
Residential — Free-Market 18 units
Commercial 33,300 net leasable square
feet
Residential — Affordable
Housing
No annual limit
Lodging 112 pillows
Essential public facility No annual limit
Allotments shall be considered not granted upon denial of the project and completion of any
appeals. Allotments shall be considered vacated by a property owner upon written notification
from the property owner.
Carry-forward allotment. At the conclusion of each growth management year, the City
Council shall determine the amount of unused and unclaimed allotments, for each type of
development, and may assign the unused allotment to become part of the available development
allotment for future projects (see accounting procedure). There is no limit, other than that
implemented by the City Council, on the amount of potential growth that may be carried forward
to the next year.
Allotments awarded to a project which does not proceed and which are considered void shall
constitute unused allotments and shall be considered for allotment roll-over by the City Council.
Allotments shall be considered vacated by a property owner upon written notification from the
property owner or upon expiration of the development right pursuant to Subparagraph
26.470.060.B.4, Expiration of growth management allotments.
E. Available allotments in each of two (2) annual application sessions. The Growth
Management Quota System permits the submission of growth management allotment
applications that require scoring twice per year. (Not all applications require scoring.) The
submission deadlines for the two (2) sessions shall be as defined in Section 26.470.110. For the
first session of the year, the number of development allotments available shall be the entire
annual allotment established pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D.
Allotments that are not granted, granted but then vacated or not requested in the first session of
the year shall be available in the second session of the year. Any allotments remaining after the
second session of the year shall only be available in the future as determined by the City Council
(see accounting procedure). Allotments shall be considered not granted upon denial of the
P200
VIII.b
2.10.2014 – 2nd Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment; Exhibit B
Page 3 of 19
project and completion of any appeals. Allotments shall be considered vacated by a property
owner upon written notification from the property owner.
FE. Accounting procedure. The Community Development Director shall maintain an
ongoing account of available, requested and approved growth management allocations and
progress towards each development ceiling. Allotments shall be considered allocated upon
issuance of a development order for the project. Unless specifically not deducted from the
annual development allotment and development ceilings, all units of growth shall be included in
the accounting. Affordable housing units shall be deducted regardless of the unit being provided
as growth mitigation or otherwise. After the conclusion of each growth management session and
year, the Community Development Director shall prepare a summary of growth allocations.
The City Council, at its first regular meeting of the growth management year, shall review,
during a public hearing, the prior year's growth summary, consider a recommendation from the
Community Development Director, consider comments from the general public and shall, via
adoption of a resolution, establish the number of unused and unclaimed allotments to be carried
forward and added to the annual allotment. The City Council may carry forward any portion of
the previous year's unused allotment, including all or none.
The City Council shall also consider the remaining development allotments within the
development ceilings, established pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.C, and shall reduce the
available development allotment by any amount that exceeds the development ceiling. The
public hearing shall be noticed by publication, pursuant to Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3.a. The
City Council shall consider the following criteria in determining the allotments to be carried
forward:
1. The community's growth rate over the preceding five-year period.
2. The ability of the community to absorb the growth that could result from a proposed
development utilizing accumulated allotments, including issues of scale, infrastructure
capacity, construction impacts and community character.
3. The expected impact from approved developments that have obtained allotments, but that
have not yet been built.
26.470.070. Minor Planning and Zoning Commission applications.
The following types of development shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by
the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Section 26.470.110, Procedures for review,
and the criteria for each type of development described below. Except as noted, all growth
management applications shall comply with the general requirements of Section 26.470.050.
Except as noted, the following types of growth management approvals shall be deducted from
the respective development ceiling levels but shall not be deducted from the annual development
allotments. Approvals apply cumulatively.
1. Enlargement of an historic landmark for commercial, lodge or mixed-use development.
The enlargement of an historic landmark building for commercial, lodge or mixed-use
development shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning
Commission based on the following criteria:
P201
VIII.b
2.10.2014 – 2nd Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment; Exhibit B
Page 4 of 19
a. Up to four (4) employees generated by the additional commercial/lodge development
shall not require the provision of affordable housing. Thirty percent (30%) of the
employee generation above four (4) and up to eight (8) employees shall be mitigated
through the provision of affordable housing or cash in lieu thereof. Sixty percent (60%)
of the employee generation above eight (8) employees shall be mitigated through the
provision of affordable housing or cash in lieu thereof.
For example: A project generating 15 employees shall require employee mitigation for a
total of 5.4 employees, as follows:
First 4 employees = 0 employee
mitigation
Second 4 employees mitigated at
30%
= 1.2 employees
Remaining 7 employees mitigated
at 60%
= 4.2 employees
Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Subsection 4, Affordable housing, of
this Section and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide
mitigation units at a lower category designation.
b. Up to one (1) free-market residence may be created pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.060.4,
Minor enlargement of an historic landmark for commercial, lodge or mixed-use
development. This shall be cumulative and shall include administrative GMQS approvals
granted prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2007. Additional free-
market units (beyond one [1]) shall be reviewed pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.080.2,
New free-market residential units within a multi-family or mixed-use project.
2. Change in use. A change in use of an existing property, structure or portions of an existing
structure between the development categories identified in Section 26.470.020 (irrespective of
direction), for which a certificate of occupancy has been issued for at least two (2) years and
which is intended to be reused, shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the
Planning and Zoning Commission based on the general requirements outlined in Section
26.470.050. No more than one (1) free-market residential unit may be created through the
change-in-use.
3. Expansion of free-market residential units within a multi-family or mixed-use project.
The net livable area expansion of existing free-market residential units within a mixed-use
project, or the net livable area expansion after demolition of existing free-market residential units
within a multi-family project, shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the
Planning and Zoning Commission based on the general requirements outlined in Section
26.470.050. The remodeling or expansion of existing multi-family residential dwellings shall be
exempt from growth management as long as no demolition occurs, pursuant to Paragraph
26.470.040.3.
P202
VIII.b
2.10.2014 – 2nd Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment; Exhibit B
Page 5 of 19
4. Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed-restricted in accordance
with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with
conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria:
a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be
required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to
hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors.
b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly
built units or buy-down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City limits.
Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant
to Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full unit, a
cash-in-lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a
recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the mitigation
requirement is one (1) or more units, a cash-in-lieu payment shall require City Council
approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. A Certificate of Affordable Housing
Credit may be used to satisfy mitigation requirements by approval of the Community
Development Department Director, pursuant to Section 26.540.080 Extinguishment of
the Certificate. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these
methods.
c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent
(50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade,
whichever is higher. This dimensional requirement may be varied through Special
Review, Pursuant to Chapter 26.430.
d. The proposed units shall be deed-restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified
purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The
owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned
qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The
deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to
own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing
Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended.
The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by
an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the
City
Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages affordable
housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with the lodge
operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge.
Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin
County or other similar governmental or quasi-municipal agency shall not be subject to
this mandatory "for sale" provision.
e. Non-Mitigation Affordable Housing. Affordable housing units that are not required for
mitigation, but meet the requirements of Section 26.470.070.4(a-d). The owner of such
P203
VIII.b
2.10.2014 – 2nd Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment; Exhibit B
Page 6 of 19
non-mitigation affordable housing is eligible to receive a Certificate of Affordable
Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540.
5. Demolition or redevelopment of multi-family housing. The City's neighborhoods have
traditionally been comprised of a mix of housing types, including those affordable by its working
residents. However, because of Aspen's attractiveness as a resort environment and because of
the physical constraints of the upper Roaring Fork Valley, there is constant pressure for the
redevelopment of dwellings currently providing resident housing for tourist and second-home
use. Such redevelopment results in the displacement of individuals and families who are an
integral part of the Aspen work force. Given the extremely high cost of and demand for market-
rate housing, resident housing opportunities for displaced working residents, which are now
minimal, will continue to decrease.
Preservation of the housing inventory and provision of dispersed housing opportunities in Aspen
have been long-standing planning goals of the community. Achievement of these goals will
serve to promote a socially and economically balanced community, limit the number of
individuals who face a long and sometimes dangerous commute on State Highway 82, reduce the
air pollution effects of commuting and prevent exclusion of working residents from the City's
neighborhoods.
