HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20140224
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
February 24, 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 #11, 2014 - Golf Course Restaurant lease
b) Resolution #12, 2014 - Data Center Rack & Cooling System
c) Resolution #14, 2014 - Truscott Housing Change Order
d) Resolution #15, 2014 - Employee Generation Study contract RRC
e) Resolution #13,2014 -- Wheeler Film Society Agreement
f) Minutes - February 10, 2014
VII. First Reading of Ordinances
VIII. Public Hearings
a) Ordinance #4, 2014 - Pacific Avenue Condominiums - Affordable Housing Credits
b) Ordinance #6, 2014 - Approving Lease Purchase Agreement IT Firewall
c) Ordinance #3, 2014 -- Procurement Policy Threshold Limits
d) Ordinance #51, 2013 - Hotel Aspen, 110 W. Main St., PUD, Subdivision, Rezone
IX. Action Items
X. Adjournment
Next Regular Meeting March 10, 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.
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: STEVE AITKEN, DIRECTOR OF GOLF
THRU: STEVE BARWICK, CITY MANAGER
THRU: JIM TRUE, CITY ATTORNEY
THRU: JEFF WOODS, PARKS AND RECREATION MANAGER
DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 2014
RE: GOLF COURSE RESTAURANT LEASE
SUMMARY: Staff is recommending approval of a new lease agreement
with Jamie Ramey and Richard Burbidge (Red Mountain Grill) for operation
of the restaurant at the golf course.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In March 2008, Council agreed to the
assignment of the existing lease agreement from Shlomo Ben Hamu to Jamie
Ramey and Richard Burbidge (Red Mountain Grill).
P1
VI.a
DISCUSSION: Jamie Ramey and Richard Burbidge (Red Mountain Grill)
have operated the Aspen Golf Course Restaurant since the lease was
assigned to them in 2008. Prior to 2008 Jamie and Richard managed the
Aspen Golf Course Restaurant for Shlomo Ben Hamu. The current lease is
set to expire and staff has completed the Request for Proposal process for
potential operators at the golf course restaurant. Two proposals were
received from interested candidates at the facility. A panel of individuals
were assembled to review proposals from qualified candidates. This panel
included Jeff Woods Parks and Recreation Manager, Chuck Torinus Golf
Advisory Board Member, Scott Miller Asset Manager, Rebeca Hodgson
Purchasing Manager and myself. Selection of the candidate for the lease
agreement was based on previous experience, financial stability, content of
proposal, financial proposal and an interest to make the facility a year round
viable restaurant operation. From this process, the panel agreed unanimously
to award Jamie Ramey and Richard Burbidge (Red Mountain Grill) the
operation at the golf course restaurant. Although the other candidate was
qualified, the proposal panel agreed that the Red Mountain Grill proposal
was superior to the other proposal for the following reasons:
Red Mountain Grill offered a higher lease payment to the City.
Red Mountain Grills proposal addressed in greater detail the
operation, menus, and pricing.
Red Mountain Grill has been successfully operating the golf course
restaurant for the last 6 years.
Red Mountain Grill continues to provide a year round restaurant
operation.
Red Mountain Grill is operated by a local partnership, the other
proposal was from a partnership out of Denver.
The new lease agreement will provide:
A 5 year lease with an option for an additional 5 years.
The new lease is for a flat rate of $20,000.00 per year up to
$300,000.00, with an additional 8% over $300,000.00 to the City.
There is a cap at gross revenues over $600,000.00. Any amount over
this, the operator will not be obligated to pay a percentage.
P2
VI.a
The operator will pay to the City 20% of all utilities- gas, electricity,
water, sewer.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Staff and Red Mountain Grill have
agreed upon a lease agreement of five years with an option for an additional
5 years (see attached contract). For the first 5 years Red Mountain Grill
agrees to pay to the City a flat rate of $20,000.00 per year. In addition any
gross revenues over $300,000.00 up to $600,000.00 the business will pay the
City 8% per year. Revenues above $600,000.00 will not be assessed a
percentage in revenue to the City.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the approval of the contract
for restaurant operations at the golf course with Red Mountain Grill.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
P3
VI.a
RESOLUTION #11
(Series of 2014)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A LEASE BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND
RED MOUNTAIN GRILL RESTAURANT LLC, AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID LEASE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a lease for the
Aspen golf club restaurant, between the City of Aspen and Red Mountain Grill
Restaurant LLC, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit I.
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 lease for
the Aspen golf club restaurant, between the City of Aspen and Red Mountain Grill
Restaurant 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 24th day of February 2014.
Steven 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 24, 2014.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
P4
VI.a
P5
VI.a
EXHIBIT “B” INVENTORY
3 TVS
3 TV Mounts
8 Glass Shelves
8 stools, 3 small stools
6 Blinds
2 BEC Register Systems
Bar Top and Railing
10 Speakers 4 domes and 4 upright light fixtures
4’ prep table
Wall Coverings
21 Mahogany Tables
29 Chairs
13 Metal Tables
34 Metal Chairs
3 Floor Mats
2 Loading Dock Racks
1 Food Rack
3 Storage Room Shelves
60 Plates
Silverware
1 Beverage Cart
P6
VI.a
P7
VI.a
EXHIBIT C
No significant alterations, additions, or improvements have been made to the building.
P8
VI.a
P9
VI.a
P10
VI.a
EXHIBIT “F”
Customer Survey Form
(Circle Appropriate Response)
1. I found the restaurant staff to be friendly and accommodating
Excellent Good Fair Poor
2. I found the menu selections to be in line with a Golf, Tennis, Nordic setting.
Excellent Good Fair Poor
3. The quality of the food and preparation were:
Excellent Good Fair Poor
4. The cleanliness of the restaurant was:
Excellent Good Fair Poor
5. The food was prepared in a timely fashion:
Excellent Good Fair Poor
P11
VI.a
EXHIBIT “G” SIGNAGE
Hwy 82 Sign
Truscott Drive “T”
Below Awning on Restaurant Side of Building 6 Foot Sign
Menu Board on 8th Tee
Menu Board at Tennis Facility
P12
VI.a
Exhibit "I"P13
VI.a
P14
VI.a
P15
VI.a
P16
VI.a
P17
VI.a
P18
VI.a
P19
VI.a
P20
VI.a
P21
VI.a
P22
VI.a
P23
VI.a
P24
VI.a
P25
VI.a
P26
VI.a
P27
VI.a
P28
VI.a
P29
VI.a
P30
VI.a
P31
VI.a
P32
VI.a
P33
VI.a
P34
VI.a
P35
VI.a
P36
VI.a
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jim Considine, IT Director
THRU: Don Taylor, Finance/Admin Services Director
DATE OF MEMO: 02/12/2014
MEETING DATE: 02/24/2014
RE: ISC Contract for City Data Center Equipment Racks
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Approve contract for the acquisition and installation of new
computer equipment racks for the new City Data Center.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Approved capital funding for 2014
BACKGROUND: Council has not discussed this before.
DISCUSSION: The City of Aspen has completed the construction of a new Computer Data
Center in the basement of City Hall. This contract is for the acquisition and implementation of
computer equipment racks and associated cooling equipment. These racks embody modern
cooling methodology that directly cools the equipment in the racks. In the past the equipment
would dissipate the heat into the room and we would cool the entire room.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Cost of the equipment is $63,904.21. Installation
services are $52,618.51.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The directly cooled racks are estimated to be at least 40%
more efficient than cooling the entire room. In addition, the directly cooled racks apply the
cooling where it is needed, thereby extending the useful life of the computer equipment.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve ISC contract.
ALTERNATIVES: This is the most effective and efficient equipment currently available. Less
expensive racking options would not provide the energy efficiencies. The cooling equipment
and associated installation would be roughly the same for a room cooled option.
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Resolution #12.”
P37
VI.b
Page 2 of 2
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
P38
VI.b
RESOLUTION # 12
(Series of 2014)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND ISC CORPORATION 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 Data
Center Rack & Cooling System, between the City of Aspen and ISC Corporation, a
true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract for
Data Center Rack & Cooling System, between the City of Aspen and ISC
Corporation, 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 24th day of February 2014.
Steven 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 24, 2014.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
P39
VI.b
P40
VI.b
P41
VI.b
P42
VI.b
P43
VI.b
P44
VI.b
P45
VI.b
P46
VI.b
P47
VI.b
P48
VI.b
P49
VI.b
P50
VI.b
P51
VI.b
P52
VI.b
P53
VI.b
P54
VI.b
P55
VI.b
P56
VI.b
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
__________________________________________
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John Laatsch –Project Manager, Capital Asset
THRU: Barry Crook – Assistant City Manager
Scott Miller – Capital Asset Director
DATE OF MEMO: February 14, 2014
MEETING DATE: February 24, 2014
RE: Approval of a Re-Grading and Drainage Design, Truscott Housing
Project: Analysis thru Design Implementation Documents
CHANGE ORDER to include the Area 1 Buildings 200 & 300.
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: At this time we are requesting City Council to authorize a Change
Order to the approved Professional Services Contract for the Re-Grading and Drainage Design
Truscott Affordable Housing Area 2A with SGM-Inc. for work in the 1B area of Truscott
Affordable Housing which includes the 200 & 300 buildings in the amount of $67,191.00 plus
reimbursable expenses.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council approved a contract with SGM, Inc. to provide Re-
Grading and Drainage Design Truscott Affordable Housing Area 2A with SGM-Inc. Resolution
65-2013 with a total expenditure of $50,000.
BACKGROUND: For several years the Housing Office and the Capital Asset Department have
been reviewing existing site conditions for the Truscott Affordable Housing Project. Discussions
had taken place as to the conditions that are present in the 1A, 2A and 1B areas. These
development areas have shown settlement conditions and drainage inadequacies that left
unresolved may create a shortened life span to the structures.
In this contract we have requested the development of a detailed Analysis to clearly demonstrate
the conditions that staff believes exists and to be able to present the Analysis to City Council and
to the Tax Credit finance partner managed by Boston Financial Investment Management (Boston
Financial). Once we have a correction plan for the site grading and drainage issues we will be
requesting a funding package to implement the designed corrections. The Change Order is to
have the consultant team lead by SGM-Inc. with Landscape Architecture by DHM and additional
Survey by Sopris Engineering repeat the work assignments of the original contract to this 1B area
that includes the 200 & 300 buildings.
DISCUSSION: The 200 & 300 buildings are the second oldest structures at Truscott and where
built primarily with wood siding, structural beams and columns as well as typical floor
construction. These two building were also positioned on the site in a low area which now has
created inadequate drainage around the site and it appears that much of the site does not drain
P57
VI.c
Page 2 of 2
away from the buildings. It also appears that damage has occurred to some of the wood members
making it imperative to move diligently forward to find corrections to the drainage problems.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Budget of $206,000 has been allocated for site
improvements for this area of Truscott Affordable Housing and therefore provides for anticipated
design services and limited site corrections. Funds for this request are budgeted and are for the
intended purpose.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Achieving proper drainage and preserving existing structures
are positive environmental impacts.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that City Council approves a Change Order
for the sum of $67,191 plus reimbursable expenses and contingency/staff value for a total project
Change Order authorization of $75,000.
ALTERNATIVES: Council could choose not to approve this proposed Change Order to the
Professional Services Contract. Staff would need to further postpone the solutions to the site
grading and drainage with a level of risk that further harm occurs to the housing structures.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
______
______________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Proposal for Change Order Services
Attachment B: Change Order No. 2
Attachment C: Truscott Affordable Housing, Location Plan
P58
VI.c
RESOLUTION # 14
(Series of 2014)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND SGM INCORPORATED 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 the
Re-Grading and Drainage Design Truscott Affordable Housing Area 1B , between
the City of Aspen and SGM Inc., a true and accurate copy of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit “A”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract
for the Re-Grading and Drainage Design Truscott Affordable Housing Area 1B ,
between the City of Aspen and SGM Inc., a copy of which is annexed hereto and
incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said
agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 24th day of February 2014.
Steven 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 24, 2014.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
P59
VI.c
City of Aspen
Truscott Affordable Housing Re-Grading and Drainage
Design
p | 1
Scope of Work
This Scope of Work identifies the deliverables, meetings, and potential issues/conflicts for the
Truscott Affordable Housing Re-Grading and Drainage Design for Buildings 200 and 300. SGM
has teamed with Sopris Engineering to provide surveying support, DHM to provide landscape
architectural input and design, and Hydrosystems KDI-Systems for irrigation design. The overall
objective for this project is to recommend re-grading and drainage improvements to improve the
ability of runoff to be collected in the site drainage system and limit the impacts of moisture
introduced to the buildings and surrounding site. Following is a list of tasks to implement the
Scope of Work followed by more detail regarding the objective and deliverables for each task.
Task 1 – Detailed Engineering Analysis
Task 2 – Detailed Grading and Drainage Plan
Task 3 – Revised Drainage Report
Task 4 – Project Coordination
Task 5 – Implementation Documents; Plans and Specifications
Task 6 – Project and Construction Schedules
Task 7 – Probable Cost of Construction
Task 1. Detailed Engineering Analysis
Objective: conduct a detailed engineering analysis that identifies all issues related to the project
site drainage such as areas where:
Snow falls/drops from the buildings
Shade during the winter and/or summer
Functioning and non-functioning drainage/stormwater facilities
Gutters and down spouts daylight
Excessive vegetation is causing obstructions to the soil surfaces and buildings
Lack of positive drainage away from the buildings/ponding
Sopris Engineering will also conduct a detailed survey of the project area that complies with the
City of Aspen’s Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP) certified survey expectations. The
SGM team members (DHM and Sopris Engineering) will conduct two site visits to discuss the
project and document the existing drainage patterns, issues and concerns for purposes of
developing re-grading and drainage recommendations. Upon completion of the Draft Detailed
Engineering Analysis and Report, the SGM Team will meet with City Engineering staff to review
the issues and proposed recommendations. We will incorporate one round of comments from
the City Asset Management Department, City Engineering, the City Forester, and the Truscott
Affordable Housing Management prior to finalizing the Final Detailed Engineering Analysis.
P60
VI.c
City of Aspen
Truscott Affordable Housing Re-Grading and Drainage
Design
p | 2
We are assuming that the subsurface soil conditions are similar to those for the adjacent Phase
IIA site. We will discuss the need for additional soils testing of the materials within the project
area with the City Project Manager. DHM will include time to collect and submit the samples to
the Colorado State University Extension lab. The specific lab fees are estimated and included
as part of the Reimbursables for the project.
Deliverables: Draft/Final Detailed Engineering Analysis. Survey. Meeting with City Engineering.
Task 2. Detailed Grading and Drainage Plan Design
Objective: develop a detailed grading and drainage plan that integrates into the existing
development and enhances the area for the benefit of the buildings located within the project
area. The removal of excess water from the site is an important consideration.
Task Description: We will develop two conceptual design options relative to the drainage goals
for the project area. We anticipate that the concepts will include tree removal and landscaping
recommendations and therefore we have added DHM to our team to provide those services.
Deliverable: 60% and 100% level detailed Grading and Drainage Plan; Analysis; Criteria;
Detailed Design.
Task 3. Revised Drainage Report
Objective: develop a revised drainage report (update Sopris Engineering’s report, August 2000).
Task Description: We will develop a revised drainage report and/or supplement to the original
drainage report developed by Sopris Engineering and/or a Minor Drainage Report depending
upon the input received from the City Engineering Department in Task 1. In general the revised
drainage report (or variation of) will incorporate the overall drainage patterns approved by the
original report unless approved by the City Engineering Department and include criteria and
stormwater concepts included in the URMP, specifically rain gardens, trench drains, and/or
permeable pavement as examples.
Deliverable: Revised Drainage Report (or variation of as directed by the City Engineering
Department in Task 1).
Task 4. Project Coordination
Objective: maintain consistent and frequent communication with the City Asset Management
Department and the City Engineering Department.
Task Description: We would like to have a project Kickoff Meeting with representatives of the
City’s Asset Management Team, City Engineering, Parks and Recreation (City Forester, Chris
Foreman), Truscott Property Management, and Housing Office to review the project goals,
anticipated drainage design and landscaping needs. This upfront meeting will also facilitate
communication and coordination throughout the project, ultimately leading to a streamlined
permit approval.
Deliverable: Meeting Minutes.
P61
VI.c
City of Aspen
Truscott Affordable Housing Re-Grading and Drainage
Design
p | 3
Task 5. Implementation Documents
Objective: develop and compile the necessary Minor Drainage Project and Sufficiency Review
components for permitting, implementation, and construction.
Task Description: We understand that the City has specific items that need to be included in
documents and drawings submitted for permit review and approval. We will develop those items
required by the permit review process as identified in the Sufficiency Review Checklist;
Landscape and Grading Permit, Compliant City Survey; Minor Grading/Drainage Plan,
Construction Management Plan, and Excavation Stabilization are needed.
Deliverables: Required components included in the Sufficiency Review Checklist; Landscape
and Grading Permit, Compliant City Survey; Minor Grading/Drainage Plan, Construction
Management Plan, and Excavation Stabilization.
Task 6. Project and Construction Schedules
Objective: develop a project and construction schedule.
Deliverables: Project and construction schedules.
Task 7. Probable Cost of Construction
Objective: develop a probable cost of construction.
Task Description: SGM maintains an extensive database of past projects in our service area as
well as utilizing available construction cost bid summary data on a state and regional basis to
develop current construction cost estimates. We are also in contact with key local Contractors
and material suppliers regarding construction cost trends due to material fluctuations and
General Condition requirements. We have always felt that there is some art in anticipating
variations in construction costs that may be on the horizon versus relying solely on past
information.
Deliverable: Probable Cost of Construction.
Schedule
We are anticipating a 16-18 week schedule following a Notice to Proceed:
Week 1-2
• Information gathering.
• Review prior Truscott Drainage Report.
Week 2
• Kickoff Meeting
• Site visit
• Utilities located.
Week 3
• Conduct survey.
P62
VI.c
City of Aspen
Truscott Affordable Housing Re-Grading and Drainage
Design
p | 4
• Begin Engineering Analysis
Week 4-6
• Develop initial grading and drainage options/concepts.
• First Property Management meeting (present concepts with City staff in attendance.
• Housing Office Meeting.
Week 5-7
• Meet with City Capital Asset and Engineering Departments to review
concepts/approach.
• Revise initial grading and drainage options/concepts based upon input at meeting.
• Drainage and Grading plan criteria design.
• Develop draft revised drainage report.
Weeks 8-10
• Develop/Submit Detailed Engineering Analysis and Design.
• Second Property Management meeting (present concepts with City staff in attendance).
• Drainage and Grading plan detail design.
Weeks 10-12
• Finalize drainage report.
• Develop proposed schedule, probable cost of construction based on detail design.
Weeks 12-14
• Develop Implementation Documents.
• Submit all final designs and documents for permit review.
Week 14-16
• Final Property Management meeting (present concepts with City staff in attendance).
We will keep you advised of our progress and any changes that are encountered.
Design Fees and Reimbursables
We propose to perform the Scope of Work associated with the Truscott Housing Development
Re-Grading and Drainage Design (Buildings 200 & 300) project for a fee of $66,691. We would
anticipate reproduction reimbursables in the range of $500 for a total fee of $67,191. This cost
estimate assumes:
Two site visits for SGM, DHM and Sopris Engineering
Irrigation design for 2-3 acres (maximum)
No as-built drawings will be developed
The following table outlines the hours and costs per task.
P63
VI.c
City of Aspen
Tr
u
s
c
o
t
t
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
R
e
-
G
ra
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
D
e
s
i
g
n
p | 5
SG
M
St
a
f
f
Ho
u
r
s
Su
b
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
Ta
s
k
/
T
a
s
k
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Ja
y
Ha
m
m
o
n
d
An
g
i
e
Fo
w
l
e
r
/
An
d
r
e
w
Ra
p
e
i
j
k
o
Te
r
r
y
Be
n
d
e
t
t
i
DH
M
So
p
r
i
s
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
Hy
d
r
o
S
y
s
t
e
m
s
‐KD
I
,
In
c
.
Re
i
m
b
u
r
s
a
b
l
e
s
Total Hours Task Totals
Ta
s
k
1.
De
t
a
i
l
e
d
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
An
a
l
y
s
i
s
50
8
58 37,831
Ta
s
k
2.
De
t
a
i
l
e
d
Gr
a
d
i
n
g
an
d
Dr
a
i
n
a
g
e
Pl
a
n
De
s
i
g
n
32
8
40 5,040
Ta
s
k
3.
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Dr
a
i
n
a
g
e
Re
p
o
r
t
48
8
56 7,200
Ta
s
k
4.
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Co
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
2
24
2
28 3,750
Ta
s
k
5.
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
24
4
28 3,600
Ta
s
k
6.
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
an
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
s
16
2
18 2,340
Ta
s
k
7.
Pr
o
b
a
b
l
e
Co
s
t
of
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
16
4
20 2,520
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
an
d
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
Co
n
t
r
o
l
6
24
2
32 4,410
To
t
a
l
s
8
23
4
38
$1
7
,
2
6
2
$7
,
0
3
5
$6
,
0
6
4
$5
0
0
280 $67,191
P64VI.c
City of Aspen
Truscott Affordable Housing Re-Grading and Drainage
Design
p | 6
QA/QC and Project Management
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) will play a significant role in providing a final product
that will meet the City’s expectations. SGM’s QA/QC process ensures that all our projects are
cost-effective, constructible, and manageable and are completed within budget and on
schedule. We do not believe that it is the City’s responsibility to perform this task and we strive
to ensure that the documents we put out are technically correct and error free. The Principal-in-
Charge assigns the QA/QC team members once the planning documents are started, and the
team members maintain responsibility for their assignments throughout the duration of the
project.