The Aspen Area Community Plan established a goal that affordable housing for working
residents be provided by both the public and private sectors. The City and the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority have provided affordable housing both within and adjacent to the
City limits. The private sector has also provided affordable housing. Nevertheless, as a result of
the replacement of resident housing with second homes and tourist accommodations and the
steady increase in the size of the workforce required to assure the continued viability of Aspen
area businesses and the City's tourist-based economy, the City has found it necessary, in concert
with other regulations, to adopt limitations on the combining, demolition or conversion of
existing multi-family housing in order to minimize the displacement of working residents, to
ensure that the private sector maintains its role in the provision of resident housing and to
prevent a housing shortfall from occurring.
The combining, demolition, conversion or redevelopment of multi-family housing shall be
approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on
compliance with the following requirements (see definition of demolition.):
1. Requirements for combining, demolishing, converting or redeveloping free-market multi-
family housing units: Only one (1) of the following two (2) options is required to be met
when combining, demolishing, converting or redeveloping a free-market multi-family
residential property. To ensure the continued vitality of the community and a critical
mass of local working residents, no net loss of density (total number of units) between the
existing development and proposed development shall be allowed.
a. One-hundred-percent replacement. In the event of the demolition of free-market
multi-family housing, the applicant shall have the option to construct replacement
housing consisting of no less than one hundred percent (100%) of the number of
units, bedrooms and net livable area demolished. The replacement units shall be
P204
VIII.b
2.10.2014 – 2nd Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment; Exhibit B
Page 7 of 19
deed-restricted as resident occupied affordable housing, pursuant to the Guidelines of
the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. An applicant may choose to provide
mitigation units at a lower category designation. Each replacement unit shall be
approved pursuant to Subsection 4, Affordable housing, of this Section.
When this one-hundred-percent standard is accomplished, the remaining development
on the site may be free-market residential development with no additional affordable
housing mitigation required as long as there is no increase in the number of free-
market residential units on the parcel. Free-market units in excess of the total number
originally on the parcel shall be reviewed pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.3,
Expansion of free-market residential units within a multi-family or mixed-use
development.
b. Fifty-percent replacement. In the event of the demolition of free-market multi-family
housing and replacement of less than one hundred percent (100%) of the number of
previous units, bedrooms or net livable area as described above, the applicant shall be
required to construct affordable housing consisting of no less than fifty percent (50%)
of the number of units, bedrooms and the net livable area demolished. The
replacement units shall be deed-restricted as Category 4 housing, pursuant to the
guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. An applicant may choose
to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Each replacement unit
shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing.
When this fifty-percent standard is accomplished, the remaining development on the
site may be free-market residential development as long as additional affordable
housing mitigation is provided pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.3, Expansion of
free-market residential units within a multi-family or mixed-use project, and there is
no increase in the number of free-market residential units on the parcel. Free-market
units in excess of the total number originally on the parcel shall be reviewed pursuant
to Paragraph 26.470.080.2, New free-market residential units within a multi-family or
mixed-use project.
c. One-hundred percent affordable housing replacement. When one-hundred-percent of
the free-market multi-family housing units are demolished and are solely replaced
with deed-restricted affordable housing units on a site that are not required for
mitigation purposes, including any net additional dwelling units, pursuant to Section
26.470.070.4, Affordable Housing; all of the units in the redevelopment are eligible
for a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit, pursuant to Section 26.540 Certificate
of Affordable Housing Credit. Any remaining unused free market residential
development rights shall be vacated.
2. Requirements for demolishing affordable multi-family housing units: In the event a
project proposes to demolish or replace existing deed-restricted affordable housing units,
the redevelopment may increase or decrease the number of units, bedrooms or net livable
area
such that there is no decrease in the total number of employees housed by the existing
units. The overall number of replacement units, unit sizes, bedrooms and category of the
units shall be reviewed by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and a
recommendation forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
P205
VIII.b
2.10.2014 – 2nd Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment; Exhibit B
Page 8 of 19
3. Fractional unit requirement. When the affordable housing replacement requirement of
this Section involves a fraction of a unit, cash-in-lieu may be provided only upon the
review and approval of the City Council, to meet the fractional requirement only,
pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3, Provision of required affordable housing via a cash-
in-lieu payment.
4. Location requirement. Multi-family replacement units, both free-market and affordable,
shall be developed on the same site on which demolition has occurred, unless the owner
shall demonstrate and the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that replacement
of the units on site would be in conflict with the parcel's zoning or would be an
inappropriate solution due to the site's physical constraints.
When either of the above circumstances result, the owner shall replace the maximum
number of units on site which the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the
site can accommodate and may replace the remaining units off site, at a location
determined acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission. A recommendation
from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard.
5. Timing requirement. Any replacement units required to be deed-restricted as affordable
housing shall be issued a certificate of occupancy, according to the Building Department,
and be available for occupancy at the same time as, or prior to, any redeveloped free-
market units, regardless of whether the replacement units are built on site or off site.
6. Redevelopment agreement. The applicant and the City shall enter into a redevelopment
agreement that specifies the manner in which the applicant shall adhere to the approvals
granted pursuant to this Section and penalties for noncompliance. The agreement shall be
recorded before an application for a demolition permit may be accepted by the City.
7. Growth management allotments. The existing number of free-market residential units,
prior to demolition, may be replaced exempt from growth management, provided that the
units conform to the provisions of this Section. The redevelopment credits shall not be
transferable separate from the property unless permitted as described above in
Subparagraph d, Location requirement.
8. Exemptions. The Community Development Director shall exempt from the procedures
and requirements of this Section the following types of development involving Multi-
Family Housing Units. An exemption from these replacement requirements shall not
exempt a development from compliance with any other provisions of this Title:
a. The replacement of Multi-Family Housing Units after non-willful demolition such as
a flood, fire, or other natural catastrophe, civil commotion, or similar event not
purposefully caused by the land owner. The Community Development Director may
require documentation be provided by the landowner to confirm the damage to the
building was in-fact non-willful.
To be exempted, the replacement development shall be an exact replacement of the
previous number of units, bedrooms, and square footage and in the same
configuration. The Community Development Director may approve exceptions to
this exact replacement requirement to accommodate changes necessary to meet
P206
VIII.b
2.10.2014 – 2nd Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment; Exhibit B
Page 9 of 19
current building codes; improve accessibility; to conform to zoning, design standards,
or other regulatory requirements of the City; or, to provide other architectural or site
planning improvements that have no substantial effect on the use or program of the
development. (Also see Chapter 26.312 – Nonconformities.) Substantive changes to
the development shall not be exempted from this Section and shall be reviewed as a
willful change pursuant to the procedures and requirements of this Section.
b. The demolition of Multi-Family Housing Units by order of a public agency including,
but not limited to, the City of Aspen for reasons of preserving the life, health, safety,
or general welfare of the public.
c. The demolition, combining, conversion, replacement, or redevelopment of Multi-
Family Housing Units which have been used exclusively as tourist accommodations
or by non-working residents. The Community Development Director may require
occupancy records, leases, affidavits, or other documentation to the satisfaction of the
Director to demonstrate that the unit(s) has never housed a working resident. All
other requirements of this Title shall still apply including zoning, growth
management, and building codes.)
d. The demolition, combining, conversion, replacement, or redevelopment of Multi-
Family Housing Units which were illegally created (also known as “Bandit Units”).
Any improvements associated with Bandit Units shall be required to conform to
current requirements of this Title including zoning, growth management, and building
codes. Replaced or redeveloped Bandit Units shall be deed restricted as Resident
Occupied affordable housing, pursuant to the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority
e. Any development action involving demising walls or floors/ceilings necessary for
the normal upkeep, maintenance, or remodeling of adjacent Multi-Family Housing
Units.
f. A change order to an issued and active building permit that proposes to exceed the
limitations of remodeling/demolition to rebuild portions of a structure which, in the
opinion of the Community Development Director, should be rebuilt for structural,
safety, accessibility, or significant energy efficiency reasons first realized during
construction, which were not known and could not have been reasonably predicted
prior to construction, and which cause no or minimal changes to the exterior
dimensions and character of the building.
26.470.080. Major Planning and Zoning Commission applications.
The following types of development shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by
the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Section 26.470.060, Procedures for review,
above and the criteria for each type of development described below. Except as noted, all
growth
P207
VIII.b
2.10.2014 – 2nd Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment; Exhibit B
Page 10 of 19
management applications shall comply with the general requirements of Section26.470.050
above. Except as noted, all Planning and Zoning Commission growth management approvals
shall be deducted from the respective annual development allotments and development ceiling
levels.
16. Expansion or new commercial development. The expansion of an existing commercial
building or commercial portion of a mixed-use building or the development of a new commercial
building or commercial portion of a mixed-use building shall be approved, approved with
conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on general requirements
outlined in Section 26.470.050.
27. New free-market residential units within a multi-family or mixed-use project. The
development of new free-market residential units within a multi-family or mixed-use project
shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission
based on the general requirements outlined in Section 26.470.050 above.
38. Lodge development. The expansion of an existing lodge or the development of a new lodge
shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission
based on the following criteria:
a. If the project contains a minimum of one (1) lodge unit per five hundred (500) square feet
of lot area, the following affordable housing mitigation standards shall apply:
1) Affordable housing net livable area equaling a percentage, as defined in the unit size
table below, of the additional free-market residential net livable area shall be
mitigated through the provision of affordable housing.
2) A percentage, as defined in the table below, of the employees generated by the
additional lodge, timeshare lodge, exempt timeshare units and associated commercial
development, according to Paragraph 26.470.100.A.1, Employee generation, shall be
mitigated through the provision of affordable housing.
Average Net Livable
Area of Lodge Units
Being Added to the
Parcel
Affordable Housing Net
Livable Area Required
(Percentage of Free-
Market Net Livable
Area)
Percentage of
Employee Generation
Requiring the
Provision of Mitigation
600 square feet or
greater
30% 60%
500 square feet 30% 40%
400 square feet 20% 20%
300 square feet or
smaller
10% 10%
When the average unit size falls between the square-footage categories, the required
affordable housing shall be determined by interpolating the above schedule. For
P208
VIII.b
2.10.2014 – 2nd Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment; Exhibit B
Page 11 of 19
example, a lodge project with an average unit size of four hundred fifty (450) square
feet shall be required to provide mitigation for thirty percent (30%) of the employees
generated.
Affordable housing units provided shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph
26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, and be restricted to a maximum of a Category 4
rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as
amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category
designation.
b. If the project contains less than one (1) lodge unit per five hundred (500) square feet of
lot area, the following affordable housing mitigation standards shall apply:
1) Affordable housing net livable area equaling thirty percent (30%) of the additional
free-market residential net livable area shall be mitigated through the provision of
affordable housing.
2) Sixty percent (60%) of the employees generated by the additional lodge, timeshare
lodge, exempt timeshare units and associated commercial development, according to
Paragraph 26.470.050.A.1, Employee generation, shall be mitigated through the
provision of affordable housing.
49. Residential development – sixty percent (60%) affordable. The development of a
residential project or an addition of units to an existing residential project, in which a minimum
of sixty percent (60%) of the additional units and thirty percent (30%) of the additional floor area
is affordable housing deed-restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority Guidelines, shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and
Zoning Commission based on the following criteria:
a. A minimum of sixty percent (60%) of the total additional units and thirty percent (30%)
of the project's additional floor area shall be affordable housing. Multi-site projects are
permitted. Affordable housing units provided shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph
26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, and shall average Category 4 rates as defined in the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may
choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation.
b. If the project consists of only one (1) free-market residence, then a minimum of one (1)
affordable residence representing a minimum of thirty percent (30%) of the project's total
floor area and deed-restricted as a Category 4 "for sale" unit, according to the provisions
of the Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines, shall qualify.
510. Residential development – seventy percent (70%) affordable. The development of a
residential project or an addition to an existing residential project, in which seventy percent
(70%) of the project's additional units and seventy percent (70%) of the project's additional
bedrooms are affordable housing deed-restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority Guidelines, shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the
Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria:
a. Seventy percent (70%) of the total additional units and total additional bedrooms shall be
affordable housing. At least forty percent (40%) of the units shall average Category 4
P209
VIII.b
2.10.2014 – 2nd Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment; Exhibit B
Page 12 of 19
rates as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The
remaining thirty-percent affordable housing unit requirement may be provided as
Resident Occupied (RO)
units as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. Multi-site
projects are permitted. Affordable housing units provided shall be approved pursuant to
Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing. An applicant may choose to provide
mitigation units at a lower category designation.
b. If the project consists of one (1) free-market residence, then the provision of one (1) RO
residence and one (1) category residence shall be considered meeting the seventy-percent
unit standard. If the project consists of two (2) free-market residences, then the provision
of two (2) RO residences and two (2) category residences shall qualify.
26.470.110. Growth management review procedures.
B. Application review procedures – administrative review applications, minor P&Z review
applications, and City Council review applications.
1. Application submission dates. An application for growth management allocation that
qualifies for administrative review, minor Planning and Zoning Commission review or
City Council review may be submitted to the Community Development Director on any
date of the year.
2. Administrative applications. Growth management applications for Community
Development Director review shall be submitted to the Community Development
Director who shall, based on the applicable standards identified in Section 26.470.060,
approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the application.
3. Minor Planning and Zoning Commission applications. Growth management applications
for minor Planning and Zoning Commission review shall be reviewed by the Community
Development Director, who shall forward a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning
Commission, based on the applicable standards identified in Section 26.470.070, that the
application be approved, approved with conditions or disapproved.
The Planning and Zoning Commission shall review the application according to the
applicable standards, consider the recommendation of the Community Development
Director and, during a public hearing, adopt a resolution approving, approving with
conditions or disapproving the application. Notice of the hearing shall be by publication,
posting and mailing, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.E.
4. City Council applications. Growth management review applications for City Council
review shall be submitted to the Community Development Director, who shall forward a
recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission, based on the applicable
standards identified in Section 26.470.090, that the application be approved, approved
with conditions or disapproved.
The Planning and Zoning Commission shall review the application during a public
hearing according to the applicable standards and, by resolution, recommend to City
P210
VIII.b
2.10.2014 – 2nd Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment; Exhibit B
Page 13 of 19
Council that the application be approved, approved with conditions or disapproved.
Notice of the hearing shall be by publication, posting and mailing, pursuant to Subsection
26.304.060.E.
City Council shall review the application according to the applicable standards, consider
the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the recommendation of the
Community Development Director and, during a public hearing, adopt an ordinance
approving, approving with conditions or disapproving the application. Notice of the
hearing shall be by publication, posting and mailing, pursuant to Subsection
26.304.060.E.
City Council review applications that require major Planning and Zoning Commission
review shall be reviewed pursuant to the process outlined in Subsection 26.470.110.C.
C. Application review procedures – major Planning and Zoning Commission review.
1. Application submission dates. An application for growth management allocation that
requires major Planning and Zoning Commission review may only be submitted to the
Community Development Director on one (1) of the two (2) application submittal dates,
February 15 or August 15. When the application submittal date falls on a Saturday,
Sunday or legal holiday, the next business day shall be the application submittal date.
Applications shall only be submitted within the growth management year in which
allocations are requested.
2. Community objectives scoring and establishment of the application review order.
Applications for major Planning and Zoning Commission growth management review
shall be submitted to the Community Development Director on the submittal dates listed
above. The Community Development Director shall review the applications for
completeness and assign a community objectives score to each application, pursuant to
Section 26.470.120, Community objectives scoring criteria. The assigned scores shall be
used to establish the review order and sequence to which applications may be granted
growth management allocations.
Applications for major Planning and Zoning Commission growth management review
failing to receive a minimum threshold score in any one (1) of the community objectives
scoring classifications, as defined in Section 26.470.120, shall be denied by the
Community Development Director.