Prior to the start of work, an internal project planning conference is held, which includes the key
personnel on the project. As the project nears completion there will be two separate reviews. An
engineering specific review will be performed on the design plans by an engineer that has not
been involved in the design. This review provides a fresh perspective to the design. The second
review will verify that all of the different design elements will mesh together. This is important to
ensure that all of the special information on the plans is tied together. The documents are
reviewed in detail and experience is shared on any anticipated “obstacles” that may require
special attention or expertise within SGM. This is one of the principal reasons for the diverse
backgrounds of staff assigned to this team. The QA/QC effort will also include the review of
existing information, as well as any other City requirements that may apply to this project.
P65
VI.c
CITY OF ASPEN
CHANGE ORDER FORM
CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 02
PROJECT NAME: ____Truscott Affordable Housing; Regrading and Drainage
Project 2013-062
ACCOUNT NUMBER 491.94.94393.82030
PO NUMBER:__036851____
TO: SGM, Schmueser Gordon Meyer
118 West 6th Street, Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Contract Date: ___June 17, 2013
Upon approval of this form by designee, you are directed to make the following changes in
this contract:
See Attached Proposal
The original Contract Sum was ………….……………….…………………$ 34,615.00
Net change by previous Change Orders…………………………………..…$ 16,000.00
The Contract Sum prior to this Change was ………………………………...$ 50,615.00
The Contract Sum will be increased
By this Change Order ……………………...………………………...$ 67,191.00
The new Contract Sum, including this Change Order,
Will be ………………………………………………………………$ 117,806.00
ACCEPTED BY:
Jay W. Hammond, P.E.
SGM, Inc
ADDRESS
118 W. Sixth St.
Suite 200
Glenwood Springs,
CO 81601
BY:
DATE:
REVIEWED BY:
John Laatsch
CAPITAL ASSET
CITY OF ASPEN
ADDRESS
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen
CO 81611
BY:
DATE:
APPROVED BY:
Scott Miller
CAPITAL ASSET
CITY OF ASPEN
ADDRESS
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen
CO 81611
BY:
DATE:
P66
VI.c
P6
7
VI
.
c
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council
FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: Contract: Single-Family and Duplex Employee Generation Study
DATE: February 24, 2014
SUMMARY:
On January 6th, City Council held a work session regarding housing mitigation for the development
of single-family and duplex construction. Staff received direction to seek professional services for
defining the employee generation of homes. This is an important step in the City’s ongoing effort to
implement revisions to the affordable housing impact fee system. The work session summary is
attached.
Staff solicited proposals through the City’s standard procurement process. One proposal was
submitted from RRC Associates. There are very few firms with the expertise required to perform
this type of work. RRC is an expert in this field, is very familiar with resort real estate dynamics,
and has performed similar work for the City of Aspen in the past. The proposal is responsive to the
scope, budget, and timeline expectations of staff.
The ComDev budget does not include this study. The study is projected to cost $28,500. Staff
requested the consultant also estimate costs for optional site visits. Those are projected to cost
$2,000 to $2,500 each. These may be desired for Council work sessions or meetings with the
development community.
Staff is requesting a budget supplemental of $33,000 and contract approval to engage with
RRC Associates.
OPTIONS:
A. Approval of the contract as proposed – Recommended.
B. Direction to staff to solicit additional proposals or proposals with reduced scope.
C. Reconsideration of assessing affordable housing impacts to single-family development.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
I move the adoption of Resolution No. 15, Series 2014, approving a contract with RRC Associates
for an employee generation study.”
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Draft Resolution and Contract
B – Feb 8th proposal form RRC Associates
C – Jan 6th work session summary
P68
VI.d
RESOLUTION # 15
(Series of 2014)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND RRC ASSOCIATES, LLC 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
Employee Generation Study, between the City of Aspen and RRC Associates,
LLC, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract for
Employee Generation Study, between the City of Aspen and RRC Associates,
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 24th day of February 2014.
Steven 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 24, 2014.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
P69
VI.d
Agreement Professional Services Page 0
CITY OF ASPEN STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT V 2009
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
City of Aspen Project No.: 2014-006.
AGREEMENT made as of 24th day of February, in the year 2014.
BETWEEN the City:
Contract Amount:
The City of Aspen
c/o Chris Bendon
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: (970) 920-5055
And the Professional:
RRC Associates, LLC
c/o Chris Cares
4940 Pearl East Circle, Ste 103
Boulder, CO 80301
Phone: 303-449-6558 x2115
For the Following Project:
Employee Generation Study
Exhibits appended and made a part of this Agreement:
If this Agreement requires the City to pay
an amount of money in excess of
$25,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid
until it has been approved by the City
Council of the City of Aspen.
City Council Approval:
Date: February 24, 2014
Resolution No.:___________________
Exhibit A: Scope of Work.
Exhibit B: Fee Schedule.
Total: $28,500.00
P70
VI.d
Agreement Professional Services Page 1
The City and Professional agree as set forth below.
1. Scope of Work. Professional shall perform in a competent and professional manner the
Scope of Work as set forth at Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein.
2. Completion. Professional shall commence Work immediately upon receipt of a written Notice
to Proceed from the City and complete all phases of the Scope of Work as expeditiously as is
consistent with professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the Work in a timely manner.
The parties anticipate that all Work pursuant to this Agreement shall be completed no later than
August 1, 2014. Upon request of the City, Professional shall submit, for the City's approval, a
schedule for the performance of Professional's services which shall be adjusted as required as the
project proceeds, and which shall include allowances for periods of time required by the City's
project engineer for review and approval of submissions and for approvals of authorities having
jurisdiction over the project. This schedule, when approved by the City, shall not, except for
reasonable cause, be exceeded by the Professional.
3. Payment. In consideration of the work performed, City shall pay Professional on a time and
expense basis for all work performed. The hourly rates for work performed by Professional shall not
exceed those hourly rates set forth at Exhibit B appended hereto. Except as otherwise mutually
agreed to by the parties the payments made to Professional shall not initially exceed the amount set
forth above. Professional shall submit, in timely fashion, invoices for work performed. The City
shall review such invoices and, if they are considered incorrect or untimely, the City shall review the
matter with Professional within ten days from receipt of the Professional's bill.
4. Non-Assignability. Both parties recognize that this Agreement is one for personal services
and cannot be transferred, assigned, or sublet by either party without prior written consent of the
other. Sub-Contracting, if authorized, shall not relieve the Professional of any of the responsibilities
or obligations under this Agreement. Professional shall be and remain solely responsible to the City
for the acts, errors, omissions or neglect of any subcontractors’ officers, agents and employees, each
of whom shall, for this purpose be deemed to be an agent or employee of the Professional to the
extent of the subcontract. The City shall not be obligated to pay or be liable for payment of any sums
due which may be due to any sub-contractor.
5. Termination of Procurement. The sale contemplated by this Agreement may be
canceled by the City prior to acceptance by the City whenever for any reason and in its sole
discretion the City shall determine that such cancellation is in its best interests and convenience.
6. Termination of Professional Services. The Professional or the City may terminate the
Professional Services component of this Agreement, without specifying the reason therefor, by
giving notice, in writing, addressed to the other party, specifying the effective date of the
termination. No fees shall be earned after the effective date of the termination. Upon any
termination, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models,
photographs, reports or other material prepared by the Professional pursuant to this Agreement shall
become the property of the City. Notwithstanding the above, Professional shall not be relieved of
any liability to the City for damages sustained by the City by virtue of any breach of this
P71
VI.d
Agreement Professional Services Page 2
Agreement by the Professional, and the City may withhold any payments to the Professional for the
purposes of set-off until such time as the exact amount of damages due the City from the
Professional may be determined.
7. Independent Contractor Status. It is expressly acknowledged and understood by the parties
that nothing contained in this agreement shall result in, or be construed as establishing an
employment relationship. Professional shall be, and shall perform as, an independent Contractor
who agrees to use his or her best efforts to provide the said services on behalf of the City. No agent,
employee, or servant of Professional shall be, or shall be deemed to be, the employee, agent or
servant of the City. City is interested only in the results obtained under this contract. The manner
and means of conducting the work are under the sole control of Professional. None of the benefits
provided by City to its employees including, but not limited to, workers' compensation insurance and
unemployment insurance, are available from City to the employees, agents or servants of
Professional. Professional shall be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of
Professional's agents, employees, servants and subcontractors during the performance of this
contract. Professional shall indemnify City against all liability and loss in connection with, and shall
assume full responsibility for payment of all federal, state and local taxes or contributions imposed
or required under unemployment insurance, social security and income tax law, with respect to
Professional and/or Professional's employees engaged in the performance of the services agreed to
herein.
8. Indemnification. Professional agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers,
employees, insurers, and self-insurance pool, from and against all liability, claims, and demands, on
account of injury, loss, or damage, including without limitation claims arising from bodily injury,
personal injury, sickness, disease, death, property loss or damage, or any other loss of any kind
whatsoever, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with this contract, if such injury, loss,
or damage is caused in whole or in part by, or is claimed to be caused in whole or in part by, the act,
omission, error, professional error, mistake, negligence, or other fault of the Professional, any
subcontractor of the Professional, or any officer, employee, representative, or agent of the
Professional or of any subcontractor of the Professional, or which arises out of any workmen's
compensation claim of any employee of the Professional or of any employee of any subcontractor of
the Professional. The Professional agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, and to provide defense
for and defend against, any such liability, claims or demands at the sole expense of the Professional,
or at the option of the City, agrees to pay the City or reimburse the City for the defense costs
incurred by the City in connection with, any such liability, claims, or demands. If it is determined by
the final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction that such injury, loss, or damage was caused
in whole or in part by the act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or its employees, the
City shall reimburse the Professional for the portion of the judgment attributable to such act,
omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or employees.
9. Professional's Insurance.
(a) Professional agrees to procure and maintain, at its own expense, a policy or policies
of insurance sufficient to insure against all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations
assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. Such insurance shall be in addition
to any other insurance requirements imposed by this contract or by law. The Professional
P72
VI.d
Agreement Professional Services Page 3
shall not be relieved of any liability, claims, demands, or other obligations assumed pursuant
to Section 8 above by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance, or by reason of
its failure to procure or maintain insurance in sufficient amounts, duration, or types.
(b) Professional shall procure and maintain, and shall cause any subcontractor of the
Professional to procure and maintain, the minimum insurance coverages listed below. Such
coverages shall be procured and maintained with forms and insurance acceptable to the City.
All coverages shall be continuously maintained to cover all liability, claims, demands, and
other obligations assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. In the case of any
claims-made policy, the necessary retroactive dates and extended reporting periods shall be
procured to maintain such continuous coverage.
(i) Workers’ Compensation insurance to cover obligations imposed by
applicable laws for any employee engaged in the performance of work under this
contract, and Employers' Liability insurance with minimum limits of FIVE
HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) for each accident, FIVE
HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease - policy limit, and
FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease - each
employee. Evidence of qualified self-insured status may be substituted for the
Workers' Compensation requirements of this paragraph.
(ii) Commercial General Liability insurance with minimum combined single
limits of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE
MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) aggregate. The policy shall be applicable to
all premises and operations. The policy shall include coverage for bodily injury,
broad form property damage (including completed operations), personal injury
(including coverage for contractual and employee acts), blanket contractual,
independent contractors, products, and completed operations. The policy shall
contain a severability of interests provision.
(iii) Comprehensive Automobile Liability insurance with minimum combined
single limits for bodily injury and property damage of not less than ONE MILLION
DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE MILLION DOLLARS
($1,000,000.00) aggregate with respect to each Professional's owned, hired and non-
owned vehicles assigned to or used in performance of the Scope of Work. The policy
shall contain a severability of interests provision. If the Professional has no owned
automobiles, the requirements of this Section shall be met by each employee of the
Professional providing services to the City under this contract.
(iv) Professional Liability insurance with the minimum limits of ONE MILLION
DOLLARS ($1,000,000) each claim and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000)
aggregate.
(c) The policy or policies required above shall be endorsed to include the City and the City's
officers and employees as additional insureds. Every policy required above shall be primary
insurance, and any insurance carried by the City, its officers or employees, or carried by or
P73
VI.d
Agreement Professional Services Page 4
provided through any insurance pool of the City, shall be excess and not contributory
insurance to that provided by Professional. No additional insured endorsement to the policy
required above shall contain any exclusion for bodily injury or property damage arising from
completed operations. The Professional shall be solely responsible for any deductible losses
under any policy required above.
(d) The certificate of insurance provided to the City shall be completed by the Professional's
insurance agent as evidence that policies providing the required coverages, conditions, and
minimum limits are in full force and effect, and shall be reviewed and approved by the City
prior to commencement of the contract. No other form of certificate shall be used. The
certificate shall identify this contract and shall provide that the coverages afforded under the
policies shall not be canceled, terminated or materially changed until at least thirty (30) days
prior written notice has been given to the City.
(e) Failure on the part of the Professional to procure or maintain policies providing the
required coverages, conditions, and minimum limits shall constitute a material breach of
contract upon which City may immediately terminate this contract, or at its discretion City
may procure or renew any such policy or any extended reporting period thereto and may pay
any and all premiums in connection therewith, and all monies so paid by City shall be repaid
by Professional to City upon demand, or City may offset the cost of the premiums against
monies due to Professional from City.
(f) City reserves the right to request and receive a certified copy of any policy and any
endorsement thereto.
(g) The parties hereto understand and agree that City is relying on, and does not waive or
intend to waive by any provision of this contract, the monetary limitations (presently
$150,000.00 per person and $600,000 per occurrence) or any other rights, immunities, and
protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24-10-101 et
seq., C.R.S., as from time to time amended, or otherwise available to City, its officers, or its
employees.
10. City's Insurance. The parties hereto understand that the City is a member of the Colorado
Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency (CIRSA) and as such participates in the CIRSA Proper-
ty/Casualty Pool. Copies of the CIRSA policies and manual are kept at the City of Aspen Risk
Management Department and are available to Professional for inspection during normal business
hours. City makes no representations whatsoever with respect to specific coverages offered by
CIRSA. City shall provide Professional reasonable notice of any changes in its membership or
participation in CIRSA.
11. Completeness of Agreement. It is expressly agreed that this agreement contains the entire
undertaking of the parties relevant to the subject matter thereof and there are no verbal or written
representations, agreements, warranties or promises pertaining to the project matter thereof not
expressly incorporated in this writing.
P74
VI.d
Agreement Professional Services Page 5
12. Notice. Any written notices as called for herein may be hand delivered or mailed by
certified mail return receipt requested to the respective persons and/or addresses listed above.
13. Non-Discrimination. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, marital status,
affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry, handicap, or
religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform services under this contract.
Professional agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, Section 13-98,
pertaining to non-discrimination in employment.
14. Waiver. The waiver by the City of any term, covenant, or condition hereof shall not operate
as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term. No term, covenant, or condition
of this Agreement can be waived except by the written consent of the City, and forbearance or
indulgence by the City in any regard whatsoever shall not constitute a waiver of any term, covenant,
or condition to be performed by Professional to which the same may apply and, until complete
performance by Professional of said term, covenant or condition, the City shall be entitled to invoke
any remedy available to it under this Agreement or by law despite any such forbearance or
indulgence.
15. Execution of Agreement by City. This Agreement shall be binding upon all parties hereto
and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns. Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained herein, this Agreement shall not be binding upon the City unless
duly executed by the Mayor of the City of Aspen (or a duly authorized official in his absence)
following a Motion or Resolution of the Council of the City of Aspen authorizing the Mayor (or a
duly authorized official in his absence) to execute the same.
16. Illegal Aliens – CRS 8-17.5-101 & 24-76.5-101.
(a) Purpose. During the 2006 Colorado legislative session, the Legislature passed
House Bills 06-1343 (subsequently amended by HB 07-1073) and 06-1023 that added
new statutes relating to the employment of and contracting with illegal aliens. These new
laws prohibit all state agencies and political subdivisions, including the City of Aspen,
from knowingly hiring an illegal alien to perform work under a contract, or to knowingly
contract with a subcontractor who knowingly hires with an illegal alien to perform work
under the contract. The new laws also require that all contracts for services include
certain specific language as set forth in the statutes. The following terms and conditions
have been designed to comply with the requirements of this new law.
(b) Definitions. The following terms are defined in the new law and by this reference
are incorporated herein and in any contract for services entered into with the City of
Aspen.
“Basic Pilot Program” means the basic pilot employment verification program
created in Public Law 208, 104th Congress, as amended, and expanded in Public
Law 156, 108th Congress, as amended, that is administered by the United States
Department of Homeland Security.
P75
VI.d
Agreement Professional Services Page 6
“Public Contract for Services” means this Agreement.
“Services” means the furnishing of labor, time, or effort by a Contractor or a
subcontractor not involving the delivery of a specific end product other than
reports that are merely incidental to the required performance.
(c) By signing this document, Professional certifies and represents that at this time:
(i) Professional shall confirm the employment eligibility of all employees who
are newly hired for employment in the United States; and
(ii) Professional has participated or attempted to participate in the Basic Pilot
Program in order to verify that new employees are not employ illegal aliens.
(d) Professional hereby confirms that:
(i) Professional shall not knowingly employ or contract new employees
without confirming the employment eligibility of all such employees hired for
employment in the United States under the Public Contract for Services.
(ii) Professional shall not enter into a contract with a subcontractor that fails
to confirm to the Professional that the subcontractor shall not knowingly hire new
employees without confirming their employment eligibility for employment in the
United States under the Public Contract for Services.
(iii) Professional has verified or has attempted to verify through participation
in the Federal Basic Pilot Program that Professional does not employ any new
employees who are not eligible for employment in the United States; and if
Professional has not been accepted into the Federal Basic Pilot Program prior to
entering into the Public Contract for Services, Professional shall forthwith apply
to participate in the Federal Basic Pilot Program and shall in writing verify such
application within five (5) days of the date of the Public Contract. Professional
shall continue to apply to participate in the Federal Basic Pilot Program and shall
in writing verify same every three (3) calendar months thereafter, until
Professional is accepted or the public contract for services has been completed,
whichever is earlier. The requirements of this section shall not be required or
effective if the Federal Basic Pilot Program is discontinued.
(iv) Professional shall not use the Basic Pilot Program procedures to undertake
pre-employment screening of job applicants while the Public Contract for
Services is being performed.
(v) If Professional obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing
work under the Public Contract for Services knowingly employs or contracts with
a new employee who is an illegal alien, Professional shall:
P76
VI.d
Agreement Professional Services Page 7
(1) Notify such subcontractor and the City of Aspen within three days
that Professional has actual knowledge that the subcontractor has newly
employed or contracted with an illegal alien; and
(2) Terminate the subcontract with the subcontractor if within three
days of receiving the notice required pursuant to this section the
subcontractor does not cease employing or contracting with the new
employee who is an illegal alien; except that Professional shall not
terminate the Public Contract for Services with the subcontractor if during
such three days the subcontractor provides information to establish that
the subcontractor has not knowingly employed or contracted with an
illegal alien.
(vi) Professional shall comply with any reasonable request by the Colorado
Department of Labor and Employment made in the course of an investigation that
the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment undertakes or is undertaking
pursuant to the authority established in Subsection 8-17.5-102 (5), C.R.S.
(vii) If Professional violates any provision of the Public Contract for Services
pertaining to the duties imposed by Subsection 8-17.5-102, C.R.S. the City of
Aspen may terminate the Public Contract for Services. If the Public Contract for
Services is so terminated, Contractor shall be liable for actual and consequential
damages to the City of Aspen arising out of Professional’s violation of Subsection
8-17.5-102, C.R.S.
(ix) If Professional operates as a sole proprietor, Professional hereby swears or
affirms under penalty of perjury that the Professional (1) is a citizen of the United
States or otherwise lawfully present in the United States pursuant to federal law,
(2) shall comply with the provisions of CRS 24-76.5-101 et seq., and (3) shall
produce one of the forms of identification required by CRS 24-76.5-103 prior to
the effective date of this Agreement.
16. Warranties Against Contingent Fees, Gratuities, Kickbacks and Conflicts of Interest.
(a) Professional warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or
retained to solicit or secure this Contract upon an agreement or understanding for a
commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or
bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Professional for
the purpose of securing business.
(b) Professional agrees not to give any employee of the City a gratuity or any offer of
employment in connection with any decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation,
preparation of any part of a program requirement or a purchase request, influencing the
content of any specification or procurement standard, rendering advice, investigation,
auditing, or in any other advisory capacity in any proceeding or application, request for
P77
VI.d
Agreement Professional Services Page 8
ruling, determination, claim or controversy, or other particular matter, pertaining to this
Agreement, or to any solicitation or proposal therefore.
(c) Professional represents that no official, officer, employee or representative of the
City during the term of this Agreement has or one (1) year thereafter shall have any
interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof, except those that
may have been disclosed at the time City Council approved the execution of this
Agreement.
(d) In addition to other remedies it may have for breach of the prohibitions against
contingent fees, gratuities, kickbacks and conflict of interest, the City shall have the right
to:
1. Cancel this Purchase Agreement without any liability by the City;
2. Debar or suspend the offending parties from being a Professional, contractor or
subcontractor under City contracts;
3. Deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the value of
anything transferred or received by the Professional; and
4. Recover such value from the offending parties.
17. Fund Availability. Financial obligations of the City payable after the current fiscal year
are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise made
available. If this Agreement contemplates the City utilizing state or federal funds to meet its
obligations herein, this Agreement shall be contingent upon the availability of those funds for
payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
18. General Terms.
(a) It is agreed that neither this Agreement nor any of its terms, provisions, conditions,
representations or covenants can be modified, changed, terminated or amended, waived,
superseded or extended except by appropriate written instrument fully executed by the
parties.
(b) If any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be held invalid, illegal or
unenforceable it shall not affect or impair the validity, legality or enforceability of any other
provision.
(c) The parties acknowledge and understand that there are no conditions or limitations to
this understanding except those as contained herein at the time of the execution hereof and
that after execution no alteration, change or modification shall be made except upon a
writing signed by the parties.
(d) This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado as from time
to time in effect.
P78
VI.d
Agreement Professional Services Page 9
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed, or caused to be executed by their duly
authorized officials, this Agreement in three copies each of which shall be deemed an original on the
date first written above.
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: PROFESSIONAL:
________________________________ ______________________________ [Signature] [Signature]
By: _____________________________ By: _____________________________ [Name] [Name]
Title: ____________________________ Title: ____________________________
Date: ___________________ Date: ___________________
Approved as to form:
_______________________________
City Attorney’s Office
P79
VI.d
Agreement Professional Services Page 10
EXHIBIT A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
The Aspen Land Use Code requires the provision of affordable housing for the development of
free‐market single family and duplex units (26.470.060). One of the options for fulfilling the
affordable housing requirement is paying an affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the
APCHA Housing Guidelines (Guidelines Part VII, Section 12, 3 – Payment in Lieu Fee). Per
the Guidelines, the payment in lieu formula “…assumes that for every 3,000 square feet of
new single‐family or duplex floor area, the public will be required to provide housing for
one moderate income employee…”. This requirement (of one employee per 3,000 square
feet of floor area), which we understand was established per City of Aspen Ordinance 1
(Series of 1990), does not have an empirical foundation which can be readily identified.
Thus, we understand that the purpose of this study is to update this aspect of the payment‐
in‐lieu formula based on a sound empirical analysis.
As outlined in the RFP, we propose to evaluate three types of residential employment impacts:
1) Employment impacts associated with initial construction;
2) Employment impacts associated with the ongoing operation and maintenance
of the home (and particularly services delivered to/provided at the home); and
3) Employment impacts associated with public safety services delivered at
residences (i.e. police and fire).
Note that other types of employment impacts associated with residential development, such
as employment stemming from home occupant purchases of retail goods and services at
commercial establishments, are excluded from the residential employment calculation, since
those employment impacts (and associated housing mitigation requirements) are assigned to
the development of commercial floor area in Aspen.
Each of the three categories of residential employment outlined above would be evaluated
through its own methodology and data sources, as described below. The three categories
are then summed to derive total residential employment generation.
1. Calculation of employment impacts associated with initial construction
The calculation of employment impacts associated with initial construction would involve the
use of secondary data on construction volumes (e.g. square footage and/or value) and
construction employment, and result in the derivation of employees (or employee‐years) per
square foot constructed. In a market such as Aspen’s, where many construction firms are
located downvalley, additional extrapolation techniques (or even the use of primary survey
research of construction firms or construction workers) may be warranted to accurately
assign construction employment to Aspen, insofar as governmental employment data don’t
capture distinctions between establishment location vs. worksite location for construction
firms.
P80
VI.d
Agreement Professional Services Page 11
RRC would likely recommend first using of existing secondary data to estimate construction
employment impacts, including the use of a variety of extrapolation techniques as needed
and appropriate. RRC would also be prepared to implement primary research approaches if
deemed necessary.
2. Calculation of the employment impacts associated with the operation and maintenance
of homes
Operations and maintenance impacts are typically evaluated through surveys of
homeowners. Through the collection of a variety of datapoints on each home, it becomes
possible to explore how employment generation varies by unit square footage and/or other
physical or occupancy characteristics. In mountain resort communities, RRC has found that
employment generation typically has an exponential relationship with unit size.
Of note, RRC has conducted two residential employment generation surveys of homeowners in
Aspen/Pitkin County area in the past decade. These include:
1. A Pitkin County residential employment generation study, conducted in
conjunction with Clarion Associates, finalized in November 2004. That study
became the basis for employment generation rates and affordable housing
mitigation requirements incorporated into the Pitkin County Land Use Code.
2. An Aspen residential employment generation study, conducted in conjunction with
Rees Consulting for the City of Aspen and APCHA, in 2008.
In addition, RRC has conducted similar residential employment generation studies in a variety
of other mountain resort communities, most recently in Teton County, WY in 2012/13 (in
conjunction with Clarion Associates), and as more fully inventoried previously. RRC has found
broad similarities in employment generation patterns across mountain resorts, and has
created a merged survey database across these communities, which is helpful for purposes of
maximizing the available sample size (particularly for very large homes). Some communities
have chosen to base their employment generation factors on this multi‐community dataset.
We note that the RFP expresses a desire for residential employee generation data for
comparable resort communities, and we would provide such data via our multi‐community
dataset.
For purposes of estimating operations and maintenance employment in Aspen, we would
conduct an Aspen homeowner employment generation survey. The survey would focus on
owners of free‐market single family and duplex units. The survey would document utilization
and cost of services delivered to the home (e.g. via homeowners associations, property
managers, hired service providers, etc.), and convert said expenditures into employment
equivalents. The relationship between employment and square footage would be analyzed,
potentially in combination with other factors such as local resident vs. absentee owner
occupancy. The overall approach would be similar to that utilized in the 2004 and 2008
Aspen residential employment generation surveys. We would anticipate a mail‐out sample of
P81
VI.d
Agreement Professional Services Page 12
up to 2000 surveys (subject to further research on the number and characteristics of free‐
market single‐family and duplex homes in Aspen).
3. Calculation of the employment impacts associated with critical public safety services
This analysis would likely involve the following steps:
1) Determine the number of paid public safety employees (police, fire, others as
may be identified) serving Aspen.
2) Determine the proportion of public safety staff time which is allocated to serving
residential uses (as distinct from commercial, highway, and/or other uses). We would
anticipate that public safety staff would have or be able to calculate these factors (or
provide data to do so), and we assume that Community Development staff could assist
in putting us in touch with the appropriate public safety staff. We further assume that
all needed communications could occur via phone or email (trip to Aspen not
required).
3) Derive per‐unit employment factors, based on the number of homes and pro ‐rata
share of employment associated with serving homes.
4. Add component employment impacts and summarize results in a written report
This final step would pull together the results from steps 1 – 3 to calculate aggregate
employment impacts. The written report would also summarize the findings and
methodology for all parts of the analysis. We understand that the City would take
responsibility for incorporating the results into updates of the Land Use Code and/or APCHA
Guidelines.
5. Optional site visits (for presentation to City Council and/or meetings with local
development community representatives)
Subject to further conversations with you, we would be open to on‐site meetings with
representatives of the local development community and/or presenting the results at a City
Council meeting. The costs for each have been itemized separately in our budget estimates
to follow.
Proposed timeline
Table 2 below illustrates the proposed timeline for the project. We assume that the project
would begin in February immediately after award, and we would be able to begin in
February. (However, the proposed timeline uses a generic month code should the project
commence later than February.) We anticipate that the various project tasks would proceed
concurrently.
P82
VI.d
Agreement Professional Services Page 13
We should note that we are flexible as to schedule and can make adjustments as appropriate
to best meet the needs and requirements of the City.
Table 1
Proposed Timeline 2014
Month
Task 1 2 3 4 5
0. Confirm work program and s schedule with staff x
1. Calculate employment impacts associated with initial construction x x x
2. Calculate employment impacts associated with the operation and maintenance of homes x x x x
3. Calculate employment impacts associated with critical public safety services x x x
4. Prepare final report x x
5. Optional site visits (meet with development community reps &Ci ty Council meeti ng) x x
P83
VI.d
Agreement Professional Services Page 14
EXHIBIT B PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Fee Schedule
Estimated costs for each task are summarized in Table 2. Note that our budget estimates are
designed to be all‐inclusive for all work and expenses associated with the project to the best of
our knowledge at this current time.
Table 2
Estimated Costs
Task Cost
1. Calculate employment impacts associated with initial construction $5,000
2. Calculate employment impacts associated with the operation and maintenance of homes $16,000
3. Calculate employment impacts associates with critical public safety services $3,000
4. Prepare final report $4,500
TOTAL $28,500
5. Optional site visits – per meeting $2000 ‐2500
Hourly rates for key staff participating in the project include the following:
Chris Cares, RRC Associates: $180/hour
David Becher, RRC Associates: $130/hour
RRC support staff: $40 ‐ $75
P84
VI.d
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and Council
FROM: Gram Slaton, Wheeler Opera House
THROUGH: Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager
DATE: 10 February 2014
RE: Request To Approve Agreement with Wheeler Film Society
SUMMARY:
Wheeler staff is requesting City Council permission to proceed with a new services Agreement with the
Wheeler Film Society for film booking and exhibition at the Wheeler Opera House.
BACKGROUND:
Starting in 1990, the Wheeler Film Society (WFS) was secured by the Wheeler Opera House through a
formal Agreement to fulfill open dates in the public calendar with alternative film content. [WFS had
been less formally booking films at the Wheeler since the 1970s.] This longstanding arrangement, which
was discontinued after May 2013, centered on WFS owning and maintaining the 35mm equipment
located in the Wheeler’s technical booth. With the demise of 35mm film as well as the Wheeler’s 2013
balcony and tech remodel project during the fall of 2013, WFS’ physical assets were removed and
replaced by digital cinema projection equipment, which was 100% paid for out of Wheeler funds. This
change caused a fundamental change in the mutual relationship, and both parties were asked to devise
a new and mutually beneficial arrangement to continue a strong WFS presence at the Wheeler.
DISCUSSION:
The Wheeler has proposed that for those occasions when the Wheeler calendar has open dates or a
surfeit of open dates wherein it would be desirable to have an extended presence by WFS, that the
Wheeler secure the booking and exhibition services of WFS for a flat fee, and that all programming costs
and sales receipts would revert to the Wheeler. The Wheeler will bear all other staff, marketing and box
office costs. Previously, WFS paid the Wheeler a flat $.50 per sold ticket plus reimbursement of direct
box office expenses for its access to exhibition, and WFS was responsible for all programming costs but
received the net sales receipts.
Because of the limited calendar availability for film bookings, both parties feel that this arrangement
provides WFS with a presence and profile at the Wheeler while limiting its financial exposure, while also
allowing Wheeler staff to fill vacant periods in the calendar in a cooperative fashion that provides a
consistency of approach to programming. This Agreement does not preclude the Wheeler from filling
isolated dates or regular series slots with bookings conducted either solely by itself or in partnership
with other parties.
The suggested length of this Agreement is one year, renewable for two additional years. This is in
keeping with the Agreements between the Wheeler and WFS since 2006.
P85
VI.e
BUDGETARY IMPACT:
The negotiated flat fee per title booking is $65. The negotiated screening and hosting fee per is $50. At
thirty titles per year with sixty screening dates, for example, the financial impact to the Wheeler would
be $4,950. This is an estimate of the annual allotment of dates expected under this Agreement, and
thus the total impact of the Agreement for its three-year duration is estimated to be about $15,000.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
P86
VI.e
RESOLUTION # 13
(Series of 2014)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND WHEELER FILM SOCIETY 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
services to procure and present a variety of cinema products in the Wheeler Opera
House, between the City of Aspen and Wheeler Film Society, a true and accurate
copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract
for services to procure and present a variety of cinema products in the Wheeler
Opera House, between the City of Aspen and Wheeler Film Society, 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 24th day of February, 2014.
Steven 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 24, 2014.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
P87
VI.e
P8
8
VI
.
e
P8
9
VI
.
e
P9
0
VI
.
e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 10, 2014
1
CITIZEN COMMENTS ................................................................................................................. 2
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS .............................................................................................. 2
CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................... 3
Resolution #8, 2014 - Burlingame Phase II Construction Contract Buildings 5-7 .............. 4
Board Appointments - P&Z - Jasmine Tygre; Brian McNellis; Ollie Nieuwland-Zlotnicki;
Jason Elliott – alternate ............................................................................................................... 4
Wheeler Board - Tom Kurt; Richie Cohen .......................................................................... 4
Minutes - January 27, 2014 .................................................................................................. 4
ORDINANCE #4, SERIES OF 2014 – Pacific Avenue Condominiums – Affordable Housing
Credits ............................................................................................................................................. 4
ORDINANCE #5, SERIES OF 2014 – Erdman Partnership Lot Split – Subdivision Amendment5
ORDINANCE #3, SERIES OF 2014 – Code Amendment Procurement ....................................... 6
ORDINANCE #6, SERIES OF 2014 – Approving lease/purchase agreement IT Firewall ........... 6
RESOLUTION #10, SERIES OF 2014 – Land Use Code Amendment – Calculations and
Measurements ................................................................................................................................. 7
ORDINANCE #2, SERIES OF 2014 – Code Amendment – Growth Management Deadlines ..... 8
ORDINANCE #51, SERIES OF 2013 – Hotel Aspen PUD .......................................................... 8
RESOLUTION #9, SERIES OF 2014 – Easement Pitkin County Library .................................... 8
2014 RENEWABLE ENERGY WORK OVERVIEW AND STATUS OF THE CCEC ............ 10
P91
VI.f
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 10, 2014
2
Mayor Skadron called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with Councilmembers Frisch, Daily,
Romero and Mullins present.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
1. Jim Markalunas said Aspen has a history in the development of clean hydro-electric
energy and he hopes Council continues the tradition. Markalunas said Council has an obligation
to protect Aspen’s heritage and future. Markalunas urged Council to extend the application for
the FERC permit.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
1. Councilman Frisch said he participated in the spell bee fund raiser for the Aspen Youth
Center and it was a great time.
2. Councilman Romero reported on the exchange students from Abetone in Aspen who
attended the winter X-games and experienced the epic snow storm. They enjoyed their time in
Aspen.
3. Mayor Skadron noted the snow on the mountains is great and everyone should go and
experience it.
4. Mayor Skadron expressed condolences to the Oksenhorn family and friends on the death
of Stewart.
5. Randy Ready, assistant city manager, said kudos should be given to the parks and streets
crew for their snow removal efforts. They are doing a great job and appreciate residents’
patience.
6. Councilwoman Mullins suggested Council meet with the Red Brick staff at the red brick.
There is a lot of activity going on, including school programs and a new community work space.
7. Councilwoman Mullins reported on the health and human services POD meeting where
discussions on the city’s approach to 2015 funding have begun.
8. Councilwoman Mullins said there is a water efficiency kick off meeting, Governor
Hickenlooper’s efforts to get Colorado water efficiency plan completed by the end of 2014and
each of the 9 river basins boards are putting together an efficiency plan.
P92
VI.f
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 10, 2014
3
CONSENT CALENDAR
Chris Everson, asset department, told Council at Burlingame buildings 1 - 4, 17 units have been
sold; 27 under contract with 3 units reserved and 1 unit unreserved. There are 13 reservations for
buildings 5 – 7. Councilman Romero asked about the capital plan to fund this phase. Everson
said the budget for buildings 5 – 7 is $15 million and contains a contingency of $1.7 million.
Everson said he would not like to see a contingency of $1.7 million spent. Everson said the carry
forward for the existing project from 2013 to 2014 is $4.4 million and the remaining work, the
contract balance is about $3.8 million and there are some soft costs to be paid; closing out the
work in progress should leave a budget of $220,000. There was $750,000 in contingency
budgeted and $500,000 has been spent.
Councilman Romero asked the source of funds for 2014. Barry Crook, assistant city manager,
said staff forecast a fund deficiency for the end of 2013 of $1.9 million, which did not occur
because the RETT was higher than forecast and expenditures did not occur in 2013 but will be
spent in 2014. Councilman Romero said the city is not borrowing from an outside source for this
project and there are sufficient reserves and resources to manage this project. Councilman
Romero encouraged staff to schedule open houses and include current owners, new owners and
prospective buyers. Councilwoman Mullins asked the completion schedule for this next phase.
Everson said people should be moving into this phase in February 2015. Everson noted the
work is defined in the guaranteed maximum price contract and any change to that document is a
change to the work and that may or may not change the GMP. These are done in writing by the
city so there is control over those change orders.
Crook told Council the city’s employee housing fund is prepared to purchase the last unit in
Burlingame 1 – 4. Buildings 5 through 7 are 34 additional units, currently 13 reservations,
which is a lower number of reservations a year ago when Council decided to build buildings 1 –
4. Crook said there are higher category units in buildings 5 through 7 and the category mix will
be flexible depending on the demand. The categories could be lowered if necessary. Council
requested review of any category changes. Crook said the city’s employee housing fund has
invested $2.5 million which entitles the city to 4 plus units and may put more money in to get a
fifth unit. The city pays the full price of the unit and the units are sold to match the employee’s
category. The units are sold back to the city when the employee leaves the city’s employ.
Councilman Frisch moved to approve the consent calendar; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins.
The consent calendar is:
P93
VI.f
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 10, 2014
4
• Resolution #8, 2014 - Burlingame Phase II Construction Contract Buildings 5-7
• Board Appointments - P&Z - Jasmine Tygre; Brian McNellis; Ollie Nieuwland-Zlotnicki; Jason
Elliott – alternate
• Wheeler Board - Tom Kurt; Richie Cohen
• Minutes - January 27, 2014
ORDINANCE #4, SERIES OF 2014 – Pacific Avenue Condominiums – Affordable Housing
Credits
Councilman Daily recused. Justin Barker, community development department, told Council
this project is located outside the city limits at the Airport Business Center, lot 2 of the Alpine
subdivision, there is one lot of affordable housing units and this vacant lot which is approved for
8 affordable housing units that have not been constructed. The applicant proposed to complete
those 8 units and is requesting Council approval of accepting affordable housing outside the city
limits within the urban growth boundary and to establish certificate of affordable housing credits
for 24 FTEs at category 2. Barker noted Council has the authority to accept affordable housing
within the UGB under certain criteria. One of those is that all approvals have been received from
Pitkin County. Barker noted the vested rights expired in 2010 and the applicant is requesting
administrative approval to meet this criterion.
Councilman Frisch pointed out Burlingame was in the county when the city purchased it; BMC
was in the county when the city purchased it. Councilman Frisch said this is within an existing
mass, including other affordable housing, and questioned why the city would discount 75% the
number of FTEs credits allowed. Barker said he can address this at the public hearing.
Councilwoman Mullins stated she does not agree with discounting to 75%. Councilwoman
Mullins said for second reading she would like a map of the city within the UGB.
Councilwoman Mullins said the applicant should get full credit for the housing they are
providing and that 75% seem arbitrary and she would like the reasoning behind that percentage.
Peter Fornell, applicant, told Council there is a PUD overlay for affordable housing, which has
been unused for 10 years. There are not many areas for 24 FTEs of affordable housing. Fornell
said the affordable housing credit program allows one to build lower categories and sell the units
for less and get the rest of the revenue by selling the housing credits. Fornell said this is a
balance of the private sector being able to build lower categories and get units into circulation.
Mayor Skadron said for second reading he would like to hear about principle in the AACP
regarding building affordable housing.
P94
VI.f
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 10, 2014
5
Councilman Romero moved to read Ordinance #4, Series of 2014; seconded by Councilman
Frisch. All in favor, motion carried.
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
Councilman Romero moved to adopt Ordinance #4, Series of 2014, on first reading; seconded by
Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Romero, yes; Mullins, yes;
Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
Councilman Romero said for second reading he would like to know how many units have been
built through the credit program and how many remain. Councilwoman Mullins said she would
like to see the distinction between the UGB and the city limits.
ORDINANCE #5, SERIES OF 2014 – Erdman Partnership Lot Split – Subdivision
Amendment
Justin Barker, community development department, pointed out this is two properties on Lake
Avenue, one property contains a single family dwelling and an ADU; the other lot is vacant.
Ordinance #66, 1990, the original approving ordinance, has a condition requiring each property
provide on-site affordable dwelling unit as affordable housing mitigation. At the time, that was
the only form of housing mitigation in the land use code. Councilwoman Mullins said in the
previous discussions regarding this property, the concern was taking pieces from different land
use codes and Council agreed to stick to one adopted land use code and is the same situation.
Jim True, city attorney, said this action would be consistent with the position Council took on
this previous application.
Councilman Romero moved to read Ordinance #5, Series of 2014; seconded by Councilman
Frisch. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 5
(SERIES OF 2014)
P95
VI.f
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 10, 2014
6
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.
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #5, Series of 2014, on first reading; seconded by
Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Daily, yes; Romero, yes;
Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #3, SERIES OF 2014 – Code Amendment Procurement
Barry Crook, assistant city manager, told Council this amendment will change the threshold
limits to raise department head approval from $5,000 to $9,999, to increase the limits for
competitive quotes requiring city manager sign off to $10,000 and $24,999, to require formal
RFPs at $25,000 and above and raise the threshold for emergency procurement that must be
reported to Council to $25,000. Crook noted if this ordinance is adopted, the thresholds can rise
by CPI every year.
Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #3, Series of 2014; seconded by Councilman
Romero. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Romero moved to adopt Ordinance #3, Series of 2014, on first reading; seconded by
Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Romero, yes;
Daily, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #6, SERIES OF 2014 – Approving lease/purchase agreement IT Firewall
Don Taylor, finance department, told Council the Charter requires Council adopt an ordinance
for this type of financing for the firewall for IT.
P96
VI.f
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 10, 2014
7
Councilman Romero moved to read Ordinance #6, Series of 2014; seconded by Councilman
Frisch. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 6
(SERIES OF 2014)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING A LEASE PURCHASE
AGREEMENT.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #6, Series of 2014, on first reading; seconded
by Councilman Daily. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Romero, yes; Frisch, yes; Daily, yes;
Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
RESOLUTION #10, SERIES OF 2014 – Land Use Code Amendment – Calculations and
Measurements
Sara Adams, community development department, said this relates to the miscellaneous
calculations and measurements of the land use code and is very technical dealing with how floor
area is measured, how height is measured, and measuring internal spaces. Ms. Adams noted this
section is reviewed an updated every other year to make sure it is up to date. The goal in this
update is to provide predictability in zoning reviews and clear up the language. This amendment
does not contain policy changes. If Council adopts this resolution, it will direct staff to continue
with an ordinance to amend the code. Ms. Adams told Council staff has done some outreach,
sending a summary of the changes to more than 550 professionals and architectural firms.
Councilman Daily asked how roof top amenity space is calculated and does this change affect
that. Ms. Adams said the existing code explains how to calculate height for chimney, railings,
etc. but not built in grills are counted. This would detail how a built in grill would be counted
towards height. Councilwoman Mullins said she would like specificity on how roof top
amenities affect overall height of a building.
Mayor Skadron opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Skadron closed
the public hearing.
Councilman Romero moved to approve Resolution #10, Series of 2014; seconded by
Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried.
P97
VI.f
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 10, 2014
8
ORDINANCE #2, SERIES OF 2014 – Code Amendment – Growth Management Deadlines
Jessica Garrow, community development department, told Council all land use projects are
placed into 4 categories of growth management and 3 of these can apply for allotments at any
time; however, some development is limited to application deadlines of February 15 and August
15 to apply for the allotments. This can cause delays for those projects. This amendment allows
all projects to come in anytime during the year. This will eliminate the growth management
competition system for those projects required to apply February and August 15th. Ms. Garrow
pointed out the city has not had a competitive environment and projects are not adding to their
applications in order to gain more points. Mayor Skadron asked if any review criteria on growth
and development are diminished by eliminating the deadlines. Ms. Garrow stated all growth
management applications are subject to the review criteria.
Mayor Skadron opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Skadron closed
the public hearing.
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #2, Series of 2014, on second reading; seconded
by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Romero, yes; Daily, yes; Mullins,
yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #51, SERIES OF 2013 – Hotel Aspen PUD
Councilman Frisch moved to continue Ordinance #51, Series of 2013, to February 24, 2014;
seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried.
RESOLUTION #9, SERIES OF 2014 – Easement Pitkin County Library
Jim True, city attorney, told Council staff has been working with the library board and the county
to work out an easement to allow the library to expand its facility. True pointed out there will be
meeting rooms on the north portion of the site and an extension of the children’s rooms on the
south portion of the site. The portion for the children’s room requires additional support through
the parking garage. True said in 1995 there were property exchanges between the city and
county; lot 2 was conveyed from the county to the city and the county retained a 44’ easement
from the east wall of the library over the parking garage for the purpose of expanding the library.
True told Council there are two ways to get support for the expansion of the children’s section;
one is to drop support columns through the garage, which would interfere with garage
operations. The alternative, agreed to by both parties, is to provide horizontal support tying into
an existing wall and columns in the parking garage. This solution will require an additional
P98
VI.f
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 10, 2014
9
below surface easement extending 17’ more to the east as well as amending the existing
easement to go 4’ below the existing Galena Plaza. True pointed out the library feels it needs to
be able to rely in perpetuity on the supporting wall and columns. True noted if the city decided
to reconstruct the garage, under reliance on the supporting wall and columns, the city would be
required to maintain the wall and columns for the library. True said this would require the city
and other parties to agree to share in the maintenance and repairs of the wall and columns.
John Ely, county attorney, told Council the library’s request is that if the structure is built it be
tied into the structural elements of the garage so that if the city decides to do something different
with the garage, the library will still have support for their expansion. Councilwoman Mullins
agreed Council’s action should be clear so in the future if the garage is rebuilt, there will be no
question about the intent of this easement. Councilman Romero said allowing this in perpetuity
with the structure is all right with him; it is for two community public purposes.
True pointed out putting vertical columns through the parking garage would be less expensive
for the library; however, it would eliminate parking spaces and affect the garage operations. The
library will pay for the horizontal supports. The city and county would agree to maintain jointly
the wall and columns the library would be tying into. The only issue would be the impact in the
future when the garage may be remodeled. The city’s commitment is to maintain the wall and
the columns for the library’s structural support.
Councilman Frisch said if the easement in perpetuity for horizontal support to the wall of the
garage is approved and in the future the garage is remodeled, will that cost the city more money.
Councilwoman Mullins said she would like to know the ramifications of doing everything within
the 44’ easement. John Laatsch, asset department, said if vertical columns are used, the loss will
be several parking spaces per level and there are 4 levels so that could be the loss of up to 30
spaces as well as infringing on the drive lanes.
Jody Smith, county facilities superintendent, reminded Council the library has been working on
expansion plans for 6 years. In this redesign, city staff suggested the library look at tying into
the 60’ wall rather than sinking columns through the garage. The columns would be 2’ by 2’
with insulation for fire code and tying into the 60’ wall would result in a smaller footprint in the
garage.
Mayor Skadron opened the public hearing.
John Wilkinson, president Library board, told Council the library is looking forward to starting
construction on their expansion, which they have been working on for 6 years. Wilkinson said
the library is the number 1 visited public building in Pitkin County. Wilkinson said this redesign
program addresses what they wanted from the original proposal. The expansion has been scaled
back in mass and size and the expansion is within their budget. Wilkinson told Council the
library looked at using the 44’ easement and putting columns into the parking garage; however, it
was city staff suggestion to look at going to the 60’ wall. Wilkinson stated going to the 60’ wall
P99
VI.f
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 10, 2014
10
will cost more money; however, the library board agreed it was in the best interest of the city, the
garage and the library to go to the 60’ wall.
Wilkinson said the library requests wording added to the easement for the ability to have the
library structurally in place in the event of rebuilding the parking garage. If the library spends $6
or $7 million on their expansion, they want the assurance that when the garage is redeveloped,
the library will remain. Jim Moran, library board, said the understanding should be the city can
do whatever necessary with the parking garage as long as the city continues to provide support
for the library. Jeff Woods, parks department, told Council staff is opposed to using the 44’
easement and requiring vertical columns. It is a huge structural impact and the columns would
have to go through all 5 stories.
Mayor Skadron closed the public hearing.
Councilman Romero moved to approve Resolution #9, Series of 2014, amending it to provide
reliance on the maintenance of 60’ wall and provide for mutual maintenance and repair for the
city, county and library board; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried.
2014 RENEWABLE ENERGY WORK OVERVIEW AND STATUS OF THE CCEC
Mayor Skadron said this is a report that gets filed every 6 months, as has happened in the past.
This includes a request for $5,000 to $8,000 because this report calls for more substantial
information than what has been required of previous reports. The expenditure does not move
the hydropower project forward at all; it keeps hydropower as an energy option to be considered
by the community in the future. Mayor Skadron stated if this is not supported by Council, then
this becomes a decision prior to Council receiving any information from NREL on energy
alternatives.
Dave Hornbacher, utility department, told Council this is an update on the goal of the city
achieving 100% renewable energy. Hornbacher said there are 3 areas of work being done; one is
the study by NREL, another is maintenance of the FERC application; the third is the water rights
abandonment case. Will Dolan, utility department, told Council there is a work session April 7
to hear NREL’s list of alternatives and Council will choose 3 alternatives to go forward with
further analysis. The third step of the NREL process is a deeper analysis of the 3 alternatives
and will cost about $30,000. Dolan pointed out staff kicked off the energy efficiency component
last week. Dolan told Council staff has been making reports to FERC regularly; this is not out of
the ordinary. This report is to complete the administrative record for FERC for this project
which entails compiling and summarizing all reports and studies to date.
Hornbacher reminded Council the water rights abandonment case was set for trial last fall. The
parties agreed to look at the project and see if there is common ground for stream ecology that
P100
VI.f
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 10, 2014
11
could be done. Hornbacher said filing this report with FERC is to preserve Council’s ability to
make choices for renewable energy.
Councilman Frisch said his interpretation of the November 2012 vote on hydropower was not to
abandon the project but to pause, reflect, look at other alternatives. Councilman Frisch said he
feels the election results meant no money or staff time were to be spent on the issue.
Councilman Frisch stated he does not have a problem keeping the hydropower option open but
not to actually pursue the project. Hornbacher said this report is to keep the hydropower option
open while working on other options. Councilman Frisch noted Council received an e-mail from
American Rivers with the opinion that the city does not lose any options by not going forward
with this report. Councilman Frisch said there is a perception in the public that status quo is
actually moving the project forward.
Hornbacher said several years ago, the city was going forward with a conduit exemption
interaction with FERC. At Council’s direction, staff changed that application to a minor water
power project, which creates a venue for additional studies and interaction with FERC. Dolan
said not filing this 6 month report is actually doing something; the city’s FERC lawyer advised
not filing a 6 month report can be interpreted as a surrender of one’s intention to pursue the
project. Dolan said the report needs to be filed by March 1st and it is his understanding that the
city would be precluded from filing for two years if they do not keep this option open. Staff is
requesting up to $8,000 for the city’s FERC lawyer to help in filing the report. Hornbacher told
Council there is the possibility that someone else could file for FERC if the city does not keep
the application active.
Mayor Skadron opened the public hearing.
Connie Harvey noted staff is presenting this as a way to keep the city’s options open; however,
the documents seem to go beyond that stating the city plans to continue to study the feasibility of
Castle Creek hydroelectric project during the next 6 months and to coordinate with staff to
address all pre-filing consultation requirements with the goal of filing a license application as
soon as permitted. Ms. Harvey said that seems to be a statement that the intention of the city is
to build the hydropower project. Ms. Harvey said the hydropower project is a bad project and it
will destroy streams and riparian areas. The proposed project is also bad from an environmental
standpoint. Ms. Harvey said studying alternatives or energy efficiency is a better way to go.
Paul Noto, representing landowners opposed to the project and attorney for the water rights
lawsuit, stated there is a difference between a preliminary permit and a license application; the
preliminary permit holds the city’s place in line so others cannot step in front of the city. Noto
questioned the statement that the city would lose a right for file for two years if they do not do
this report; the city would lose a right to file for a preliminary permit not a license. Noto said if
there were a competing application, the federal power act provides preference for municipalities.
P101
VI.f
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 10, 2014
12
Noto told Council preliminary permits only last 3 years; this permit will expire in about 1 year.
Noto asked if the city plans on taking action in the next year and if not why make this report.
Jim True, city attorney, reminded Council there is a distinction between the license and the
preliminary permit. Preference for municipalities is discretionary with FERC; the city could lose
their place in line. There are ramifications in not filing the report.
Maureen Hirsch said the city does not have to have an attorney prepare the reports; staff could
prepare the report and save money. Ms. Hirsch read a memo from Will Dolan noting that the
contract with MEAN local utility scale renewable energy must be hydro electric and any non-
local energy purchase must be made from MEAN. Ms. Hirsch asked why the city is spending
$70,000 when they are pigeon-holed; that the city has to do hydro electric and if the city does
anything other than hydro electric, it has to go through MEAN. Dolan told Council what he
wrote about the MEAN contract is accurate; however, this still warrants an NREL analysis as
there are many options to pursue through MEAN. Hornbacher told Council NREL will be
showing alternatives that are viable within the city’s contract with MEAN. Councilman Frisch
said he would like to see an analysis that is not related to any contracts the city has, then overlay
the restrictions. The city needs to know all the options regardless of any contracts. Dolan said
that is a criteria Council will be using to gauge the viability of the projects presented by NREL.
Tom Hirsch noted a letter to Council saying anyone else can file on the project. Hirsch said that
sounds ominous; however, the land is owned by government agencies or individual private
property owners and is it realistic that anyone could file. Hirsch said no one else can file a
permit. Hirsch said the city was asked for emergency $2.3 million for a drain line which turned
out not to be an emergency but the start of funding this project. Hirsch said the emergency drain
line turned into a penstock which is required to make this a hydro electric plant. Hirsch said
there does not seem to have been proper due diligence.
Mayor Skadron closed the public hearing.
Councilman Romero said the city has a fiduciary obligation to vet all alternatives and choices.
Councilman Romero said he is encouraged by settlement negotiations and the city should not do
anything to upset those negotiations. Councilman Romero said the city will get a list of options
from NREL in the spring and hydroelectric will be one of the options. Councilman Romero said
he is fine with this expenditure and placeholder.
Councilwoman Mullins said there have been a lot of contradictory statements about both this
project and this report. Councilwoman Mullins said one of Council’s obligations is to sort all the
facts out and the contract with NREL is a good way to sort things out. Councilwoman Mullins
said she is convinced that filing this report is maintaining status quo, not moving forward, but
maintaining the option.
P102
VI.f
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 10, 2014
13
Councilman Frisch said he is not supportive of this right now; he would rather spend the next 20
days hearing about American Rivers’ statements and hearing from the attorneys. Councilman
Frisch said he needs more information before he can support this. Councilman Daily said this is
a place holder proposal. Councilman Daily said his support for this is not necessarily a support
for hydropower. Councilman Daily said he does not have the information he needs to make that
decision.
Mayor Skadron said approving this funding request does not move the project forward; it keeps
hydro as an option to be considered by the community in the future. Mayor Skadron said if the
staff recommendation is not supported, it is a decision point prior to receiving NREL’s report to
Council. Mayor Skadron stated not funding the FERC report is an attempt to foreclose the
discussion and killing the project at this time.
Councilman Romero moved to go into executive session at 8:50 p.m. pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-
402(a) The purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property
interest ; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. (Councilman Daily
left Council meeting).
Councilman Romero moved to come out of executive session at 9:10 p.m.; seconded by
Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Romero moved to adjourn at 9:10 p.m.; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in
favor, motion carried.
Kathryn Koch
City Clerk
P103
VI.f
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
FROM: Justin Barker, Planner
RE: Second Reading of Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2014 – Pacific Avenue
Condominiums Affordable Housing Credits
DATE: 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
P104
VIII.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 is in the process of receiving 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). The UGB was originally conceived in the
1993 AACP as a way to recommend areas appropriate for affordable housing. This area
originally extended down beyond Woody Creek and has since been defined in the 2000 AACP,
shown in Exhibit A.
Affordable housing units for the purpose of mitigation, have been approved and denied within
the UGB in the past. The AACP promotes all affordable housing to be developed within the
P105
VIII.a
3
UGB, however it also states “on-site housing mitigation is preferred”. Although compliance with
the AACP is not one of the review criteria, the development of affordable housing within the
UGB to be in line with the goals AACP.
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, which in this case is Pitkin County. Approval of the project is expected by
February 24th, however it will not be officially recorded by that date due to a required public
comment period ending February 23rd.
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. Figure A provides
a list of all Affordable Housing Credits that have been established and extinguished. (The Credits
Established have also been converted to Category 4 since mitigation is based on Category 4
calculations.)
Credits Established Credits Extinguished
14 – 301 W. Hyman Ave. (23.76, Cat 4)
3 – 315 Vine St.
24 – 518 W. Main St. pending (40.6, Cat 4)
1.25 – 831/833 W. Bleeker St. pending (2.14 Cat 4)
1.91, Cat 4 – 204 S. Galena St. (GAP)
2.7, Cat 4 – 625 E. Hyman Ave. (Muse)
Total: 26.76 Cat 4 (42.74 pending) Total: 4.61 Cat 4
Figure A
Units outside the City for mitigation may be accepted by City Council approval, although it is
considered a secondary option to development inside City limits. Affordable housing that has
been accepted or denied outside City limits has always been associated with a specific project as
a discretionary review by Council. Two examples of this are the Residences at the Little Nell,
and the South Aspen Street Townhomes. The mitigation for the Residences was approved within
the UGB as a component of a project receiving a favorable City Council review, while proposed
mitigation for the South Aspen Street Townhomes within the UGB was denied primarily because
the overall project provided little community benefit.
Approving credits outside City limits removes Council’s ability to review a project’s merits for
which mitigation is due. There are three approaches Council could take to this situation. One
approach is “I feel that affordable housing units developed within the UGB for Affordable
Housing Credits are entirely appropriate and have the same value as units within the City.”
Another approach is “I feel that affordable housing units developed within the UGB for
Affordable Housing Credits are completely inappropriate. Credits are a City program and should
be associated with City development.” Staff has taken the third approach, which is “I feel that
affordable housing units developed within the UGB are appropriate, but do not create the same
community value as units within the City. There should be a diminished value of the Credits to
reflect this prioritization.”
P106
VIII.a
4
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.”
EXHIBITS:
A. UGB map
B. Review Criteria – Provision of affordable housing units outside City limits
C. Review Criteria – Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit
D. P&Z Minutes – 12/17/2013
E. Application
P107
VIII.a
µ
Legend
UG B
Asp e n Cit y L im it s
P1
0
8
VI
I
I
.
a
EXHIBIT B
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.
P109
VIII.a
EXHIBIT C
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.
P110
VIII.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.
P111
VIII.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
P112
VIII.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
P113
VIII.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
P114
VIII.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
P115
VIII.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
P116
VIII.a
P117
VIII.a
P118
VIII.a
P119
VIII.a
P120
VIII.a
P121
VIII.a
P122
VIII.a
P123
VIII.a
P124
VIII.a
P125
VIII.a
P126
VIII.a
P127
VIII.a
P128
VIII.a
P129
VIII.a
P130
VIII.a
P131
VIII.a
P132
VIII.a
P133
VIII.a
Affordable Housing Credits for Use for Developments Outside City of Aspen Page 1
EXHIBIT F
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: APCHA Board of Directors
THRU: Tom McCabe, Executive Director
Cindy Christensen, Operations Manager
DATE: February 6, 2014
RE: REQUEST FOR FULL USE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDITS FOR
100% AH PROJECT LOCATED AT THE AABC
ISSUE: The ability to realize full use of FTE credits for a 100% employee housing project, located
outside the City limits, under the Affordable Housing Credit Program.
BACKGROUND: The Affordable Housing Credit Program was developed for two purposes: 1) to
encourage the development of affordable housing; and 2) to establish an option that immediately
offsets the impacts of the development. By establishing this transferable Certificate, it creates a
new revenue stream that can make the development of affordable housing more economically
viable. It also establishes an option for mitigation that reflects built and occupied affordable
housing, thereby offsetting the impacts of development before those impacts are felt.
The Affordable Housing Credit Program is a City-based program. Peter Fornell is looking to
develop the Phase II property at the AABC that was to be used for mitigation of the Lodge at Aspen
Mountain, which was never developed. The first phase has been completed and consists of 9 three-
bedroom units, Category 3 and 4.
DISCUSSION: The property is known as Pacific Avenue Condominiums, Lot 2, Phase 2, 412C
Street, AABC. Phase II of the approved development is to include an additional eight three-
bedroom homes, which would mitigate for 24 FTE’s (8 homes X 3 FTE’s per home = 24 FTE’s) if
full use of credits is approved for a development outside the City limits. Vested rights for the
property have lapsed, but Fornell is in the process of re-establishing development rights for the 8
three-bedroom homes with the County.
Fornell has been working with the City of Aspen to utilize the Affordable Housing Credit Program
for this development. Staff’s understanding is that Fornell plans on the units at Category 2.
P134
VIII.a
Affordable Housing Credits for Use for Developments Outside City of Aspen Page 2
The APCHA Board of Directors reviewed the request at their regular meeting held February 5,
2014 and unanimously approved the use of the full credits for the following reasons:
• The property is located within the urban growth boundary.
• The proximity to transit services.
• The proximity to a grocery store.
• The AABC is a hub of affordable housing development.
There is a need for more three-bedroom units, especially in the lower categories. The proposal is to
provide eight Category 2 three-bedroom rooms.
RECOMMENDATION: The APCHA Board of Directors supports the development of the
Pacific Avenue portion of the Alpine Grove Subdivision and is excited to see an interest in the
project’s completion and the provision of Category 2 three-bedroom homes. If the use of the
development mitigation credits will facilitate the construction of such homes, then APCHA is in
complete support and would support the full complement of Affordable Housing Credits (24
FTE’s)
Having homes inside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) is an added benefit to the community and
homeowners alike because of the pre-existing location of utilities, transportation, communication,
water, sanitation and fire protection infrastructure, as well as a plethora of commercial services
right out their doors. The City and County have established a pattern of allowing thoughtful growth
inside the UGB, and less growth outside the UGB. The addition of these homes would be
completely congruent with that pattern.