The project with the highest community objectives score shall be reviewed first and shall
be the first project eligible for growth management allocations. The second-highest-
scoring project shall be reviewed second and shall be the second project eligible for
growth management allocations, and so forth. Applications shall maintain this assigned
order and allocations shall be granted accordingly. After submission, applications may
be modified but only in a manner that does not reduce the project's total community
objectives score.
If projects obtain identical scores, the project with the highest score for Criterion #1 shall
be considered to have the higher score. If projects with identical scores also have
P211
VIII.b
2.10.2014 – 2nd Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment; Exhibit B
Page 14 of 19
identical scores for Criterion #1, a random drawing shall be held to determine the order in
which the projects shall proceed.
3. Application review. After the community objectives scoring is complete and the review
order is established, growth management applications for major Planning and Zoning
Commission review shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director, who
shall forward a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission, based on the
applicable standards identified in Section 26.470.070, that the application be approved,
approved with conditions or disapproved.
The Planning and Zoning Commission shall review the application and the
recommendation of the Community Development Director during a public hearing
according to the applicable standards and, by resolution, approve, approve with
conditions or disapprove the application. Notice of the hearing shall be by publication,
posting and mailing, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.E.
CD. Allocation procedure. Following approval or approval with conditions, pursuant to the
above procedures for review, the Community Development Director shall issue a development
order pursuant to Section 26.304.070, Development orders. Those applicants having received
allotments may proceed to apply for any further development approvals required by this Title or
any other regulations of the City.
DE. Expiration of growth management allotments. Growth management allotments
granted pursuant to this Chapter shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the
effective date of the development order, pursuant to the terms and limitations of Section
26.304.070. Expired allotments shall not be considered valid, and the applicant shall be required
to re-apply for growth management approval. Expired allotments may be added to the next
year's available allotments at the discretion of the City Council, pursuant to Subsection
26.470.030.E.
EF. Application contents. Applications for growth management shall include the following:
1. The general application information required in Common development review
procedures, Chapter 26.304.
2. A site-improvement survey depicting:
a) Existing natural and man-made site features.
b) All legal easements and restrictions.
c) All requirements for improvement surveys outlined in the current City Engineering
Department regulations.
3. A description of the project and the number and type of the requested growth
management allotments.
4. A detailed description and site plan of the proposed development, including proposed
land uses, densities, natural features, traffic and pedestrian circulation, off-street parking,
open space areas, infrastructure improvements, site drainage and any associated off-site
improvements.
P212
VIII.b
2.10.2014 – 2nd Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment; Exhibit B
Page 15 of 19
5. A description of the proposed affordable housing and how it provides adequate mitigation
for the project and conforms to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines.
6. A statement as to how the application should be considered "exceptional" if multi-year
allotments are being requested.
7. A statement specifying the public facilities that will be needed to accommodate the
proposed development, proposed infrastructure improvements and the specific assurances
that will be made to ensure that the public facilities will be available to accommodate the
proposed development.
8. A written response to each of the review criteria for the particular review requested.
9. Copies of required approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission, Historic
Preservation Commission and the City Council, as necessary.
10. As applicable, a recommended community objective score according to the
scoring criteria applicable to the type of development as outlined in Section 26.470.120
and a brief explanation supporting the recommended score.
(Ord. No. 14, 2007, §1; Ord. No. 36, 2013, §5)
26.470.120. Community objective scoring criteria.
Growth management allocation applications for major Planning and Zoning Commission review
shall be reviewed in the order of their community objectives score with the highest-scoring
project first, the second-highest-scoring project second, and so forth. The following scoring
criteria have been established in order to define the City's expectation for new development and
to reward projects that achieve identified community goals.
Projects failing to receive a minimum threshold score in any one (1) of the scoring
classifications, as the term is defined in Section 26.470.120, shall be denied by the Community
Development Director. The following point system shall be used to assign a community
objectives score to each project. The score shall be a summation of the individual scores from
each of the following categories. Scores shall be calculated to the nearest integer.
A. Community Objectives Scoring Criterion #1 – Workforce Housing. The community
desires a balance between Aspen – the Community and Aspen – the Resort. Both the social
fabric of the community and the long-term economic well-being of the resort are reliant on a
resource of housing opportunities for local working residents. The Community Development
Director shall assign a score to each project for this objective based on the following point
schedule:
1. Points for the number of employees housed. One (1) point shall be assigned for each one
percent (1%) by which a proposal exceeds the minimum affordable housing requirements
of this Chapter, as applicable to the particular type of development, with actual housing
units on site or off site. Depending upon the type of development, affordable housing
requirements are either expressed as a number of units, number of employees to be
housed or square footage of housing to be provided, and the score shall be a reflection of
the applicable requirement. In circumstances where a project's affordable housing
P213
VIII.b
2.10.2014 – 2nd Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment; Exhibit B
Page 16 of 19
requirements are a combination of requirements, the average percent by which a proposal
exceeds each requirement shall be used. In no case shall cash-in-lieu be used to obtain
points for this criterion.
2. Points for the size of affordable housing units. One (1) point shall be assigned for each
one percent (1%) by which proposed affordable housing units exceed the minimum
square footage requirements of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines.
In no case shall cash-in-lieu be used to obtain points for this criterion.
3. Minimum threshold requirement. Proposals with less than the minimum required
affordable housing requirement, as required pursuant to this Chapter according to the
particular type of development, shall receive a failing score for this criterion and shall be
denied by the Community Development Director. The minimum requirement may be a
combination of on-site units, off-site units or cash in lieu thereof, as such methods are
permitted by this Chapter.
Table 26.470.1 – Examples for scoring projects on workforce housing criterion:
Required
number of
employees to
be housed by
development
Proposed number
of employees to
be housed by
development with
actual units
Percentage by
which proposed
units exceed the
minimum size
requirements
Score for
Criterion
# 1
Comments
Project
A
12 15 0 25 This project proposes
to house 3 more
employees than the 12
required. 3/12 = 25%
= a score of 25
Project
B
12 12 20 20 This project proposes
to house the minimum
number of employees,
but with units that are
20% larger than
required. 20% larger =
a score of 20
Project
C
8 12 15 65 This project proposes
to house 4 more
employees than the 8
required. And the units
are also 15% larger
than required. 4/8 =
50% + 15% = a score
of 65
Project
D
5 6 30 50 This project proposes
to house 1 more
employee than the 5
required. And the units
are also 30% larger
than required. 1/5 =
20% + 30% = a score
P214
VIII.b
2.10.2014 – 2nd Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment; Exhibit B
Page 17 of 19
Required
number of
employees to
be housed by
development
Proposed number
of employees to
be housed by
development with
actual units
Percentage by
which proposed
units exceed the
minimum size
requirements
Score for
Criterion
# 1
Comments
of 50
B. Community Objective Scoring Criterion #2 – Energy Conservation. The community
desires development that minimizes its impact on the natural environment and to maintain a
leadership role in energy conservation and production strategies, efficient building techniques
and use of materials. The Community Development Director shall assign a score to each project
for this objective based on the following point schedule and the most recent version of the
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards of the US Green Building
Council:
Points for LEED Certified Projects
LEED Bronze level
projects
= 10
points
LEED Silver level
projects
= 20
points
LEED Gold level
projects
= 30
points
LEED Platinum level
projects
= 50
points
In order for proposals to obtain points for this criterion, an applicant must demonstrate credible
progress towards certification as determined sufficient by the Community Development Director.
It shall not be considered sufficient to merely state a certification level without evidence
supporting progress towards actual certification by the US Green Building Council.
In no event shall a project be relieved of the adopted energy efficiency requirements of the City
that are applicable to all development projects.
C. Community Objective Scoring Criterion #3 – Small Lodges. The City's small lodges
provide a lodging experience that is becoming increasingly unique in mountain resorts.
Refurbishment, expansion and redevelopment of small lodges and lodges with small units are
increasingly challenging. In order to sustain the continued existence of these lodges, the
following points are available to projects in the Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) Zone District
and projects with lodge units that average four hundred (400) square feet or less. The
Community Development Director shall assign a score to each lodging project for this objective
based on the following point schedule:
P215
VIII.b
2.10.2014 – 2nd Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment; Exhibit B
Page 18 of 19
1. Points for Lodge Preservation Projects. Fifteen (15) points shall be assigned to lodging
projects located in the Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) Zone District. For projects in
the LP District that do not have a lodging component, no points shall be assigned.
2. Points for Small Lodging Units. Fifteen (15) points shall be assigned for lodging projects
with lodge units that average four hundred (400) square feet or less. For lodging projects
that provide lodging units averaging greater than four hundred (400) square feet, no
points shall be assigned.
For projects that qualify for both categories of points (a lodging project in the LP District
with lodge units averaging four hundred [400] square feet or less), thirty (30) points shall
be assigned.
D. Community Objective Scoring Criterion #4 – Community Commercial. This Section is
reserved for a future community objective.
(Ord. No. 14, 2007, §1)
26.470.150. Appeals.
A. Appeals of community objectives scoring. An applicant aggrieved by the community
objectives score assigned to its project by the Community Development Director may appeal the
decision to the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to the procedures and standards of
Chapter 26.316, Appeals. The Planning and Zoning Commission may uphold the scoring,
remand the scoring to the Community Development Director for rescoring with or without
direction on particular scores or may choose to rescore the project. The Planning and Zoning
Commission decision shall be the final administrative action on the matter.
Upon appeal of any project's scoring, the Community Development Director shall not process
any application for growth management allotment within the same development category until
the appeal is concluded and the final review order is established.
BA. Appeal of adverse determination by Community Development Director. An appeal
made by an applicant aggrieved by a determination made by the Community Development
Director on an application for administrative review shall be to the Planning and Zoning
Commission. The appeal procedures set forth at Chapter 26.316 shall apply. The Planning and
Zoning Commission may reverse, affirm or modify the decision or determination of the
Community Development Director based upon the application submitted to the Community
Development Director and the record established by the Director's review. The decision of the
Planning and Zoning Commission shall constitute the final administrative action on the matter.
CB. Appeal of adverse determination by Planning and Zoning Commission. An appeal
made by an applicant aggrieved by a determination made by the Planning and Zoning
Commission on an application for Planning and Zoning Commission review shall be to the City
Council. The appeal procedures set forth at Chapter 26.316 shall apply. The City Council may
reverse, affirm or modify the decision or determination of the Planning and Zoning Commission
based upon the application submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the record
established by the Commission's review. The decision of the City Council shall constitute the
final administrative action on the matter.
P216
VIII.b
2.10.2014 – 2nd Reading Growth Management Competition Code Amendment; Exhibit B
Page 19 of 19
DC. Insufficient development allotments. Any property owner within the City who is
prevented from developing a property because that year's development allotments have been
entirely allocated may appeal to the City Council for development approval. An application
requesting allotments must first be denied due to lack of necessary allotments. The appeal
procedures set forth at Chapter 26.316 shall apply. The City Council may take any such action
determined necessary, including but not limited to making a one-time increase of the annual
development allotment sufficient to accommodate the application.
(Ord. No. 14, 2007, §1)
P217
VIII.b
110 W. Main Street – Hotel Aspen
Staff Memo
2/10/14
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and City Council
FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: Hotel Aspen, 110 W. Main Street – Consolidated PUD Review,
Subdivision Review and Rezoning- Ordinance No. 51, Series of 2013.
Public Hearing, continued from Jan. 13, 2014
MEETING DATE: February 10, 2014
APPLICANT /OWNER:
Garmisch Lodging LLC
REPRESENTATIVE:
Stan Clauson Associates, Inc.
LOCATION:
110 W. Main Street, corner of Main,
Garmisch and Bleeker Streets
CURRENT ZONING:
Mixed Use along Main Street, R-6
(Medium Density Residential) along
Bleeker Street, and Lodge Preservation
Overlay over the entire 27,000 sf. parcel.
SUMMARY:
The Applicant requests approval to
remodel the existing lodge, increase
lodge units from 45 to 54 with an
average unit size of 300 sf. The
proposal includes 4 free market
residential units in the form of 2
duplexes, and 3 onsite affordable
housing units. The requested reviews
include consolidated PUD, Subdivision,
and Rezoning.
Photo: Current image of Hotel Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission
Recommendation: The P & Z recommended denial
of the proposed project by a vote of 3 -1, with 1
abstention.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the
applicant reduce the overall cumulative floor area
and the maximum unit sizes for the free market
residential units.
.
P218
VIII.c
110 W. Main Street – Hotel Aspen
Staff Memo
2/10/14
Page 2 of 2
Planning Staff met with the applicant to discuss the project on January 23rd. The applicant
requests continuation of the public hearing to February 24, 2014.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
“I move to continue Ordinance No. 51, Series of 2013 to February 24, 2014.”
P219
VIII.c
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Members of Council
FROM: James R. True
DATE: February 6, 2014
RE: Resolution Authorizing Execution of Easement Agreement with the
County and Library Board regarding Library Expansion.
MEETING DATE: February 10, 2014
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
BACKGROUND: In the late 1980’s the City of Aspen commenced construction of the Rio
Grande Parking Garage. It was completed in 1990. At the time the ownership of various parcels
of land within the City were confusing at best. For instance, the County owned Wagner Park and
parcels adjacent to the library. The City may have had interests in other parcels including, I
believe, the one on which the jail sits. In any event, to clean this up some deeds were exchanged,
including a quit claim deed to the property on which the garage sits. In this quit claim deed,
executed by County Commissioner Michael C. Ireland in 1995, the County conveyed the
property to the City but reserved to itself an easement of 44 feet for expansion of the library.
The reservation was fairly vague and was apparently added at the last minute.
The Library has sought an expansion for some time. A couple of years ago, the Library
approached the City to expand beyond the 44 feet over the surface of Galena Plaza. The Library
went through a land use process that granted approval of the proposed expansion. However, the
extended easement that would have been required for the expansion was conditioned on
successfully pursuing funding for the expansion through a citizen election. That election effort
failed.
DISCUSSION: The Library has scaled back its efforts to expand. The proposed expansion,
which was presented to council in a conceptual format at a recent work session and at the last
regular meeting, does not expand the building elements beyond the 44 feet of the original
easement reservation. However, to minimize impact to the parking garage, underground
supports will be required to extend beyond the 44 feet. Also, the proposed expansion will
require use of the 44 feet that will intrude into the garage itself. However, the intrusion will not
cause any impact on the garage operations other than during construction.
P220
VIII.d
2
To address the expansion, City, County and Library staff propose the execution of an easement
agreement. The easement agreement addresses at the outset a number of issues associated with
the construction and operation of the garage and library as we go forward. Addressing these
issues here should lessen any chance of conflict in the future. A draft of the proposed Easement
Agreement is attached to the resolution of approval. The parties are still negotiating some areas
of concern. However, the substance of the easement is set forth herein. Thus, the resolution
authorizes the City Manager to execute a final agreement subject to approval by the manager and
City Attorney.
Thus, staff members from all three entities will be available to describe the substance of the
proposed easement agreement, the library expansion and to answer any questions that might
arise.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that Council approve the Resolution No. 9,
approving the execution of an Easement Agreement in substantially the form that is attached to
the resolution.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
P221
VIII.d
EASEMENT AGREEMENT
This Easement Agreement entered into this _____ day of _________, 2014, by and
between THE CITY OF ASPEN ("City"), a Colorado municipal corporation and home rule city,
COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO (“County”) and PITKIN COUNTY LIBRARY
BOARD (“Library”), concerns and specifies the following:
RECITALS
WHEREAS, in 1995 the County conveyed to the City pursuant to a deed recorded in the
real property records of Pitkin County, in Book 785 at Page 981, Reception No. 383033 (the
“Deed”), the following described real property:
The Rio Grand Subdivision Lot 2. A part of the Southwest one quarter of Section
7, Township 10 South Range 84 West of the Sixth Meridian, City of Aspen,
Colorado according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 32 at Page 83 in the
Pitkin County Clerk & Recorder’s Office, ….
now known as the Rio Grande parking garage (the “Subject Property”); and
WHEREAS, within the deed, above described, the County reserved to itself an easement
for the expansion of the Pitkin County Library, with such reservation stated as follows:
…, reserving however, an easement for the purpose of constructing an expansion
of the existing Pitkin County Library facility. Said easement shall extend 44 (44)
(sic) feet out from the full extent of the existing east wall of the Library.