The minimum required square footage for Category 2, three-bedroom homes is 1,000 square feet.
These homes will each provide at least 1200 square feet of net livable space and the efficient design
will make the most of the space in each home.
Because these homes will also have transportation options (bus, trails, air), adequate parking
allocations (two spaces each), family friendly bedrooms (3) and bathrooms (2), a pet friendly
policy, efficient design, and use of an existing playground, APCHA feels without hesitation that the
lotteries of such family-friendly homes will generate large number of applicants.
The long hoped for completion of the Pacific Avenue portion of this development would provide
Category 2, three-bedroom homes. They represent the opportunity for membership in a
community, which in turn allows young families an opportunity to add to the vibrancy and legacy
of Aspen, as a community. They will add to the sense of “home” that makes Aspen more than a
resort; therefore, this 100% affordable housing project should be allowed to maximum the
Affordable Housing Credits at 24 (8 homes X 3-bedrooms).
P135
VIII.a
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 19th, 2014
MEETING DATE: February 24th, 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 second 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.
P136
VIII.b
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 adoption at second reading.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Lease agreement
P137
VIII.b
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.
P138
VIII.b
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
P139
VIII.b
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
P140
VIII.b
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
P141
VIII.b
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
P142
VIII.b
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
P143
VIII.b
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.
P144
VIII.b
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.
P145
VIII.b
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
P146
VIII.b
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: _____________________________
P147
VIII.b
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: R. Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager
THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager
DATE: February 19, 2014
MEETING DATE: February 24, 2014
RE: Public Hearing – 2nd Reading
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.
Council approved the proposed changes on 1st reading on February 10, 2014.
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:
P148
VIII.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
Lakewood
Up to $5,000 $5,000 - $49,999 $50,000 and up If expenditure is in existing
budget, no additional approval
P149
VIII.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
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
P150
VIII.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)
P151
VIII.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)
P152
VIII.c
ATTACHMENT B: EXISTING PROCUREMENT PROCESS
ATTACHMENT B: EXISTING PROCUREMENT PROCESS DIAGRAM
6
DIAGRAM
P153
VIII.c
7
P154
VIII.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.
P155
VIII.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.
P156
VIII.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
P157
VIII.c
110 W. Main Street – Hotel Aspen
Staff Memo
2/24/14
Page 1 of 14
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 1/13/14 and 2/10/14
MEETING DATE: February 24, 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 3 free market
residential units in the form of 3 single
family homes, 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 finds that the project
is headed in a positive direction: the architectural
and site plan changes better relate to the
neighborhood context. Staff remains concerned
about the overall cumulative floor area and the
maximum unit sizes for the free market residential
units. Staff recommends continuation to reduce the
overall floor area.
P158
VIII.d
110 W. Main Street – Hotel Aspen
Staff Memo
2/24/14
Page 2 of 14
REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals to
redevelop the existing lodge:
• Consolidated PUD Review (Chapter 26.445, Planned Unit Development) to establish
dimensional requirements. City Council is the final review authority.
• Subdivision Review (Chapter 26.480, Subdivision) for a mixed use project to divide legal
interests. City Council is the final review authority.
• Rezoning Review (Chapter 26.310, Amendment to the Official Zone District Map) to
adopt the PUD and to clean up the zoning of the back portion of the lot. City Council is
the final review authority.
• Fee Waiver (Chapter 26.610.100 Waiver of Fees) to waive the Transportation Demand
Management/Air Quality fee and the Parks Development Fee. City Council is the final
review authority.
CHANGES FROM SECOND READING ON 1/13/14
The applicant has responded to Council’s concerns about the overall size of the project and the
neighborhood context along Bleeker Street by reducing the number of free market residential
units from 4 to 3 and breaking up the proposed 2 duplex buildings into 3 separate single family
homes. The architecture of the 3 single family homes is more aligned with the residential
character on Bleeker Street in form and site placement. Gable roofs are proposed and the height
was reduced from 32’ to 26’9” to the 1/3 point and 31’ for the flat roof portion at the rear of the
building (Mixed Use Zoning allows 28’ – 32’ max, and R6 zoning allows 25’ max). Staff
recommends that the applicant work with HPC during Final design review to potentially lower
the height of the free market residential to 28’ which is the permitted height in the Mixed Use
Zone District and is closer to the maximum height in R6 Zone District. Staff recommends that
HPC address floor to ceiling heights of the free market residential buildings which may result in
a lower height. Staff is supportive of these changes and finds that the project is headed in a
positive direction.
Based on Council feedback, the lodge and affordable housing portions of the project are
unchanged from second reading on January 13th. The floor area numbers proposed in January
have not changed. Reducing the number of free market residential units from 4 to 3 increased
the net livable area for each residential unit from 3,275 sf/ 3,675 sf to about 5,000 sf. The
maximum unit size cap for the Mixed Use Zone District is 2,000 sf. The requested variances for
the current proposal are as follows:
P159
VIII.d
110 W. Main Street – Hotel Aspen
Staff Memo
2/24/14
Page 3 of 14
Table 1: Requested variations
Requested
Variance
Allowable in MU/LP zone
districts Difference
Maximum
Cumulative Floor
Area
36,500 sf (1.35:1)
• 27,000 sf floor area(1:1)
• Ability to increase to
33,750 sf floor area
(1.25:1) through Special
Review
• 9,500 sf floor area
over the allowable.
• 2,750 over the
special review
maximum
Maximum Lodge
Floor Area
24,200 sf
• 20,250 (0.75:1)
• Ability to increase to
27,000 (1:1) through
Special Review
• 3,950 sf floor area
over allowable
• within the special
review maximum
Maximum Free
Market Multi-family
Housing Floor Area
10,500 sf total:
about 3,500 sf per
unit
10,419 sf floor area or 60% of
total net livable area for lodge
units and affordable housing
units (a total of 17,365 sf nla for
lodge units and ah units)
81 sf floor area over
allowable
Side yard Setback
(Garmisch St.)
0’ 5’ 5’, granted by HPC
during conceptual design
approvals.
Maximum net
livable unit size cap
for Free Market
Multi-family
Housing
3 units @ 5,000 sf
net livable sf per
unit.
2,000 sf maximum net livable
area (nla) per unit, ability to
increase to 2,500 sf nla by
landing a TDR
3,000 sf over the
allowable without a TDR
STAFF COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATION:
Staff finds that the current proposal is responsive to Council’s concerns about the neighborhood
context along Bleeker Street. The residential building form, spacing and gable roof are more
aligned with the existing neighborhood and residential character. Staff remains concerned that
the overall floor area is too big for the property and the neighborhood, and that the sizes of the
free market residential units are too large for the Mixed Use Zone District without the landing of
a TDR. Requiring TDRs is an important component of the TDR program. The net livable unit
sizes are 3,000 sf over the allowable unit size cap in the Mixed Use Zone District.
Even though the Bleeker Street side of the property is zoned R6 with the Lodge Preservation
Overlay, Staff continues to refer to the Mixed Use Zone District net livable size cap because the
R6 Zone District does not require a net livable calculation. For comparison the maximum
allowable floor area for the R6 zoned portion of the lot, allows just less than 4,000 sf of total
floor area that may be split between two dwelling units. The proposed three residences are 3,500
sf of floor area each for a total of 10,500 sf of floor area.
P160
VIII.d
110 W. Main Street – Hotel Aspen
Staff Memo
2/24/14
Page 4 of 14
As mentioned above, Staff is supportive of the change in density and general design of the free
market residential component of the project. Staff finds that the proposed floor area and net
livable unit sizes do not meet the review criteria attached as Exhibits A and B. Staff
recommends continuation of the project to reduce the overall floor area.
Should Council decide to approve the proposed project, Staff recommends that Council include a
recommendation to HPC for consideration of the following design items during Final
Commercial Design and Final Major Development review (this is included in the attached draft
ordinance):
1) Floor to ceiling heights shall be equal or taller on the first floor compared to the upper
floors.
2) Front doors for all residences shall face Bleeker Street.
3) A front porch that meets the Residential Design Standards shall be provided on Bleeker
Street for all residences.
4) Reduce the amount of glazing.
5) Restudy the third level “dormer” that breaks the roof plane and creates a large window
spanning between the second and third floor.
The applicant requests fee waivers as described below on page 13 of the Staff memo.
THE FOLLOWING MEMO IS FROM THE 1/13/14 SECOND READING PACKET:
CHANGES FROM FIRST READING:
The applicant requested approval of “round” numbers for floor area and net livable/net leasable
to provide a little float square footage in case there were discrepancies during the building permit
review. The applicant has changed the numbers to remove the padding and to propose an
increase to the lodge floor area to account for a covered third floor corridor. According to the
applicant, the overall cumulative floor area remains the same due to reductions in the non-unit
space calculations. Updated floor plans and elevations are not provided – the applicant states
that the changes are interior only and do not affect the building mass.
COUNCIL QUESTIONS DURING FIRST READING:
1. What type of neighborhood outreach was conducted?
The applicant held a neighborhood meeting in accordance with the requirements of the
Land Use Code prior to the first HPC public hearing.
2. What public comments have been received to date?
During the HPC meeting on February 13th, Julie Ann Steele, a neighbor who lives at 121
Bleeker Street, commented that “…we are being swallowed up by this three story
building. I realize they have to sell the townhouses to make this project viable but it will
devalue our property.” At the HPC meeting on April 24th Ed Wolkenmuth, who lives in a
historic 1888 home on Bleeker Street, stated “I fully support what I see on Main Street.
P161
VIII.d
110 W. Main Street – Hotel Aspen
Staff Memo
2/24/14
Page 5 of 14
Looking down Bleeker there are a lot of Victorians. The massing in the R-6 zoning is
unbearable and overwhelming. If you are on Garmisch things look normal but if you turn
the corner and look down Bleeker this massing is tremendous.” Julie Anna Steele also
spoke at the April HPC meeting “her concern is that the gables have increased the height
to 37 feet…we came here because of the massing issue…This is a huge issue and this is
the R-6 zone.”
During the P&Z hearing on October 15th Steve Garcia (meeting minutes included as
Exhibit H), who lives at the Victorians of Bleeker, spoke in favor of the project. He said
that he “likes the lodge and would like to see it redeveloped.” He states their concerns
are the impact to the neighborhood during construction and possible on-street parking
issues. Garcia mentioned concerns about the design of the project: “the area is mostly
Victorian with the exception of this project…they are excited that the free market units
will drive up the value of their free market units.” The last concern was regarding the old
pine tree that will need to be removed for the townhomes. Garcia also attended the
November P&Z hearing.
3. Provide justification for the requested variances.
To date, the applicant has not provided Staff with an explanation regarding the requested
floor area and net livable area variances.
4. What is the allowable floor area for the property if it was entirely free market
multifamily development?
The Mixed Use zone district portion of the property (about 13, 500 sf) along Main Street
is permitted 6,750 sf of floor area (0.5:1) for free market residential development with the
ability to increase to 10,125 sf of floor area (0.75:1) if affordable housing equal to 100%
of the free market residential floor area developed on the parcel.
The R-6 zone district portion of the property (about 13,500 sf) along Bleeker Street is
permitted 3,930 sf of floor area. The Lodge Preservation overlay zone district permits
multifamily residential based on the single family residential floor area of the underlying
zoning.
5. Explain how the free market residential and the lodge floor area/net livable
numbers interrelate.
The allowable free market multi-family housing is calculated based on the allowances in
the Lodge Zone District which provides more free market residential floor area for
smaller average lodge room sizes. The average lodge room size proposed is 300 sf net
livable which provides for a free market residential floor area equivalent to 60% of the
total lodge unit and affordable housing net livable area. The applicant proposes 17,365 sf
of net livable area for lodge and affordable housing; therefore 10,419 sf of floor area is
allowed for free market multi-family residential.
The philosophy is based on incentivizing smaller lodge rooms by allowing more free
market residential to offset costs. The floor area for free market residential is calculated
P162
VIII.d
110 W. Main Street – Hotel Aspen
Staff Memo
2/24/14
Page 6 of 14
based on the net livable of both the lodge units and the affordable housing units. Using
net livable area takes into account the actual heated area of the lodge units and affordable
housing units rather than basing the allowable free market residential calculation on non-
unit lodging space such as hallways, spas, lounges, etc. The percentage of free market
residential is translated to floor area rather than net livable area because residential floor
area can qualify for certain exemptions such as basement space, garages, etc.
BACKGROUND:
110 W. Main Street is a 27,000 square foot lot developed as a small lodge, Hotel Aspen.
According to the application, the lodge is about 21,344 square feet (sf) of floor area. The
property spans from Main Street to
Bleeker Street and encompasses a vacated
alley. The south half of the property is
located in the Main Street Historic
District and is zoned MU Mixed Use.
The north half of the property is located
in the West End neighborhood and is
zoned R-6 Residential. It was remodeled,
expanded, condominiumized and
converted from the Nugget Lodge to the
Hotel Aspen in the 1980s. In 1997, the
entire property was rezoned with the
Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP).
The Lodge Preservation Overlay allows
some additional development options and
flexibility for Aspen’s traditional small lodges, many of which have historically been located in
residential neighborhoods. The overlay allows all dimensional requirements, including floor
area and height, to be approved on a case by case basis through the planned unit development
(PUD) process.
TIMELINE OF PROJECT:
Application for HPC: October, 2012
HPC hearing: January, 2013
HPC hearing: February, 2013
HPC hearing: March, 2013
HPC hearing and decision: approved April, 2013
Application for PUD/Sub./ Rezoning: June, 2013
P&Z hearing: scheduled for August, 2013 but postponed
by applicant until September and then again
until October.
P&Z hearing and decision: denied November, 2013
City Council first reading: December 9, 2013
Figure 1: Zone District Map.
P163
VIII.d
110 W. Main Street – Hotel Aspen
Staff Memo
2/24/14
Page 7 of 14
NEXT STEPS:
The proposed project requires a major Growth Management Review, which has submittal dates
on either February 15th or August 15th for each calendar year. The final review occurs after
Growth Management Review when the project is considered by HPC for Final design approvals.
PREVIOUS APPROVALS:
Historic Preservation Commission: Because the project is partially located within the Main
Street Historic District, HPC conducted Conceptual design reviews prior to the
PUD/Subdivision/Rezoning application. Recognizing that the PUD/Subdivision/Rezoning
Reviews overlap with conceptual design reviews, HPC was asked to focus their review on
overall issues of architecture and compatibility with the surrounding area. After PUD,
Subdivision, Rezoning and GMQS approvals, HPC will hold a Final design review hearing.
HPC held four public hearings on the project, continuing each time for a restudy of the height
and the footprint of the free market residential units along Bleeker Street. In general, there was
little concern expressed with the design of the lodge portion of the development. A major point
of debate was roof forms of the free market residential units regarding both height and
compatibility with the neighborhood. The hotel and the residences were all initially proposed to
have flat roofs. At the March 13th meeting, Staff and HPC members suggested that incorporating
gable roof forms on the residences facing Bleeker Street would be more typical of the streetscape
and would go a long way in helping that aspect of the project relate to context. The applicant
returned to the board on April 24th with this amendment. However, throughout the review, the
members in attendance at each hearing varied and the members who attended on April 24th had
not given the direction to study gable roofs. Instead, they voted in favor of the flat roofed design
that was proposed on March 13th, finding that it reduced the project impact by reducing the
height. The overall height with the pitched roofs was actually taller than the flat roofs. HPC
granted Conceptual Commercial Design and Conceptual Major Development resolution by a
vote of 4-0.
As part of their vote, HPC approved the free market residential units to reach a maximum height
of 32’ where 28’ is allowed through Commercial Design review. HPC does not evaluate the
dimensions of the project; rather the Board focuses on the exterior appearance. Staff did not
include the actual floor area numbers of the project to HPC because floor area was not within
HPC’s purview through Commercial Design Review. Minutes from all four meetings are
attached.
Planning & Zoning Commission: The P & Z heard the project twice: the first hearing was
extensive background and explanation of the project by the applicant, and the second hearing
included staff recommendations. The applicant requested a decision at the second hearing: P &
Z voted 3-1-1 in denial of the project. Detailed minutes are attached.
The majority of P&Z voiced concern over the size and configuration of the free market
residential component of the project and were supportive of the lodge component of the project.
Concerns were raised about parking in the right of way regarding head-in, angled, or parallel
spaces, and providing a possible designated loading zone for the hotel. The proposal to rezone
P164
VIII.d
110 W. Main Street – Hotel Aspen
Staff Memo
2/24/14
Page 8 of 14
the R-6 portion of the property to Mixed Use was met with concern about the impacts of the
rezoning on the residential neighborhood along Bleeker Street.
The project is subject to the Land Use Code in place on October 19, 2012 when the
application was submitted/deemed complete for HPC review.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:
The proposal before Council is complete demolition of all the existing structures except for a
portion of the current entry lobby, and replacement with new lodge units, affordable housing and
two free market multifamily buildings (in the form of 2 duplexes). The current lodge includes 45
lodge units (average size of 370 sf), a breakfast area, lobby, and 1 affordable housing unit with a
grand total of 21, 344 sf of floor area. The proposal is for the following: 54 lodge units with an
average of 300 sf net livable area, a café/bar area, lobby, 4 free market residential units, and 3
affordable housing units.
The following is proposed for the site:
• 1 lodge/affordable housing building along Main Street.
o 54 lodge units, 300 sf net livable average size, no lock-offs
o Café/bar for lodge guests
o 3 affordable housing units: 1 studio and 2 1-bedroom units
• 2 free market residential duplex buildings along Bleeker Street: total of 4 multi-family
residential units
• Subgrade parking garage accessed from the alley (west elevation)
o 15 parking spaces
• Public amenity area along Main Street.
PUD REVIEW (EXHIBIT A):
The purpose of Planned Unit Development (PUD) designation is to encourage flexibility and
innovation in the development of land which:
A. Promotes the purposes, goals and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan.
B. Achieves a more desirable development pattern, a higher quality design and site
planning, a greater variety in the type and character of development and a greater
compatibility with existing and future surrounding land uses than would be possible
through the strict application of the underlying zone district provisions.
C. Preserves natural and man-made site features of historic, cultural or scenic value.
D. Promotes more efficient use of land, public facilities and governmental services.
E. Incorporates an appropriate level of public input to the planning process to ensure
sensitivity to neighborhood and community goals and objectives.
Through the PUD process the applicant requests approval to vary the maximum cumulative floor
area for the entire site, maximum allowable floor area for the lodge use, maximum allowable
floor area for the free market multi-family residential use, the free market multi-family unit size
maximum, and setback requirements as described below.
P165
VIII.d
110 W. Main Street – Hotel Aspen
Staff Memo
2/24/14
Page 9 of 14
Floor Area analysis: The maximum cumulative floor area is calculated based on the underlying
zoning – Mixed Use. The allowable lodge and affordable housing floor area is also calculated
based on the underlying zoning. The allowable free market multi-family housing is calculated
based on the allowances in the Lodge Zone District which provides more free market residential
floor area for smaller average lodge room sizes. The average lodge room size proposed is 300 sf
net livable which provides for a free market residential floor area equivalent to 60% of the total
lodge unit and affordable housing net livable area. The applicant proposes 17,365 sf of net
livable area for lodge and affordable housing; therefore 10,419 sf of floor area is allowed for free
market multi-family residential.
Table 2: Floor Area analysis
Floor Area Proposed Floor Area Allowable by right in
MU/LP zone districts Difference
Maximum
Cumulative
36,500 sf (1.35:1) 27,000 sf floor area (1:1)
ability to increase to 33,750
sf floor area (1.25:1) through
Special Review
9,500 sf floor area
over the allowable.
2,750 over the
Special Review
maximum
Lodge
24,200 sf 20,250 (0.75:1) ability to
increase to 27,000 (1:1)
through Special Review
3,950 sf floor area
over allowable,
within the Special
Review maximum
Free Market
Multi-family
Housing
10,500 sf 10,419 sf floor area or 60%
of total net livable area for
lodge units and affordable
housing units (a total of
17,365 sf nla for lodge units
and ah units)
81 sf floor area
over allowable
Affordable
Housing
2,000 sf Unlimited, but cannot exceed
cumulative maximum FAR
The Planning and Zoning Commission requested a comparison of the FAR of the free market
residential component to a similar size lot in R-6 zone to better understand the relationship
between the proposal and the Bleeker Street neighborhood. There are two scenarios for
comparison:
1) Proposed Free Market Residential lot area: Staff drew an imaginary line from the
property line along Garmisch Street to the rear of the free market residential rear yards to
determine a “lot area” for the purpose of calculating floor area for a similar size lot in the
R-6 zone district. Using this methodology, the lot area is 8,400 sf which permits only a
single family residential home. The lot must be at least 9,000 sf to permit duplex
development. The allowable floor area for a single family home is 3,576 sf. If a duplex
was allowed on this lot size, the floor area would be 3,984 sf.
2) Traditional Residential lot area: Staff drew an imaginary line from the original alley
(since relocated) to Bleeker Street to create a traditional west end lot configuration
P166
VIII.d
110 W. Main Street – Hotel Aspen
Staff Memo
2/24/14
Page 10 of 14
resulting in a 12,000 sf lot. Two single family residences are allowed with a total
combined FAR of 4,260 sf.
In either scenario, the allowable floor area by right for a similar sized lot in R-6 (the underlying
zoning) is around 4,000 – 4,200 sf. The applicant proposes 11,000 sf of floor area for free
market residential use, which is slightly over the allowable floor area under the Lodge
Preservation Overlay Zone District.
Net Livable Analysis: The project proposes to utilize the Code incentive that allows smaller
lodge rooms to develop more free market residential floor area to help drive the lodge
redevelopment. The current Code allows a percentage of the lodge/affordable housing net
livable area to be developed as free market multi-family housing based on average unit size. The
existing lodge has an average unit size of 370 sf of net livable area. The applicant represents an
average unit size of 300 sf of net livable area for the new lodge rooms.
The affordable housing units meet minimum net livable area sizes for the type of unit at
Category 1 or 2 level. The studio unit is 401 sf of net livable area, the two 1-bedroom units are
603 sf and 642 sf of net livable area.
The free market multi-family residential units within the MU zone district have a maximum unit
size cap of 2,000 sf of net livable area with the ability to increase to 2,500 sf of net livable area
with a TDR. The 4 free market multi-family residential units all exceed the maximum unit size
cap and require a variation through the PUD. Two units are proposed to be 3,625 sf of net
livable area and two units are proposed to be 3,275 sf of net livable area. TDRs are not proposed
to be landed.
Setbacks: The applicant requests a reduced sideyard setback along Garmisch Street for the free
market multi-family residential units. The required side yard is 5’ and 0’ is proposed. A front
yard setback variance for the free market multi-family buildings is requested: 9’9” is proposed
and 10’ is required. HPC was supportive of the setback variances.
Height: HPC granted a height increase through Commercial Design Review from 28’ to 32’ for
the free market multi-family buildings. The lodge/affordable housing building is proposed at 28’.
Staff comments: Staff is supportive of the lodge redevelopment and understands that the free
market residential portion of the project is needed to fund the lodge. The requested floor area
increases, net livable increase, and setback reductions may be appropriate; however only with
the condition that the overall architecture and massing of the free market multi-family housing is
compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent landmarks. There is an appropriate balance
that needs to be met between incentivizing lodge redevelopment and preserving the residential
mass and scale of the Bleeker Street neighborhood.
The PUD review criteria require a finding that the mass, bulk, height and architecture is
compatible with the neighborhood and with surrounding historic landmarks. HPC held 4 public
hearings to discuss the mass of the free market residential buildings (they did not have purview
P167
VIII.d
110 W. Main Street – Hotel Aspen
Staff Memo
2/24/14
Page 11 of 14
over the proposed floor area numbers for the project) and ultimately decided to support the
project on a conceptual design level. In respect to HPC’s design approval, the Staff discussion
is focused on the proposed variations from the zoning rather than the bulk and mass of the
project which was approved by HPC. Staff does still believe this issue needs more discussion, as
the requested variances for the overall cumulative FAR and the free market residential unit sizes
are significant. A comparison of the free market residential floor area proposed (11,000 sf) to
the free market residential floor area that would be allowed in the R-6 zone district on a same
size lot (3,576 sf) raises questions about compatibility with the surrounding R-6 neighborhood
to the north of the subject property. City Council is asked to make a finding that the
architecture, mass and scale are compatible with the neighborhood in accordance with the PUD
review criteria.
The proposed floor area for the entire site is significantly over the cumulative allowable floor
area which creates challenges regarding compatibility with the neighborhood. In addition, the
free market residential unit sizes (two units at 3,3625 sf and two units at 3,275 sf), which are not
required or proposed to be short-term rentals, are significantly over the maximum cap of 2,000
square feet of net livable area allowed in the zone district. To date, the applicant has not
expressed interest in purchasing Transferrable Development Rights (TDRs) to offset the net
livable variance. The proposed changes from first reading are not significant enough to address
Staff’s concerns. It is challenging to examine the trade-offs of a project that requests these types
of variances without an explanation as to why the variances are needed. Staff cannot support
these variations (maximum cumulative floor area and net livable residential unit size) and, based
on the recommended findings of fact in Exhibit A, recommends continuation for further restudy.
SUBDIVISION (EXHIBIT B):
The applicant requests subdivision, which is required for mixed-use project with multiple
residential units. Exhibit B addresses the review criteria.
Staff comments: In Staff’s opinion the review criteria are met with the exception of criterion
26.480.050.A.1 that requires compatibility with “mix of development in the immediate vicinity of
the parcel in terms of density, height, bulk, architecture…”
REZONING (EXHIBIT C):
The purpose statement of the Lodge Preservation (LP) zone district is as follows:
“…to provide for and to protect small lodge uses on properties historically used
for lodge accommodations, to permit redevelopment of these properties to
accommodate lodge and affordable housing uses, to provide uses accessory and
normally associated with lodge and affordable housing development…to
encourage development which is compatible with the neighborhood and
respective of the manner in which the property has historically operated and to
provide an incentive for upgrading existing lodges on site or onto adjacent
properties.”
P168
VIII.d
110 W. Main Street – Hotel Aspen
Staff Memo
2/24/14
Page 12 of 14
The LP zone district offers incentives to redevelop and to preserve the existing small lodges,
which includes flexibility of dimensional requirements through the adoption of a PUD. Floor
area for each use typically refers to the underlying zoning, however for a lodging project the LP
district allows the amount of free market residential floor area to be established pursuant to the
Lodge zone district as an incentive for redevelopment. The Lodge zone district relates the
amount of free market residential floor area to the size of the lodge units – the smaller the lodge
units, the more free market residential floor area permitted.
LP overlay zoning is scattered throughout town and is typically found on small lodge properties
such as the Boomerang Lodge, Christiana Lodge, St. Moritz Lodge, Hearthstone House, Hotel
Lenado and Molly Gibson to name a few.
Currently the property is zoned Mixed Use (MU) along Main Street and Medium Density
Residential (R-6) zone district along Bleeker Street. The Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) zone
district encompasses the entire property. While the MU zone district allows lodge and multi-
family free market residential as permitted uses, neither are allowed in the R-6 zone district. The
LP overlay permits lodge and multi-family free market residential uses, defines floor area
allowances for a lodge project, and allows the adoption of a PUD to define dimensional
requirements.
Rezoning the rear parcel to MU, so that the entire property has one underlying zone district,
simplifies the underlying zoning. With the current development and the proposed development,
the R-6 zone district does not play a very active role as an underlying zone district since the
proposal is for a mixed use development that is not permitted in R-6. Rezoning to MU does not
permit more development on the parcel since the property is pursuing a PUD that will define
dimensional standards. Staff has calculated the allowances in the MU district as the underlying
zone for comparison since R-6 does not have dimensional requirements for the proposed uses.
Furthermore, the free market residential component of the project is tied to the lodging
component because the development is considered one project and the amount of free market
residential is determined by the size of the lodge units.
The project requires rezoning to adopt the PUD designation. Staff suggests that the entire
property be rezoned to Mixed Use Zone District with the Lodge Preservation overlay to simplify
the underlying zoning by removing the R-6 designation. Exhibit C addresses the review criteria.
Staff comment: Rezoning the entire parcel to Mixed Use/ Lodge Preservation Overlay, does not
significantly impact the allowed uses on the parcel. Staff finds that the review criteria are met to
rezone the parcel to Mixed Use/Lodge Preservation Overlay.
FEE WAIVERS: The applicant requests waiver of the Parks Development fee and the
Transportation Demand Management/Air Quality fee. The Land Use Code authorizes Council to
waive or to reduce impact fees as an economic incentive for lodging developments.
Parks Development Fee ($5.45/new sf of floor area):
Proposed floor area 36,500 – existing floor area 21,344 = 15,156 sf new floor area
P169
VIII.d
110 W. Main Street – Hotel Aspen
Staff Memo
2/24/14
Page 13 of 14
Total Parks Development Fee requested waiver: (15,156 * $5.45) = $82,600.20
Transportation Demand Management/ Air Quality Fee ($0.61/ new sf of floor area)
Proposed floor area 36,500 – existing floor area 21,344 = 15,156 sf new floor area
Total TDM/Air Quality Fee requested waiver: (15,156 * $0.61) = $9,245.16
Grand total of waivers requested: $91,845.36
Staff comment: The Parks Department does not support the requested waiver for Park
Development Fees because “the development includes improvements to the City’s right of way
and an increase in lodging and free market space. Both of which will add impacts to public park
space requiring additional financial maintenance responsibilities.”
The Transportation Department does not support the requested waiver for TDM/ Air Quality
Impact Fees because “this type of development typically increases transit usage, thus requiring
additional fleet/facility maintenance and replacement responsibilities.”
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that City Council continue the hearing with direction for the applicant to
reduce the net livable size of the free market residential units and reduce the overall cumulative
floor area proposed for the site.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
“I move to continue Ordinance No. 51, Series of 2013 for a restudy of the free market residential
units and overall cumulative floor area to better relate to the neighborhood.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:_____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance #51, Series of 2013
Attachments:
Exhibit A – Staff Findings, PUD Review Criteria [provided at first reading]
Exhibit B – Staff Findings, Subdivision Review Criteria [provided at first reading]
Exhibit C – Staff Findings, Rezoning Review Criteria [provided at first reading]
Exhibit D – Development Review Committee Comments [provided at first reading]
Exhibit E – Meeting Minutes from HPC January – April, 2013 [provided at first reading]
Exhibit F – Draft Meeting Minutes from P&Z on November 19, 2013 [provided at first reading]
Exhibit G – Application [provided at first reading]
P170
VIII.d
110 W. Main Street – Hotel Aspen
Staff Memo
2/24/14
Page 14 of 14
Exhibit H – Meeting Minutes from P&Z on October 15, 2013 [provided at second reading]
Exhibit I – Letter from Stan Clauson proposing changes for Second Reading [provided at second
reading]
Exhibit J – Staff Findings, UPDATED PUD Review Criteria
Exhibit K – Staff Findings, UPDATED Subdivision Review Criteria
Exhibit L – Staff Findings, UPDATED Rezoning Review Criteria
Exhibit M - updated drawings dated 2/24/14
P171
VIII.d
Ordinance 51, Series 2013
Hotel Aspen
Page 1 of 9
ORDINANCE N0.51,
(SERIES OF 2013)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT, SUBDIVISION AND REZONING APPROVAL FOR
THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE HOTEL ASPEN INCLUDING LODGING,
MULTI-FAMILY FREE-MARKET RESIDENTIAL UNITS, AND AFFORDABLE
HOUSING TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 110
EAST MAIN STREET, HOTEL ASPEN CONDOMINIUMS, CITY AND
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel ID: 2735-124-61-800
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Garmisch Lodging LLC represented by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. requesting
approval of a redevelopment of the existing lodge; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director determined pursuant to
Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.445.030.B.2 that a Consolidated Conceptual and Final
Planned Unit Development Review is permitted,
WHEREAS, the property is zoned Mixed Use (MU), Medium Density
Residential (R-6), Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) and Main Street Historic District
Overlay; and,
WHEREAS, the property is partially located within the Main Street Historic
District and is not considered a contributing building to the integrity of the Historic
District; and
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 24, 2013 the Historic
Preservation Commission granted Conceptual Commercial Design Review and
Conceptual Major Development Review approval via Resolution No. 14, Series of 2013;
and
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on November 19, 2013
continued from October 15, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Commission denied Resolution
No.21, Series of 2013, recommending the Aspen City Council not approve a PUD,
Subdivision, and Rezoning; and,
WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code
standards, the Community Development Department recommended continuation of the
application; and,
WHEREAS, on December 9, 2013 the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance
No. 51, Series 2013, on First Reading by a four to zero (4 - 0) vote, approving with
conditions a PUD, Subdivision and Rezoning of the Property; and,
P172
VIII.d
Ordinance 51, Series 2013
Hotel Aspen
Page 2 of 9
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 Historic Preservation Commission, the
Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, the applicable
referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds
all applicable development standards with conditions; 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:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council approve a
PUD plan, Subdivision, and Rezoning of the underlying zone district to Mixed Use.
The project is subject to all conditions included in Historic Preservation Commission
(HPC) Resolution #14, Series of 2013 and requires Growth Management approvals, Final
Commercial Design, and Final Major Development approval prior to the issuance of a
development order. Council recommends that HPC consider the following during Final
design reviews:
1) Floor to ceiling heights shall be equal or taller on the first floor compared to the
upper floors.
2) Front doors for all residences shall face Bleeker Street.
3) A front porch that meets the Residential Design Standards shall be provided on
Bleeker Street for all residences.
4) Reduce the amount of glazing.
5) Restudy the third level “dormer” that breaks the roof plane and creates a large
window spanning between the second and third floor.
Section 2: PUD/ Subdivision Plat and Agreement
The Applicant shall record a Subdivision/PUD agreement (hereinafter “Agreement”) that
meets the requirements of the Land Use Code within 180 days of approval. The 180 days
shall commence upon the granting of Final Commercial Design and Final Major
Development approvals by the Historic Preservation Commission. The recordation
documents shall be submitted in accordance with the requirements of Section 26.490
Approval Documents of the Land Use Code.
a. In accordance in Section 26.490.040, Approval Documents Content and Form,
the following plans are required in the Approved Plan Set:
1. Final Commercial or Historic Design Review/ Architectural
Character Plan.
P173
VIII.d
Ordinance 51, Series 2013
Hotel Aspen
Page 3 of 9
2. Planned Development Project and Detail Review Plans.
3. Public Infrastructure Plan.
b. In accordance with Section 26.490.050, Development Agreements, a
Development Agreement shall be entered into with the City.
c. In accordance with Section 26.490.060, Financial and Site Protection
Requirements, the applicant shall provide a site protection guarantee and a site
enhancement guarantee for $250,000 each.
d. In accordance with Section 26.490.070, Performance Guarantees, the following
guarantees are required in an amount equal to 150% of the current estimated cost
of the improvement:
1. Landscape Guarantee.
2. Public Facilities and Public Infrastructure Guarantee for the relocation of
the main Sewer line.
3. Storm Water and Drainage Improvements Guarantee.
Section 3: Rezoning
The entire subject property is hereby rezoned to the Mixed Use Zone District as the
underlying zone district with the Lodge Preservation Overlay. The Main Street Historic
District Overlay applies to the southern half of the property (measured 100 feet back from
Main Street toward Bleeker Street).
Section 4: Dimensional Requirements
The approved dimensional requirements are as follows in Table 1:
Table1: Dimensional Requirements
Hotel Aspen PUD Dimensional
Requirements
Minimum lot size 27,000
Minimum lot area per dwelling unit n/a
Maximum allowable density n/a
Minimum lot width 110’
Minimum front yard (Main Street) - lodge 10’
Minimum front yard (Bleeker Street) –
multi-family residential
10’
Minimum side yard (Garmisch) - lodge 5’
Minimum side yard (Garmisch) –
multifamily residential
0’
Minimum rear yard n/a The property spans between two streets
and does not necessarily have a rear yard. In
Staff’s opinion the property is delineated by
use so there are two front yards – one for
lodge, and one for multi-family residential.
Maximum site coverage 87%
Maximum height - lodge 28’
Maximum height – multi-family residential Maximum height of 26’9” for the gable roof
and 31’ for the flat roof
Minimum distance between buildings –
lodge and multifamily residential
10’ between affordable housing/lodge and
multi-family residential
P174
VIII.d
Ordinance 51, Series 2013
Hotel Aspen
Page 4 of 9
Minimum distance between buildings –
multifamily residential
10’, as otherwise adjusted by HPC during final
review.
Minimum percent open space 15% or 4,030 sf - reduction of public amenity
approved by HPC via Resolution #14, Series
of 2013
Trash access area 10’ d x 15’3” w (open to the sky)
Cumulative Allowable Floor Area 36,500 sf (1.35:1)
Maximum free market multi-family
residential floor area
10,500 sf
Maximum net livable area for free market
multi-family residential dwelling unit size
3 units @ 5,000 sf net livable per unit
Maximum lodge floor area 24,200 sf
Maximum affordable housing floor area 2,000 sf
Minimum off-street parking spaces 15 subgrade parking spaces
The maximum affordable housing floor area may be increased through growth
management reviews with the condition that both the maximum cumulative floor area is
not increased and the lodge floor area is not changed.
Pursuant to Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.710.090.D.11(a)(5), as shown below, the
allowable free market multi-family housing floor area is calculated based on the
allowances in the Lodge Zone District which provides more free market residential floor
area for smaller average lodge room sizes. The average lodge room size proposed is 300
sf net livable area which provides for a free market residential floor area equivalent to
60% of the total lodge unit and affordable housing net livable area. The applicant
proposes approximately 17,365 sf of net livable area for lodge and affordable housing;
therefore 10,419 sf of floor area is allowed for free market multi-family residential. A
variance allowing 10,500 sf of floor area is granted with the adoption of this PUD.
The average individual lodge unit size is not permitted to be increased above 300 sf of net
livable area without reducing the free market residential floor area allowed on the
property in accordance with the chart below.
Table 26.710.109.1
Allowable Free-Market Residential FAR
Table 26.710.190.1
Average net livable area of
individual lodge units on the
parcel
Free-market residential FAR as a
percentage of total lodge unit and
affordable housing net livable area
Greater than 600 square feet 5%
P175
VIII.d
Ordinance 51, Series 2013
Hotel Aspen
Page 5 of 9
600 square feet 15%
500 square feet 40%
400 square feet 50%
300 square feet or less 60%
When the average lodge unit size falls between the square footage
categories, the allowable free-market multi-family or large
lodge/timeshare unit floor area shall be determined by interpreting the
above schedule proportionately. For example, a lodge project with an
average unit size of 450 square feet shall be allowed to develop a free-
market residential floor area up to 45% of the total lodge unit net livable
area.
This percentage of free-market residential FAR may not be otherwise
established for a project through a planned unit development review.
All non-unit space attributable to free-market residential or large
lodge/timeshare units shall count towards the individual FAR allowance
for free-market residential or large lodge/timeshare units.
Section 6: Engineering
The Applicant’s design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the
Engineering Department.
Drainage: The project shall meet the Urban Runoff Management Plan
Requirements. A compliant drainage plan must be submitted with a building permit
application. This includes detaining and providing water quality for the entire site. If the
site chooses fee-in-lieu of detention (FIL), it can only be applied to existing impervious
areas. All new impervious areas will need to discharge at historic rates.
Sidewalk/Curb/Gutter: All sidewalk curb and gutter shall meet the Engineering
Standards of City of Aspen Municipal Code Title 21. The sidewalk shall be detached
parallel to Garmisch Street.
Excavation Stabilization: Due to the proximity of the neighboring property and
the excavation of the building, an excavation stabilization plan shall be submitted to the
Engineering Department prior to building permit submittal.
CMP: The Construction Management Plan shall describe mitigation for: parking,
staging/encroachments, and truck traffic. The outbound bus land shall not be impacted
by the proposed CMP. The adjacent bus stop shall not be impacted by the proposed
CMP.
P176
VIII.d
Ordinance 51, Series 2013
Hotel Aspen
Page 6 of 9
On-street parking: All on street parking shall be parallel parking spaces in
accordance with the Engineering Standards unless otherwise approved by the
Engineering and Parking Departments. A minimum of two signed “loading zone” parking
space for hotel guests is permitted with approval from the Parking Department.
Section 7: Affordable Housing
The project is required to mitigate for affordable housing and shall submit an application
for growth management review pursuant to the Aspen Land Use Code after receiving
PUD approval by City Council. The representations made in the PUD application do not
constitute approval of affordable housing.
Section 8: Environmental Health
The trash enclosure area is approved with the condition that one of the following options
is met:
Option 1): The transformer is either not required or is located somewhere else on
the property, not inside the trash enclosure; or
Option 2): The transformer remains inside the trash enclosure and the Hotel
Aspen agrees to not use a trash compactor (a permanent structure) and instead
uses a 2 yard trash bin (moveable), leaving more room for recycle bins. The
lodge shall have at a minimum 4 recycle bins.
Section 9: Fire Mitigation
This project shall meet all of the codes and requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection
District. This includes, but is not limited to, Fire Department Access (International Fire
Code 2009 Edition Section 503), and the installation of approved fire sprinkler and fire
alarm systems (IFC 2009 Sections 903 and 907 as amended).
Section 10: Utilities
This project shall meet all applicable standards in the City of Aspen Municipal Code,
specifically Title 25. Individual buildings shall have individual taps. The transformer
shall be located on the subject property.
Section 11: Sanitation District Requirements
Service is contingent upon compliance with the District’s rules, regulations, and
specifications, which are on file at the District office.
ACSD shall review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections
(roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system.
On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. Oil and Sand separators are required for
parking garages and vehicle maintenance establishments. Driveway entrance drains must
drain to drywells. Elevator shafts drains must flow thru o/s interceptor
The applicant shall relocate the existing Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District owned
main sanitary sewer line that currently runs through the middle of Block 58 at the
applicant’s expense and in a manner that is acceptable to the District. Old service lines
P177
VIII.d
Ordinance 51, Series 2013
Hotel Aspen
Page 7 of 9
must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific
ACSD requirements.
Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. One tap is
allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more
than one unit is served by a single service line.
Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways.
Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may
impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district.
Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned
reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an
additional proportionate fee shall be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection
system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected
over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements
needed.
Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned
capacity of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will
be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would
be overwhelmed. The District would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the
area of concern (only for the material cost difference for larger line).