(the “Existing Reserved Easement”); and,
WHEREAS, on or about 1990, prior to the conveyance set forth in the Deed, the City
completed construction of a parking garage on the Subject Property; and
WHEREAS, the County and the Library wish to expand the existing library facility into
the existing garage and beyond the extent of the Existing Reserved Easement; and
WHEREAS, the parties recognize that the library expansion can be constructed within the
reserved easement but would require support columns through the existing garage and in order to
construct, use, operate, maintain, and repair the expansion of the existing library facility, with
minimal impact to the City’s existing parking garage and without the use of support columns, the
parties wish to define and amend the extent of the existing easement reservation and to enter into
agreements regarding the obligations of construction and operation of the library and the parking
garage; and
WHEREAS, the City is willing to grant and convey a new easement to the County and the
City and County are willing to modify the existing reserved easement, together the with the
Easement premises, on the terms and conditions herein provided to facilitate the construction of
the expansion of the library facility.
P222
VIII.d
2
THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the promises and agreements set forth below,
and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
1. Modification of Existing Reserved Easement. The Existing Reserved Easement was
designated as extending 44 feet “out from the full extent of the existing east wall of the Library.”
The parties hereby agree to modify this description so that the Easement shall extend forty-four
feet (44’) from the western edge of the Subject Property over the surface of the Galena Plaza
extending from the north edge of the library’s existing north wall to the south of the library’s
existing south wall. Further, the parties agree to modify the Existing Reserved Easement to allow
the expansion of the library facility on the southern portion of the Existing Reserved Easement,
extending from the south edge of the south wall of the existing library north for fifty-nine and 6/10
feet (59.6’) to extend approximately four feet (4’) below the surface of the roof of the existing
garage. This grant of a modification of the Existing Reserved Easement shall be perpetual and
exclusive and shall constitute a covenant running with the land to the benefit of the County library
property and burdening the Subject property. The County acknowledges and agrees, however,
that the City will improve the surface of the roof of the garage, known as Galena Plaza, and that
such improvements will be within the Existing Reserved Easement, as modified herein, abutting
the proposed expansion. This modified easement is more particularly described in Exhibit A,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and is referred to therein as Easement A.
2. Grant of New Easement. The City does hereby grant and convey to the County a
perpetual, non-exclusive easement (the "New Easement") for the purposes of providing structural
support for the excavation, construction, operation, use, maintenance, and repair of an extension
to the existing library facility within the Easement premises. The New Easement shall extend into
the Subject Property approximately seventeen and 6/10 feet (17.6’) to the east of the Existing
Reserved Easement, as modified above, and shall extend to and include the eastern edge of the
wall and columns which currently exist at such location The New Easement shall extend to the
north fifty-nine and 6/10 feet (59.6’) from the south edge of the south wall of the existing library
facility along a line, corresponding to the location of the wall and columns that currently exist,
which runs parallel to the eastern boundary of the Existing Reserved Easement, as modified above.
The New Easement is more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference and referred to therein as Easement B. The easement granted herein shall be
below the surface of the Galena Plaza and the roof of the garage and above the ceiling of the
Parking Garage and shall only be to the extent necessary to provide structural support. This grant
of easement shall run with the land for the benefit of the County and shall constitute a covenant
burdening the Subject Property and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the City and
the County and their successors and assigns. As set forth below, the City shall have access to
the easement property for maintenance of the garage air vent and any other repairs that are
necessary for the Garage.
3.
Access to Easement Premises by City. The City's agents, employees, contractors and other
designated persons may go upon the Easement premises set forth above at all reasonable times
P223
VIII.d
3
with reasonable notice to undertake routine use, inspection, operation and maintenance of the
City's parking garage and associated facilities. In the event the City plans major repairs or
replacement of infrastructure within the Easement premises, it shall provide the County with
reasonable advance notice of the work to be undertaken, and the estimated time of completion and
endeavor not to disrupt the operations of the library more than reasonably necessary.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City may go upon the Easement premises at any time in the
event of any emergency situation or condition affecting the structural integrity of the garage or the
safety of persons using the Subject property or the Easement premises, and undertake such repair
or replacement activities as it deems necessary to properly resolve the emergency situation. The
County acknowledges that such response to emergencies may impact library operations. The City
will endeavor to keep such impacts to a minimum.
After the exercise of any of its rights hereunder, the County shall grade, re-seed, re-pave
or re-sod if necessary to restore the surface of the ground to its former condition and contour or
modified condition as agreed to by the parties.
4. Improvements/Construction Agreement. The parties agree to execute, prior to the
issuance of a building permit for the extension of the library facility an improvements/construction
agreement, which will contain the following:
A. The county shall be responsible for finishes within the library’s structural footprint.
Such work shall be permitted by the City Building Department.
B. The county will be responsible for waterproofing the parking garage under library
structure, shall tie such waterproofing into the City’s garage waterproofing system
and shall monitor the library’s waterproofing. The City will have the opportunity
to monitor, assess and direct the waterproofing. The County will provide that all
guarantees, warrantees and remedies under the construction contracts with
applicable contractors run to the benefit of the City. Should leaks or other flaws
in the construction affect the waterproofing system of the garage the City’s relief
may include recovery directly from the appropriate contractor, engineer or
architect.
C. The City shall retain the right, with County approval (which shall not be
unreasonably withheld), to access for construction and maintenance the city
parking garage and plaza. The agreement shall provide an allowance for the
County, with city approval (which shall not be unreasonably withheld), to modify
the structure of the parking garage to accommodate the new library expansion based
on approved engineered drawings.
D. The agreement shall outline a management plan for construction of the library
expansion to minimize impacts to the operation of the parking garage and provide
for the reimbursement of lost revenues as a result of the construction. The County
will provide reasonable notice of any activity that will specifically impact the
garage operations.
E. The agreement shall outline the schedule of the construction of the library
expansion and Galena Plaza improvements so that the work performed is
coordinated and to minimize the length of construction impacts on the surrounding
P224
VIII.d
4
neighbors. All parties acknowledge that it is their intent to commence construction
of the library expansion and the Galena Plaza improvements in 2014.
F. The County and Library Board acknowledge that it is standard policy of the City’s
permit review process to have certain engineering studies and plans submitted by
an applicant reviewed by a third party engineer retained by the City. The County
and Library Board further acknowledge that this cost is passed onto the permit
applicant as part of the permit review process. The County and the Library Board
acknowledge that during the review process for this project it is likely that the City
will retain a third party engineer and will pass the costs of such reviews onto the
County and/or Library Board as part of the building permit application.
G. County shall be responsible for any damages caused to the garage as a result of the
construction of the library expansion. City will be responsible for any damages
caused to the library caused by the Plaza remodel.
H. The City agrees that it will comply with construction restrictions as may be required
of it on the Subject Property pursuant to the applicable building codes as a result of
the use of windows along the east side of the expansion that is planned for the
northern portion of the library. The County agrees that it will not construct any
improvement along the north wall of the library expansion or assert objections to
view obstructions that would interfere with the development of the City’s property
to the north of the Subject Property.
5. Operational Agreement. The parties agree to execute an operational agreement
prior to an issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the library expansion, which will set forth
the following:
A. Shared cost responsibility agreement for operations, maintenance, snow removal,
irrigation, drainage, capital improvements and public right of way / use based upon
proportionate share of expenses based upon square footage occupancy of the
Subject Property.
B. County shall be responsible for any damages caused to the garage through the use
of the easement. City will be responsible for any damages caused to the library
caused by Garage or Plaza operations. The parties shall provide reasonable access
to each other to make and repairs or construct improvements to the garage or the
library as may be necessary from time to time.