A “Line Extension Request” and a “Collection System Agreement” are required for this
application. The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and
discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The
glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities.
Section 12: Parks
Landscaping in the public right of way will be subject to landscaping in the ROW
requirements, Chapter 21.20. There shall be no plantings within the City ROW which are
not approved by the City Parks Department and the Engineering Department. Irrigation
of the street trees shall be required with a specific planting medium appropriate for tree
growth. Tree removal permits shall be required before any tree is removed and prior to
the issuance of a building permit for the project.
The Parks Development Fee is hereby waived by City Council.
Section 13: Transportation
The applicant commits to a courtesy shuttle for lodge guests and to providing a bike rack
and bicycles for lodge guests.
The Transportation Demand Management Fee and the Air Quality Fee is hereby waived
by City Council.
Section 14: Parking
P178
VIII.d
Ordinance 51, Series 2013
Hotel Aspen
Page 8 of 9
The project shall reserve a maximum of 3 parking spaces for the affordable housing units
and 3 spaces for the free market residential units in the subgrade parking garage.
Section 15: Outdoor Lighting and Signage
All outdoor lighting and all signage shall meet the requirements of the Aspen Municipal
Code.
Section 16:
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 17:
This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an
abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances
repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded
under such prior ordinances.
Section 18:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this 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.
[signatures on the following page]
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 9th day of December, 2013.
_______________________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
P179
VIII.d
Ordinance 51, Series 2013
Hotel Aspen
Page 9 of 9
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___th day of _____________, 2014.
_______________________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________ _______________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk James R. True, City Attorney
Exhibit A: approved plans and elevations
P180
VIII.d
Exhibit J – PUD Review Criteria
Hotel Aspen – 110 W. Main Street
2/24/14
Page 1 of 15
Exhibit A – PUD Review Criteria
Sec. 26.445.040.General provisions. The following provisions shall apply to all property designated
with a PUD Overlay on the Official Zone District Map unless otherwise provided pursuant to an
adopted final PUD development plan for the property.
A. Uses: The land uses permitted in a PUD shall be limited to those allowed in the
underlying zone district in which the property is located. Detached residential units may
be authorized to be clustered in a zero lot line or row house configuration, but multi-
family dwelling units shall only be allowed when permitted by the underlying zone
district.
The proposes uses - Lodge, Affordable Housing, and Multi-family Residential - are permitted
in the underlying zone districts (Mixed Use and R-6) and the Lodge Preservation (LP)
overlay. Free market multi-family housing is not a permitted use in the R-6 Zone District;
however the LP overlay allows multi-family uses to be established. The free market multi-
family housing is in the form of three separate buildings, which is consistent with the
surrounding neighborhood which allows duplex development.
B. Density: Unless otherwise established pursuant to a final PUD Development Plan, the
maximum aggregate density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying
zone district, considering the inclusions and exclusions of Lot Area, as defined and the
mandatory density reduction for steep slopes as described below.
The proposed density is no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone districts.
C. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall be established
with the adoption of a final PUD development plan. The underlying zone district shall be
used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimension for each provision. The final
development plan shall clearly define all dimensional requirements for each lot within
the PUD. In the absence of a final development plan, a single detached or duplex
residential dwelling, if listed as a permitted use in the underlying zoning, may be
developed in conformance with the provisions of the underlying Zone District.
P181
VIII.d
Exhibit J – PUD Review Criteria
Hotel Aspen – 110 W. Main Street
2/24/14
Page 2 of 15
Table 1: Dimensional Requirements
Proposed dimensions Allowable dimensions in MU
and LP zone districts
Minimum lot size 27,000
Minimum lot area per
dwelling unit
n/a n/a
Maximum allowable density n/a n/a
Minimum lot width 110’ 30’
Minimum front yard (Main
Street) - lodge
10’ 10’
Minimum front yard (Bleeker
Street) – multi-family
residential
10’ 10’
Minimum side yard
(Garmisch) - lodge
5’ 5’
Minimum side yard
(Garmisch) – multifamily
residential
0’ 5’
Minimum rear yard n/a The property spans
between two streets and does
not necessarily have a rear
yard. In Staff’s opinion the
property is delineated by use
so there are two front yards –
one for lodge, and one for
multi-family residential.
5’
Maximum site coverage 87% n/a
Maximum height - lodge 28’ 28’ may be increased to 32’
Maximum height – multi-
family residential
Maximum of 26’9” for gable
roof and 31’ for flat roof
28’ may be increased to 32’
Minimum distance between
buildings – lodge and
multifamily residential
10’ between affordable
housing/lodge and multi-
family residential
10’
Minimum distance between
buildings – multifamily
residential
10’ unless otherwise approved
by HPC during final review
10’
Minimum percent open space 15% or 4,030 sf - reduction of
public amenity approved by
HPC via Resolution #14,
Series of 2013
18% - 4,857 sf required public
amenity
Trash access area 10’ d x 15’3” w (open to the
sky)
10’d x 10’ w x 10’ h
Cumulative Allowable Floor
Area
36,500 sf (1.35:1) 27,000 sf (1:1) with the ability
to increase to 33,750 (1.25:1)
through Special Review
P182
VIII.d
Exhibit J – PUD Review Criteria
Hotel Aspen – 110 W. Main Street
2/24/14
Page 3 of 15
Maximum multi-family
residential floor area
10,500 sf 10,419 sf [60% of total net
livable area for lodge units
and affordable housing units
(17,365 sf nla * 60%)]
Maximum net livable area for
multi-family residential
dwelling unit size
3 units @ 5,000 sf net livable
area
2,000 sf maximum net livable
area (nla) per unit, ability to
increase to 2,500 sf nla by
landing a TDR
Maximum lodge floor area 24,200 sf 20,250 sf (.75:1) with ability
to increase to 27,000 (1:1)
through Special Review
Maximum affordable housing
floor area
2,000 sf n/a
Minimum off-street parking
spaces
15 subgrade parking spaces 10.5 spaces for new
development
26.445.050. Review standards: conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD.
A development application for conceptual, final, consolidated, conceptual and final or minor
PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the limited issues
associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD review, certain
standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the
reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and
procedures of this Chapter and this Title.
A. General requirements.
1. The proposed development shall be compatible with the mix of development in the
immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of density, height, bulk, and architecture, as well
as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan.
The applicant proposes a mixed use project including lodge, free market residential and
affordable housing uses. The property spans between two zone districts – Mixed Use
Zone/Main Street Historic District and the R-6 Medium Density Residential Zone District.
The development on this site is challenging because each zone district has a different
neighborhood context with more commercial/lodge structures on Main Street and primarily
single family/duplex residence along Bleeker Street. The project includes complete
demolition of all the existing structures except for a portion of the current entry lobby, and
replacement with new lodge units, affordable housing and three detached single family
residential structures. The HPC reviewed the project and granted conceptual design
approvals after 4 public hearings. The Planning and Zoning Commission held 2 public
hearings and adopted a recommendation of denial of PUD, Subdivision and Rezoning to City
Council. The requested variations are outlined in Table 2 below.
Staff is supportive of the lodge portion of the development and finds that it is compatible
with the mix of uses and architecture along the Main Street corridor. The proposed Hotel
P183
VIII.d
Exhibit J – PUD Review Criteria
Hotel Aspen – 110 W. Main Street
2/24/14
Page 4 of 15
Aspen remodel is compatible with the height, mass and architecture of the Molly Gibson,
Innsbruck Inn and Annabelle Inn which are all in close proximity to the project site.
Within the Planning Staff, there is remaining concern with the size of the free market
residences which significantly exceed the unit size cap of 2,000 sf of net livable area and the
overall maximum cumulative floor area proposed for the property. The applicant has
restudied the free market residential component of the project since the public hearing on
January 13, 2014. The revised proposal includes three separate buildings for 3 free market
residential units. The proposed siting of the buildings and the change in architecture to a
more residential character are compatible with the surrounding Bleeker Street neighborhood
context. Staff is supportive of the architecture and density changes. Staff remains
concerned that the overall floor area is too much for the 27,000 sf site and that the free
market unit sizes are 3,000 sf over the allowable unit size cap in the Mixed Use Zone
District.
The applicant proposes a lowered height of about 26’9”
to 31’ and gable roofs for the residential buildings, and a height of 28 feet for the lodge
buildings. HPC approved a height of 32 feet for flat roof free market residential buildings.
The Land Use Code measures this type of gable roof form to the 1/3 point of the eave.
Staff included a recommendation that should Council approve the project that specific design
related elements be considered by HPC during the final design reviews including orienting
residential front entrances to Bleeker Street and lowering the floor to ceiling heights for the
free market residential units to better relate to the neighborhood. Council is asked to make a
finding that the project is compatible with the neighborhood.
Staff finds that the overall floor area and the proposed units sizes are too large for the
and finds that the review criteria are not met.
2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in
the surrounding area.
The proposal is consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area.
The Main Street Historic District includes lodges, commercial and residential uses. There is
multi-family housing across Garmisch Street, single family homes on the adjacent parcels
along Bleeker Street, and commercial and lodging uses along Main Street. The one story
Yellow Brick building is located across Bleeker Street. The proposed lodge and residential
uses are consistent with the surrounding area. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the
surrounding area.
The uses are consistent with underlying zoning and the neighborhood. A lodge and an
affordable housing unit already exist on the parcel. The free market multi-family units are
consistent with the neighborhood – they are arranged as 3 single family homes which is an
allowed use in the R-6 zone district. Future development of the surrounding area should not
be adversely affected by the proposed project. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P184
VIII.d
Exhibit J – PUD Review Criteria
Hotel Aspen – 110 W. Main Street
2/24/14
Page 5 of 15
4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from
GMQS or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development
and will be considered prior to or in combination with, final PUD development plan
review.
The project requests consolidated PUD review. GMQS review shall occur after PUD review
is granted. At this time, GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed
development. The applicant proposes to mitigate for affordable housing onsite and through
either cash-in-lieu or housing credits for the remainder of the housing requirement. The
quality and configuration of the units shall be discussed during GMQS review for the
development of affordable housing.
B. Establishment of dimensional requirements: The final PUD development plans shall
establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in General
Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying Zone
District shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During
review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and
existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements
shall comply with the following:
1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and
compatible with the following influences on the property:
a) The character of and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the
surrounding area.
b) Natural or man-made hazards.
c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep
slopes, waterways, shade and significant vegetation and landforms.
d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding
area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking and historical
resources.
The proposed dimensional requirements are consistent with the underlying Mixed Use
Zone District with the exception of maximum cumulative FAR, maximum Floor Area for
lodge use, maximum Floor Area for free market multi-family residential use, and
maximum unit size cap for free market residential units as outlined below. (Please refer
to Table 1 for all dimensions of the project).
P185
VIII.d
Exhibit J – PUD Review Criteria
Hotel Aspen – 110 W. Main Street
2/24/14
Page 6 of 15
Table 2: Requested variations
Requested Variance Allowable in MU/LP zone
districts
Difference
Maximum
Cumulative Floor
Area
36,500 sf (1.35:1)
27,000 sf floor area(1:1)
ability to increase to 33,750
sf floor area (1.25:1) through
Special Review
9,500 sf floor area
over the allowable.
2,750 over the special
review maximum
Maximum Lodge
Floor Area
24,200 sf
20,250 (0.75:1) ability to
increase to 27,000 (1:1)
through Special Review
3,950 sf floor area
over allowable, within
the special review
maximum
Maximum Free
Market Multi-family
Housing Floor Area
10,500 sf
10,419 sf floor area or 60%
of total net livable area for
lodge units and affordable
housing units (a total of
17,365 sf nla for lodge units
and ah units)
81 sf floor area over
allowable
Maximum net livable
unit size cap for Free
Market Multi-family
Housing
3 units @ about 5,000
sf net livable area
2,000 sf maximum net
livable area (nla) per unit,
ability to increase to 2,500 sf
nla by landing a TDR
3,000 sf over the
allowable without a
TDR
Side yard Setback
(Garmisch St.)
0’ 5’ 5’
There are no known natural or man-made hazards on the site. The property is flat and
already developed.
The proposal includes increasing lodge units from 45 to 54 and removing the on-street
parking spaces. A subgrade parking garage is proposed to have 15 parking spaces that
will serve the lodge, affordable housing, and free market residential units. The applicant
proposes to have a guest courtesy van and a bike fleet to serve guests. The property is
located adjacent to a bus stop, a Wecycle station, and a car-to-go station. Staff finds that
the proposed dimensional requirements are appropriate and compatible with the man-
made characteristics of the property such as noise, traffic, transit, parking due to the
location of the project to transportation options and to downtown Aspen. The project
does not contain any historic resource. Historic landmarks are located adjacent to the
property, and it is partially located within the Historic District. HPC has conceptually
approved the project. Staff finds that this criterion is not met and recommends that
the applicant continue to study the project to reduce the overall floor area on the
site to better relate to the adjacent historic resources.
2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing and quantity of open
space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD
and of the surrounding area.
P186
VIII.d
Exhibit J – PUD Review Criteria
Hotel Aspen – 110 W. Main Street
2/24/14
Page 7 of 15
HPC reduced the amount of public amenity space required on the site during their
Conceptual review of the project: 4,857 square feet is required and 4,030 square feet is
proposed (a reduction of 18% to 15%). The public amenity space is provided along Main
Street in the form of a little seating area accessed from the hotel café. The proposed amenity
space is much more organized and planned than what currently exists today. There is a slight
increase to the existing site coverage proposed: 82% existing to 87% proposed. Staff finds
that the proposed open space is appropriate for the proposed PUD and the
neighborhood.
3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the
following considerations:
a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including
any nonresidential land uses.
b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed.
c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those
for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive
techniques in the proposed development.
d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general
activity centers in the City.
The Land Use Code permits a redevelopment to maintain an existing deficit of parking.
Currently, there are no parking spaces for the Hotel which equals a deficit of 22.5 spaces for
the lodge (.5 spaces/lodge unit) and a deficit of 1 space for the affordable housing unit. The
applicant proposes a subgrade parking garage with 15 parking spaces. The new proposed
development requires a total of 10.5 parking spaces: 6 spaces for the residential portion (3 for
AH and 3 for FM) and 4.5 for the lodge portion (9 new lodge units * .5 spaces). The
application meets the required number of parking spaces according to the Code.
The Engineering Department prefers to convert the head-in parking to parallel parking along
Garmisch Street, which will increase safety along the street and decrease parking spaces that
are currently used mainly by the Hotel.
The applicant proposes to have a guest courtesy van and a bike fleet to serve lodge guests.
The property is located adjacent to a bus stop, a Wecycle station, and a car-to-go station.
Staff is supportive of the proposed parking due to the other available transit options. Staff
recommends that 3 parking spaces be reserved for the Affordable Housing Units and 3 spaces
be reserved for the Free Market Residential Units (1 space/unit) to ensure that the residential
portion of the project is parked onsite. Staff finds the criteria above to be met.
4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient
infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced
if:
a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities or other utilities to
service the proposed development.
P187
VIII.d
Exhibit J – PUD Review Criteria
Hotel Aspen – 110 W. Main Street
2/24/14
Page 8 of 15
b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road
maintenance to the proposed development.
Sufficient infrastructure capabilities and roads exist on the site, which is already developed
with a lodge. The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) requires that the existing
District owned main sanitary sewer line that runs through the middle of Block 58 be
relocated by the applicant. The applicant agrees to this condition. ACSD comments on the
flows of the project include: “where additional development would produce flows that
would overwhelm the planned capacity of the existing collection system and or treatment
facility, the development will be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire
portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. The District would fund the costs of
constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the material cost difference for
larger line).” These issues are included as conditions of approval for the project.
Staff finds that the criteria are met.
5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural
hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD
may be reduced if:
a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability
or the possibility of mudflow, rock falls or avalanche dangers.
b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed,
due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution.
c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the
surrounding area and the City.
d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway or trail in the
proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful
disturbance to critical natural features of the site.
The maximum allowable density is not proposed to be reduced. The land is already
developed with a lodge. There are no natural hazards or natural site features on the
property. Staff finds the criteria are met.
6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a
significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development
pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's
physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if:
a) The increase in density serves one or more adopted goals of the community as
expressed in an applicable adopted regulatory master plan.
b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists
no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in Subparagraphs 4 and
5, above, those areas can be avoided or those characteristics mitigated.
P188
VIII.d
Exhibit J – PUD Review Criteria
Hotel Aspen – 110 W. Main Street
2/24/14
Page 9 of 15
c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with
and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern,
land uses and characteristics.
Notes:
a) Lot sizes for individual lots within a PUD may be established at a higher or lower
rate than specified in the underlying Zone District as long as, on average, the entire
PUD conforms to the maximum density provisions of the respective Zone District or
as otherwise established as the maximum allowable density pursuant to a final PUD
Development Plan.
b) The approved dimensional requirements for all lots within the PUD are required to
be reflected in the final PUD development plans.
The applicant does not propose an increase to the maximum allowable density in the
underlying zone district.
C. Site design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is
complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces and
ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the
following:
1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual
interest or a specific reference to the past or contribute to the identity of the town are
preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner.
Preservation of Aspen’s small lodging base is very important to the community and to town’s
identity. The applicant proposes to maintain and to update the lodge. Half of the property is
located within the Historic District and as such is reviewed by the HPC for compliance with
historic preservation design guidelines. Staff finds that this criterion is met.
2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and
vistas.
No significant open spaces or vistas exist on the site which requires the clustering of
structures. Staff finds that this criterion is met.
3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural
context where appropriate and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and
pedestrian movement.
The structures are located perpendicular to public streets to contribute to the residential and
mixed use context of the adjacent neighborhoods. Staff recommends that the applicant
provide a detached sidewalk along the entire length of Garmisch Street, not just in front of
the lodge portion of the project to maintain consistency in the block. Staff finds that this
criterion is met.
P189
VIII.d
Exhibit J – PUD Review Criteria
Hotel Aspen – 110 W. Main Street
2/24/14
Page 10 of 15
4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service
vehicle access.
The project shall meet Fire and Building Codes. Staff finds that this criterion is met.
5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided.
The project shall meet Building Codes regarding accessibility. Elevators and ADA lodging
rooms are proposed. Staff finds that this criterion is met.
6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and
reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties.
The property shall meet the requirements of the Urban Run-off Management Plan. Staff
finds that this criterion is met.
7. For nonresidential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to
accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use.
The lodge buildings are designed to accommodate the lodge function, similar to the current
configuration. Staff finds that this criterion is met.
D. Landscape plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed
landscape with the visual character of the City, with surrounding parcels and with existing and
proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the
following:
1. The landscape plan exhibits a well-designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves
existing significant vegetation and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental
plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate.
2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and
interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner.
3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is
appropriate.
HPC will review the landscape plan in detail during Final Commercial Design Review. The
proposed plan includes enhanced street plantings along Garmisch Street, new sidewalks
along both Garmisch and Main Streets, and a patio/café area along Main Street. The project
is required to meet Parks Department requirements for protection of existing vegetation and
for new plantings in the right of way. As mentioned previously, Staff recommends a detached
sidewalk along the length of Garmisch Street for consistency in the block. Staff finds the
criteria are met with the condition that the sidewalk along Garmisch is detached.
P190
VIII.d
Exhibit J – PUD Review Criteria
Hotel Aspen – 110 W. Main Street
2/24/14
Page 11 of 15
E. Architectural character.
1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately relate to
existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for and
indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and
cultural resources.
The map below shows adjacent historic resources in white shading and the star indicates the
subject property.
Figure 1: Map of adjacent historic resources.
Staff finds that the lodge portion of the project is appropriate for Main Street, where the
context supports a flat roof and the proposed massing. A third of the overall floor area is
proposed in the form of the free market residential units along Bleeker Street. The large unit
sizes and allowable floor area create a challenge regarding compatibility with the
neighborhood and surrounding historic landmarks (landmarks along Bleeker Street are shown
below). Staff and HPC struggled with how the amount of proposed floor area fit into the
context without compromising the lodge redevelopment and without adverse impacts to the
neighborhood. Should Council approve the project as proposed, Staff recommends that
Council recommend HPC consider some design elements to have the residential portion
better relate to the landmarks (Section 1, page 2 of the draft Ordinance). Staff finds that the
criterion is not met.
P191
VIII.d
Exhibit J – PUD Review Criteria
Hotel Aspen – 110 W. Main Street
2/24/14
Page 12 of 15
Photos (clockwise from top left): 2 story
Victorian directly adjacent to Hotel Aspen
property; Victorian on the corner of Bleeker
and First Streets; Victorian located between
the top two photos.
2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of
the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive
mechanical systems.
The applicant proposes to update the existing mechanical system and has not provided
specific details as to how this will occur. Metal sun shades are proposed on the lodge to
increase energy efficiency. There are no large eave overhangs or other natural
P192
VIII.d
Exhibit J – PUD Review Criteria
Hotel Aspen – 110 W. Main Street
2/24/14
Page 13 of 15
heating/cooling measures represented in the application for the southern elevation of the free
market residential units or the affordable housing units. Staff finds the criterion is met.
3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and appropriate
manner that does not require significant maintenance.
The applicant represents that snow shedding and storage will be accommodated in a safe and
appropriate manner. The flat roof buildings will retain most of the snow load throughout the
winter and pathways are proposed to have a snowmelt system. The applicant does not expect
a large amount of snow removal on the property due to the flat roof buildings. Staff finds
the criterion is met.
4. Emphasize quality construction and design characteristics, such as exterior materials,
weathering, snow shedding and storage, and energy efficiency.
The applicant proposes high quality materials including wood, stone, metal and glass.
Materials will be reviewed by HPC during Final Design review for compatibility with the
Historic District and compliance with the Commercial Design Standards. Staff finds that the
criterion is met with the condition that HPC review materials during Final Design
reviews.
F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be
lighted in an appropriate manner considering both Public Safety and general aesthetic concerns.
The following standards shall be accomplished:
1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any
kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures and access ways is
proposed in an appropriate manner.
2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards unless
otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features,
buildings, landscape elements and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is
prohibited for residential development.
The applicant represents that the lighting will meet all applicable lighting standards in the
Municipal Code. A lighting plan is not included in the application and will be subject to HPC
Final design review after PUD approval is granted. Staff finds the criterion is met.
G. Common park, open space or recreation area. If the proposed development includes a
common park, open space or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the
proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met:
1. The proposed amount, location and design of the common park, open space or recreation
area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and
proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief
to the property's built form and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses
and property users of the PUD.
P193
VIII.d
Exhibit J – PUD Review Criteria
Hotel Aspen – 110 W. Main Street
2/24/14
Page 14 of 15
2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in
perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD
or ownership is proposed in a similar manner.
3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent
care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas and shared facilities together
with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial or industrial development.
A common park, open space or recreation area is not proposed for this development.
H. Utilities and public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development
does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public
does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities
associated with the development shall comply with the following:
1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development.
2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the
necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer.
3. Oversized utilities, public facilities or site improvements are provided appropriately and
where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement.
Referral departments represent that adequate facilities exist or need to be improved upon by
the developer to accommodate the development, as described in the DRC comments attached
to the staff memo. Staff finds the criteria are met.
I. Access and circulation. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily
accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate
pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The
proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria:
1. Each lot, structure or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public
street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way or other
area dedicated to public or private use.
2. The proposed development, vehicular access points and parking arrangement do not
create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development or such
surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development.
3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of or connections to,
the bicycle and pedestrian trail system and adequate access to significant public lands
and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed
for appropriate improvements and maintenance.
4. The recommendations of adopted specific regulatory master plans, as applicable,
regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths and transportation are
proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner.
P194
VIII.d
Exhibit J – PUD Review Criteria
Hotel Aspen – 110 W. Main Street
2/24/14
Page 15 of 15
5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private
ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and
emergency access.
6. Security gates, guard posts or other entryway expressions for the PUD or for lots within
the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical.
The buildings are located with adequate access to public streets. The development proposes
a minor change in density to the existing lodge. The applicant represents that the project will
have a minimal impact on traffic patterns. The Engineering and Parking Departments
recommend that the existing head-in parking along Garmisch be converted back to parallel
parking for safety reasons and for consistency in the neighborhood. Staff finds the criteria
are met.
J. Phasing of development plan. (does not apply to conceptual PUD applications) The
purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary
burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are
mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be
defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the
following:
1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete
development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases.
2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants
of initial phases from the construction of later phases.
3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to
public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any facilities to
be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing
and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts
associated with the phase.
The applicant represents that they will construct this project in one phase.
P195
VIII.d
Exhibit K – Subdivision Review Criteria
Hotel Aspen – 110 W. Main Street
2/24/14
Page 1 of 3
Exhibit B - Subdivision Review Criteria
26.480.050. Review standards. A development application for subdivision review shall comply
with the following standards and requirements:
A. General requirements.
1. The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the mix of development in the
immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of density, height, bulk, architecture,
landscaping and open space, as well as with any applicable adopted regulatory master
plan.
Please refer to Exhibit A – PUD Review Criteria. Staff finds this criterion is not met.
2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in
the area.
The proposal is consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area.
The Main Street Historic District includes lodges, commercial and residential uses. The
character of Bleeker Street is a mix of residential and public uses. The proposed lodge and
residential uses are appropriate. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of
surrounding areas.
The proposal shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. The
uses are consistent with underlying zoning and the neighborhood. Staff finds the criterion is
met.
4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this
Title.
The proposed subdivision is in compliance with the requirements of the Land Use Code.
Staff finds the criterion is met.
B. Suitability of land for subdivision.
1. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for
development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide,
avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other
P196
VIII.d
Exhibit K – Subdivision Review Criteria
Hotel Aspen – 110 W. Main Street
2/24/14
Page 2 of 3
condition that will be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of the residents in the
proposed subdivision.
2. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create
spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public
facilities and unnecessary public costs.
The proposed subdivision meets the requirements for land suitability. The property is
already developed with a lodge and it located in downtown Aspen. Staff finds the
criterion is met.
C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the
proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter
26.430) if the following conditions have been met:
1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision
design standards would result in incompatibility with an applicable adopted
regulatory plan, Title 28, the municipal code, the existing, neighboring development
areas and/or the goals of the community.
2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide
justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by
professional engineers as necessary.
The proposed subdivision meets the review criteria above. Simultaneously with
Subdivision Review, the applicant is applying for a PUD review to vary the FAR and
setback requirement for the project. Staff finds the criterion is met.
C. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units
shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of
Section 26.470.070.5, Demolition or redevelopment of multi-family housing. A
subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide
affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth
Management Quota System.
The project is required to apply for Growth Management review and allotments for the
new lodge units, free market residential units, and the affordable housing units. The
applicant proposes three onsite units and cash in lieu payment for the remaining
mitigation requirement. Growth Management Review shall occur after PUD approval is
granted. Receipt of GMQS allotments and approvals is included as a condition of
approval in the draft Resolution. Failure to receive growth management shall void the
PUD/Subdivision/Rezoning approval.
P197
VIII.d
Exhibit K – Subdivision Review Criteria
Hotel Aspen – 110 W. Main Street
2/24/14
Page 3 of 3
D. School land dedication. Compliance with the School land dedication standards set forth
at Chapter 26.620.
The applicant is required to pay School Land Dedication fee prior to issuance of a
building permit. The fee is calculated based on the Land Use Code in place at the time of
building permit submittal.
F. Growth management approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications
for which all growth management development allotments have been granted or growth
management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Subdivision
approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing Planned Unit
Development (AH-PUD) without first obtaining growth management approvals if the
newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management approvals prior to
development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney.
The project is required to apply for Growth Management review and allotments for the
new lodge units, free market residential units, and the affordable housing units. The
applicant proposes three onsite units and cash in lieu payment for the remaining
mitigation requirement. Growth Management Review shall occur after PUD approval is
granted. Receipt of GMQS allotments and approvals is included as a condition of
approval in the draft Resolution. Failure to receive growth management shall void the
PUD/Subdivision/Rezoning approval.
P198
VIII.d
Exhibit L– Rezoning Review Criteria
Hotel Aspen – 110 W. Main Street
2/24/14
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit C – Rezoning Review Criteria
26.310.090. Rezoning - Standards of review. In reviewing an amendment to the Official Zone
District Map, the City Council shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land
uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
The adoption of a planned unit development (PUD) requires a rezoning of the property. In
addition, Community Development recommends that the R-6 Zone District portion of the
property be rezoned to Mixed Use (MU) to provide one underlying zone district for the entire
property. Changing the back portion of the property to MU does not change the allowable
uses due to the Lodge Preservation Overlay designation over the entire property, which Staff
proposes remain in place. The PUD dictates the dimensional requirements for the project.
Removing the R-6 zone district simplifies the application of the underlying zoning to the
parcel. Staff finds the criterion is met.
Figure 1: Current zone district map. Arrow indicates subject property.
P199
VIII.d
Exhibit L– Rezoning Review Criteria
Hotel Aspen – 110 W. Main Street
2/24/14
Page 2 of 2
B. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on
public facilities and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
exceed the capacity of such public facilities including, but not limited to, transportation
facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools and emergency
medical facilities.
Exhibit A – PUD Review Criteria addresses impacts of the project on public facilities.
Adopting a PUD and MU zoning for the entire parcel does not result in demands that exceed
the maximum capacity of public facilities. The applicant agrees to update aging facilities and
to relocate an existing sewer line as part of the project. The applicant is requesting a waiver
of the Parks Development Impact fee and the Transportation Demand Management Impact
fee which mitigate impacts on parks and transit. Fee waivers are subject to Council review.
Staff finds the criterion is met.
C. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly
adverse impacts on the natural environment.
The proposed rezoning does not have any adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff
finds the criterion is met.
D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community
character in the City and in harmony with the public interest and the intent of this Title.
The proposed rezoning is consistent with community character and in harmony with the
public interest. It provides flexibility for the redevelopment of a lodge which is a community
goal. Staff finds the criterion is met.
P200
VIII.d
C BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.2O11FEBRUARY 17, 2014
HO
T
E
L
A
S
P
E
N
:
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
s
i
g
n
S
t
u
d
y
60
5
E
A
S
T
M
A
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
A
S
P
E
N
,
C
O
L
O
R
A
D
O
8
1
6
1
1
(T
)
9
7
0
/
3
2
5
4
7
5
5
(
F
)
9
7
0
/
9
2
0
2
9
5
0
INDEX 1.INDEX 2.SITE PLAN 3.END UNIT PLANS 4.END UNIT PLANS 5.MIDDLE UNIT PLANS 6.MIDDLE UNIT PLANS 7.NORTHEAST PERSPECTIVE 8.GARMISCH PERSPECTIVE 9.NORTHWEST PERSPECTIVE 10.SOUTHEAST PERSPECTIVE 11.SOUTHWEST PERSPECTIVE 12.NORTH ELEVATION 13.EAST ELEVATION 14.SOUTH ELEVATION 15.STREET VIEWS INDEX1P201VIII.d
C BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.2O11FEBRUARY 17, 2014
HO
T
E
L
A
S
P
E
N
:
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
s
i
g
n
S
t
u
d
y
60
5
E
A
S
T
M
A
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
A
S
P
E
N
,
C
O
L
O
R
A
D
O
8
1
6
1
1
(T
)
9
7
0
/
3
2
5
4
7
5
5
(
F
)
9
7
0
/
9
2
0
2
9
5
0
SITE PLAN2P202VIII.d
C BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.2O11FEBRUARY 17, 2014
60
5
E
A
S
T
M
A
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
A
S
P
E
N
,
C
O
L
O
R
A
D
O
8
1
6
1
1
(T
)
9
7
0
/
3
2
5
4
7
5
5
(
F
)
9
7
0
/
9
2
0
2
9
5
0
END UNIT PLANS3
LO
W
E
R
L
E
V
E
L
P
L
A
N
Sc
a
l
e
:
1
/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
FI
R
S
T
L
E
V
E
L
P
L
A
N
Sc
a
l
e
:
1
/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
EN
D
U
N
I
T
P
L
A
N
S
R
O
U
G
H
G
R
O
S
S
S
.
F
.
T
A
K
E
O
F
F
S
LO
W
E
R
L
E
V
E
L
:
1
,
4
0
0
S
.
F
.
FI
R
S
T
L
E
V
E
L
:
1
,
2
0
0
S
.
F
.
SE
C
O
N
D
L
E
V
E
L
:
1
,
3
3
0
S
.
F
.
TH
I
R
D
L
E
V
E
L
:
8
3
0
S
.
F
.
TO
T
A
L
G
R
O
S
S
:
4
,
7
6
0
S
.
F
.
DE
C
K
A
R
E
A
:
2
5
0
S
.
F
.
TA
R
G
E
T
F
.
A
.
R
.
3
,
5
0
0
S
.
F
.
HO
T
E
L
A
S
P
E
N
:
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
s
i
g
n
S
t
u
d
y
P203VIII.d
C BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.2O11FEBRUARY 17, 2014
60
5
E
A
S
T
M
A
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
A
S
P
E
N
,
C
O
L
O
R
A
D
O
8
1
6
1
1
(T
)
9
7
0
/
3
2
5
4
7
5
5
(
F
)
9
7
0
/
9
2
0
2
9
5
0
END UNIT PLANS4
SE
C
O
N
D
L
E
V
E
L
P
L
A
N
Sc
a
l
e
:
1
/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
TH
I
R
D
L
E
V
E
L
P
L
A
N
Sc
a
l
e
:
1
/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
EN
D
U
N
I
T
P
L
A
N
S
R
O
U
G
H
G
R
O
S
S
S
.
F
.
T
A
K
E
O
F
F
S
LO
W
E
R
L
E
V
E
L
:
1
,
4
0
0
S
.
F
.
FI
R
S
T
L
E
V
E
L
:
1
,
2
0
0
S
.
F
.
SE
C
O
N
D
L
E
V
E
L
:
1
,
3
3
0
S
.
F
.
TH
I
R
D
L
E
V
E
L
:
8
3
0
S
.
F
.
TO
T
A
L
G
R
O
S
S
:
4
,
7
6
0
S
.
F
.
DE
C
K
A
R
E
A
:
2
5
0
S
.
F
.
TA
R
G
E
T
F
.
A
.
R
.
3
,
5
0
0
S
.
F
.
HO
T
E
L
A
S
P
E
N
:
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
s
i
g
n
S
t
u
d
y
P204VIII.d
C BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.2O11
60
5
E
A
S
T
M
A
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
A
S
P
E
N
,
C
O
L
O
R
A
D
O
8
1
6
1
1
(T
)
9
7
0
/
3
2
5
4
7
5
5
(
F
)
9
7
0
/
9
2
0
2
9
5
0
MIDDLE UNIT PLANS5
LO
W
E
R
L
E
V
E
L
P
L
A
N
Sc
a
l
e
:
1
/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
FI
R
S
T
L
E
V
E
L
P
L
A
N
Sc
a
l
e
:
1
/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
MI
D
D
L
E
U
N
I
T
P
L
A
N
S
R
O
U
G
H
G
R
O
S
S
S
.
F
.
T
A
K
E
O
F
F
S
LO
W
E
R
L
E
V
E
L
:
1
,
4
0
0
S
.
F
.
FI
R
S
T
L
E
V
E
L
:
1
,
2
0
0
S
.
F
.
SE
C
O
N
D
L
E
V
E
L
:
1
,
4
0
0
S
.
F
.
TH
I
R
D
L
E
V
E
L
:
8
3
0
S
.
F
.
TO
T
A
L
G
R
O
S
S
:
4
,
8
3
0
S
.
F
.
DE
C
K
A
R
E
A
:
1
5
0
S
.
F
.
TA
R
G
E
T
F
.
A
.
R
.
3
,
5
0
0
S
.
F
.
FEBRUARY 17, 2014
HO
T
E
L
A
S
P
E
N
:
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
s
i
g
n
S
t
u
d
y
P205VIII.d
C BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.2O11
60
5
E
A
S
T
M
A
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
A
S
P
E
N
,
C
O
L
O
R
A
D
O
8
1
6
1
1
(T
)
9
7
0
/
3
2
5
4
7
5
5
(
F
)
9
7
0
/
9
2
0
2
9
5
0
MIDDLE UNIT PLANS6
SE
C
O
N
D
L
E
V
E
L
P
L
A
N
Sc
a
l
e
:
1
/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
TH
I
R
D
L
E
V
E
L
P
L
A
N
Sc
a
l
e
:
1
/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
MI
D
D
L
E
U
N
I
T
P
L
A
N
S
R
O
U
G
H
G
R
O
S
S
S
.
F
.
T
A
K
E
O
F
F
S
LO
W
E
R
L
E
V
E
L
:
1
,
4
0
0
S
.
F
.
FI
R
S
T
L
E
V
E
L
:
1
,
2
0
0
S
.
F
.
SE
C
O
N
D
L
E
V
E
L
:
1
,
4
0
0
S
.
F
.
TH
I
R
D
L
E
V
E
L
:
8
3
0
S
.
F
.
TO
T
A
L
G
R
O
S
S
:
4
,
8
3
0
S
.
F
.
DE
C
K
A
R
E
A
:
1
5
0
S
.
F
.
TA
R
G
E
T
F
.
A
.
R
.
3
,
5
0
0
S
.
F
.
FEBRUARY 17, 2014
HO
T
E
L
A
S
P
E
N
:
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
s
i
g
n
S
t
u
d
y
P206VIII.d
C BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.2O11
60
5
E
A
S
T
M
A
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
A
S
P
E
N
,
C
O
L
O
R
A
D
O
8
1
6
1
1
(T
)
9
7
0
/
3
2
5
4
7
5
5
(
F
)
9
7
0
/
9
2
0
2
9
5
0
NORTHEAST PERSPECTIVE7 FEBRUARY 17, 2014
HO
T
E
L
A
S
P
E
N
:
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
s
i
g
n
S
t
u
d
y
P207VIII.d
C BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.2O11
60
5
E
A
S
T
M
A
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
A
S
P
E
N
,
C
O
L
O
R
A
D
O
8
1
6
1
1
(T
)
9
7
0
/
3
2
5
4
7
5
5
(
F
)
9
7
0
/
9
2
0
2
9
5
0
8GARMISCH STREET PERSPECTIVE FEBRUARY 17, 2014
HO
T
E
L
A
S
P
E
N
:
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
s
i
g
n
S
t
u
d
y
P208VIII.d
C BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.2O11
60
5
E
A
S
T
M
A
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
A
S
P
E
N
,
C
O
L
O
R
A
D
O
8
1
6
1
1
(T
)
9
7
0
/
3
2
5
4
7
5
5
(
F
)
9
7
0
/
9
2
0
2
9
5
0
9NORTHWEST CORNER PERSPECTIVE FEBRUARY 17, 2014
HO
T
E
L
A
S
P
E
N
:
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
s
i
g
n
S
t
u
d
y
P209VIII.d
C BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.2O11
60
5
E
A
S
T
M
A
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
A
S
P
E
N
,
C
O
L
O
R
A
D
O
8
1
6
1
1
(T
)
9
7
0
/
3
2
5
4
7
5
5
(
F
)
9
7
0
/
9
2
0
2
9
5
0
10SOUTHEAST CORNER PERSPECTIVE FEBRUARY 17, 2014
HO
T
E
L
A
S
P
E
N
:
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
s
i
g
n
S
t
u
d
y
P210VIII.d
C BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.2O11
60
5
E
A
S
T
M
A
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
A
S
P
E
N
,
C
O
L
O
R
A
D
O
8
1
6
1
1
(T
)
9
7
0
/
3
2
5
4
7
5
5
(
F
)
9
7
0
/
9
2
0
2
9
5
0
11SOUTHWEST CORNER PERSPECTIVE FEBRUARY 17, 2014
HO
T
E
L
A
S
P
E
N
:
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
s
i
g
n
S
t
u
d
y
P211VIII.d
C BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.2O11
60
5
E
A
S
T
M
A
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
A
S
P
E
N
,
C
O
L
O
R
A
D
O
8
1
6
1
1
(T
)
9
7
0
/
3
2
5
4
7
5
5
(
F
)
9
7
0
/
9
2
0
2
9
5
0
12NORTH BUILDING ELEVATION FEBRUARY 17, 2014
HO
T
E
L
A
S
P
E
N
:
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
s
i
g
n
S
t
u
d
y
26'-9"
26'-9"
26'-9"P212VIII.d
C BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.2O11FEBRUARY 17, 2014
60
5
E
A
S
T
M
A
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
A
S
P
E
N
,
C
O
L
O
R
A
D
O
8
1
6
1
1
(T
)
9
7
0
/
3
2
5
4
7
5
5
(
F
)
9
7
0
/
9
2
0
2
9
5
0
13EAST BUILDING ELEVATION
HO
T
E
L
A
S
P
E
N
:
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
s
i
g
n
S
t
u
d
y
P213VIII.d
C BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.2O11FEBRUARY 17, 2014
60
5
E
A
S
T
M
A
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
A
S
P
E
N
,
C
O
L
O
R
A
D
O
8
1
6
1
1
(T
)
9
7
0
/
3
2
5
4
7
5
5
(
F
)
9
7
0
/
9
2
0
2
9
5
0
14EAST BUILDING ELEVATION
HO
T
E
L
A
S
P
E
N
:
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
s
i
g
n
S
t
u
d
y
31'-0"
31'-0"P214VIII.d
C BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, P.C.2O11
60
5
E
A
S
T
M
A
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
A
S
P
E
N
,
C
O
L
O
R
A
D
O
8
1
6
1
1
(T
)
9
7
0
/
3
2
5
4
7
5
5
(
F
)
9
7
0
/
9
2
0
2
9
5
0
15STREET VIEWS FEBRUARY 17, 2014
HO
T
E
L
A
S
P
E
N
:
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
s
i
g
n
S
t
u
d
y
P215VIII.d
From:Steve Garcia
To:Sara Adams
Subject:FW: Hotel Aspen
Date:Monday, February 17, 2014 2:11:27 PM
Sara,
Please see attached from another one of my owners for the record and City Council Meeting on
Monday the 24th .
Thank you.
Also, do you have digital copies of the peak roof adjustment from the developers?
From: j zats [mailto:jzats@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 11:10 AM
To: Steve Garcia
Subject: Hotel Aspen
City Council & To Whom it May Concern-
I am opposed to the expansion of the Hotel Aspen. I have
lived on Garmisch Street for 18 years and know how
important