C. The County and Library Board acknowledge that the City has constructed a parking
garage on the Subject Property and will maintain and operate such garage consistent
with operational standards of a parking garage, including standards associated with
noise and vibrations. The parties acknowledge that the Garage has been in place for
a period of 24 years without any structural issues. The County will be responsible
for any structural damages resulting from the construction or operation of the
Library.
6. Use of Subject Property by the City. Except as specifically set forth herein,
nothing contained in this easement agreement or other agreements entered pursuant to this section
P225
VIII.d
5
shall be construed to limit or restrict the City’s use, maintenance and development of the parking
garage, the plaza or adjacent properties. The City shall retain the right to use and enjoy the
Subject Property with the exception of the easement premises, except as set forth herein, so long
as such use and enjoyment do not interfere with the County's rights to use, occupy and enjoy the
Easement premises.
7. Liability to Others. Each party shall be responsible for any and all claims,
demands, actions, losses, liabilities, or expenses of whatever sort, including attorney fees, that are
brought against it by any person or entity arising out of or in connection with such party's use or
occupation of the Easement premises, or the use or occupation of the Easement premises by its
agents, employees, contractors, invitees or licensees, provided, however, that nothing herein shall
be construed to abrogate or diminish any protections and limitations afforded to any of the parties
by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. § 24-10-101 et seq. as amended, or other
law. In the event any party, or their respective officers, directors, members, employees, agents,
contractors, representatives, heirs or assigns may be held jointly and severally liable under any
statute, decision, or other law providing for such joint and several liability for their respective
activities on the Subject Property or Easement premises, the obligations of each to respond in
damages shall be apportioned, as between the parties in proportion to the contributions of each as
measured by the acts and omissions of each which in fact caused such legal injury, damage or
harm as determined by court judgment or settlement of claims. The parties waive any rights of
subrogation against each other as relates to any claim, award, judgment, settlement or other
resolution of claims concerning the occupancy and use of the Subject Property and Easement
premises.
8. Liability to Each Other. All parties agree to hold each other harmless from and
against all claims, demands, causes of action, damages, losses, liabilities, costs, and expenses,
including but not limited to attorneys’ fees, suffered or incurred by the other party on account of
or with respect to property damage or injury or death to persons caused by the party’s use of the
Easement premises or the party’s agents, consultants, contractors, or subcontractors, on account of
or with respect to their respective acts or omissions on or about the Subject Property, including but
not limited to their respective professional, consulting, construction, maintenance, or repair
services. The parties agree that the each party shall be listed as an additional insured on the each
party’s insurance policy for purposes of occupancy and use of the Subject Property and shall
provide the other party with a copy of a certificate of insurance regarding such insurance coverage
upon request.
9. Notices. All written notices required to be given shall be deemed given upon hand
delivery or email to the person or entity to whom directed at its address shown herein, or at such
other address as shall be given by notice pursuant to this paragraph. Copies of such notices shall
be directed to the following addresses:
To CITY:
For City of Aspen:
P226
VIII.d
6
City Manager
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81612
Fax No. (970) 920-5119
With a copy to:
Aspen City Attorney
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Fax No. (970) 920-5119
For Pitkin County and Library Board:
With copies to :
10. Binding Agreement - Recording. This Agreement is binding upon the parties
hereto, their successors and assigns, and any sale of the Subject Property, or any portion thereof
shall be subject to this Agreement. This Agreement shall be recorded with the Pitkin County
Clerk and Recorder, and shall impose an easement and covenants running with the land upon the
Subject Property. Deeds to subsequent owners of the Subject Property shall provide notice of this
Agreement and the obligations contained herein.
11. Governing Law; Venue; Attorneys' Fees. This Agreement and the rights and
obligations of the parties hereunder shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the
laws of the State of Colorado. Venue for all actions arising under this Agreement shall be Pitkin
County, Colorado. In the event legal remedies must be pursued to resolve any dispute or conflict
regarding the terms of this Agreement or the rights and obligations of the parties hereto, the
substantially prevailing party shall be entitled to recover costs incurred in pursuing such remedies,
including expert witness fees and reasonable attorney fees.
12. Authorization of Signatures. The parties acknowledge and represent to each other
that all procedures necessary to validly contract and execute this Agreement have been performed
and that the persons signing for each party have been duly authorized to do so.
13. Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed using counterpart signature pages,
with the same force and effect as if all parties signed on the same signature page.
14. Termination. This agreement shall be terminated and deemed vacated if the
County and the Library Board do not commence construction of the extension of the library facility
within two years of the execution of this agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the date and year first
above written.
P227
VIII.d
7
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
A Municipal Corporation and
Home Rule City
By:___________________________ Witnessed:___________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
Aspen City Attorney
COUNTY OF PITKIN:
By: _____________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
Pitkin County Attorney
PITKIN COUNTY LIBRARY BOARD:
By: ____________________________
____________, Chair
STATE OF ___________ )
) ss.
COUNTY OF __________ )
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this ___ day of ___________, 2013, by
________________________.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: ____________
P228
VIII.d
8
___________________________
Notary Public
STATE OF __________ )
ss.
COUNTY OF ________ )
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this ___ day of ___________, 2013, by
_________________.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: ________________
____________________________
Notary Public
STATE OF __________ )
ss.
COUNTY OF ________ )
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this ___ day of ____________, 2013, by
___________________________________________.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: ________________
___________________________
Notary Public
P229
VIII.d
9
EXHIBIT A
P230
VIII.d
P231
VIII.d
P232
VIII.d
RESOLUTION NO. 9
Series of 2014
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING A PROPOSED EASEMENT AGREEMENT BY, BETWEEN AND AMONG THE
CITY OF ASPEN AND THE COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO AND THE
PITKIN COUNTY LIBRARY BOARD AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
A FINAL AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a proposed Easement Agreement
by, between and among the City of Aspen, Colorado and the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado
and the Pitkin County Library Board, a copy of which draft agreement is attached hereto and made
a part thereof.
NOW, WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section One
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves the entry into an Easement
Agreement by, between and among the City of Aspen, State of Colorado and the County of Pitkin,
State of Colorado and the Pitkin County Library Board, a draft of which is attached hereto and
does hereby authorize the City Manager of the City of Aspen to execute a final agreement on behalf
of the City of Aspen in substantially the form attached hereto, subject to the approval of the City
Manager and the City Attorney.
Dated _________________, 2014.
_____________________________
Steve Skadron, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a
true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, at a meeting held February 10, 2014.
______________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
P233
VIII.d
Page 1 of 7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: William Dolan, Utilities Project Coordinator
THRU: David Hornbacher – Director of Utilities and Environmental
Initiatives
DATE OF MEMO: February 3, 2014
DATE OF MEETING: February 10, 2014
RE: 2014 Renewable Energy Work Overview and Status of the CCEC
BACKGROUND: In January of 2013, Council gave staff direction to postpone forward progress on the
Castle Creek Energy Center (CCEC) project and begin researching additional renewable energy options.
The City contracted with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to aid in this research,
with CCEC as one of the many renewable alternatives being analyzed during this process. In order to
ensure an “all options” approach, City staff has been maintaining the City’s FERC preliminary permit
(via filing regular six-month updates), effectively preserving Council’s right to make a decision on the
CCEC project in the future. Concurrently, City staff has also been proceeding with a settlement process
in the water rights abandonment case, T. Richard Butera et al. v. City of Aspen, Pitkin County Case No.
11CW130. Accordingly, this memo will cover three interrelated topics:
1) NREL Project Overview;
2) FERC Permit Maintenance; and
3) Water Rights Abandonment Case Settlement Negotiations
DISCUSSION:
1) NREL Project Overview
Staff has contracted with NREL to analyze the City’s renewable energy alternatives, and devise a work
plan that encourages informed decision-making on the part of Council to meet the 100% by 2015 goal
(or as close to it as possible). In leveraging NREL’s resources and expertise, staff is trying to create an
unbiased, thorough, and structured forum in which members of Council are presented with all feasible
project options, and all their most relevant characteristics. This 3-step process is designed to have
Council progressively hone-in on the best alternative(s), and ultimately give staff explicit direction to
actively pursue those favorites (up to 3) to meet our renewable energy goal:
• Step 1: November 15th, 2013 Council work session. During that work session, Staff and NREL
representatives covered foundational concepts and background information (contract history,
conceptual definitions, etc.)—effectively laying the groundwork for steps 2 and 3. The cost of
this step was $20,000;
• Step 2: March, 2014. This step will involve a surface-level presentation of all alternatives
explored by NREL, and assessed according to the project criteria chosen during Step 1. Staff
will request that Council select up to 3 alternatives from this list for final research/investigation
P234
IX.a
Page 2 of 7
by NREL. The results of this research will be the subject of Step 3. The cost of this step is
estimated at $19,000.
• Step 3: May, 2014. This final step will involve a more in-depth presentation of the alternatives
chosen by Council during Step 2. Again, the final alternative(s) will be assessed according to the
chosen criteria from Step 1. The end goal of this step is to receive clear direction from Council
regarding which alternative(s) staff should actively pursue—setting a clear course forward
towards Aspen’s renewable energy goals. The cost of this step—if authorized by Council—is
estimated at$30,000.
2) FERC Preliminary Permit Maintenance
The City currently holds a Successor Preliminary Permit with the FERC for the Castle Creek
Hydroelectric Project. According to the FERC:
A preliminary permit, issued for up to three years, does not authorize construction; rather,
it maintains priority of application for license (i.e., guaranteed first-to-file status) while
the permittee studies the site and prepares to apply for a license. The permittee must
submit periodic reports on the status of its studies. It is not necessary to obtain a permit in
order to apply for or receive a license.1
While this permit is not necessary for licensing per se, the permit operates to protect priority of
application while the applicant performs the studies and gathers information necessary for a license
application. Without a preliminary permit in place, anyone else could file on the project and use the
permit-based priority to keep others from filing a license application. The preliminary permit operates
to protect the permittee’s investment in the process – to keep others from filing on the project – and to
maintain priority while the permittee undertakes the very public process of consultation.
The current preliminary permit expires on March 1st, 2015. In order to maintain this permit, City staff—
in conjunction with the City’s FERC lawyer Karl Kumli—has been regularly submitting the required
six-month status reports necessary to maintain it. These reports effectively summarize any and all
project-related work completed and/or ongoing over the past six months (see Attachment 1, below).
The next report is due on March 1st, 2014, and serves as our best opportunity to complete the FERC’s
“administrative record” of the project prior to permit reapplication or extension later this year.2 Staff’s
continuing to maintain this permit via 6-month filings merely maintains the current state of the CCEC—
neither moving it forwards nor backwards.
On the whole, this permit application represents a significant investment by the City and its consultants
in time, effort and cost. Not filing the next 6-month update could be seen by the FERC as a de facto
surrender of the City’s permit and, more broadly, its intention to ever pursue the CCEC—prematurely
eliminating one of the renewable options before Council work with NREL is completed.
3) Water Rights Case Settlement Negotiations
The City of Aspen and representatives of the Plaintiffs continue to discuss a resolution of the ongoing
abandonment case. The discussions involve developing a scope of further study of impacts of the CCEC
on Castle and Maroon Creeks. The costs of the implementation of any agreed-upon study will be
1 http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/gen-info/licensing/pre-permits.asp
2 This record should include all studies and reports related to the project. Although all of these studies and reports have
been referenced in previous 6-month filings, they have not been attached and submitted as complete documents.
P235
IX.a
Page 3 of 7
divided equally between the City and the Plaintiffs. The trial of the case, previously set for October of
2013, was vacated and has now been set to commence on September 11, 2014, if the settlement
discussions are ultimately unsuccessful.
REQUEST OF COUNCIL
1) Staff requests approval for use of up to $ 8,000 funding in the current budget year to maintain
the City’s FERC permit, which will involve staff and consultant time;
2) Staff is also requesting approval of $30,000 for the 3rd and final step of the NREL renewable
options project. If Council approves, this amount will be added to the next supplemental
appropriation ordinance and staff will return with the contract and work scope for approval on a
future City Council Agenda.
Both requests are consistent with preserving Council’s opportunity for future decisions.
ALTERNATIVES:
• City staff prepares and submits a minimal report without the full detailed expertise and guidance
from the City’s FERC Consulting lawyer.
• City staff does not file the next six-month report and allows the preliminary permit to expire.
o A significant portion of the value of permitting actions to date is lost.
o The project becomes “open for competition” from other applicants.
o Once expired, the City is precluded from re-filing for at least 2 years from the date of the
permit’s expiration.
• The NREL project is limited to 2 steps, and Council makes their final renewable energy
decisions based on the information provided in steps 1 and 2.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
1) The work necessary to complete and file the next 6-month FERC update is estimated to cost
between $5,000 and $8,000;
2) The work necessary to complete Step 3 of the NREL process is estimated at $30,000.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff and the City’s legal counsel advise that the six month report be filed in
order to maintain the permit and effectively preserve all options for Council to decide upon during the
NREL process. Staff also recommends that the 3rd and final step in the NREL process be funded to
ensure that Council has the information necessary to settle on the best renewable energy option(s).
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Example Six-Month Successor Report
P236
IX.a
Page 4 of 7
Attachment 1: Example Six-Month Successor Report
P237
IX.a
Page 5 of 7
P238
IX.a
Page 6 of 7
P239
IX.a
Page 7 of 7
P240
IX.a
Jim Markalunas
624 W. North Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(970) 925-7071
February 10, 2014
Aspen City Council
Citizen Comments
RE: CCEC—FERC Permit Application
To the Honorable Mayor& City Council:
As a long-time citizen of Aspen, who has had the privilege to serve this community in
various capacities, it has been my unique experience to have been an operator of the
historic Castle Creek Power Plant. My experiences are documented in various
publications.
It saddens me to see the overwhelming 2007 endorsement of the restoration of renewable
energy be nullified by a very close 2012 advisory question improperly skewed by a
deliberate and concerted effort of outside money and false propaganda.
I hope this Council will have the intestinal fortitude not to give in to selfish interests who
have their own "hidden agendas" or"personal vendettas".
In closing, this community has an illustrious history in the development of clean hydro-
electric energy. I hope you will continue the tradition. Please! Stay the course! Do not
be unduly influenced or misled by false claims and "slick" ads. There will be continued
efforts to negate this community's water rights. You as City Council Members have a
moral obligation to protect Aspen's heritage and its future.
Please support the extension of the application for the FERC Permit.
Respectfully,
arkalunas
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Date February 10, 2014 Call to order at:
I_ Councilmembers present: Councilmembers not present:
Ann Mullins ❑ Ann Mullins
Steve Skadron ❑ Steve Skadron
Adam Frisch ❑-Adam Frisch
❑ Art Daily ZArt Daily
`R—Dwayne Romero ❑ Dwayne Romero
II. Motion to go into executive session by �—ei C '� ; seconded by
Other persons present:
AGAINST:
NF R:
Ann Mullins ❑ Ann Mullins
Steve Skadron ❑ Steve Skadron
,Adam Frisch ❑ Adam Frisch
❑Art Daily ❑ Art Daily
`Dwayne Romero ❑ Dwayne Romero
III. MOTION TO CONVENE EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION OF:
R.S. 24-6-402(4)
Oa) he purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest
(b) Conferences with an attorney for the local public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal
questions.
(c)Matters required to be kept confidential by federal or state law or rules and regulations.
(d) Specialized details of security arrangements or investigations, including defenses against terrorism, both domestic and
foreign, and including where disclosure of the matters discussed might reveal information that could be used for the
purpose of committing, or avoiding prosecution for, a violation of the law;
(e) Determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations; developing strategy for negotiations; and
instructing negotiators;
(f) (I) Personnel matters except if the employee who is the subject of the session has requested an open meeting, or if the
personnel matter involves more than one employee, all of the employees have requested an open meeting.
IV. ATTESTATION:
The undersigned attorney, representing the Council and being present at the executive session, attests that the
subject of the unrecorded portions of the session constituted confidential attorney-client communication:
s.
i
The undersigned chair of the executive session attests that the di ssions ' .this e�e were limited
to the topic(s) described in Section I1I, above.
I
C�o ;
Adjourned at: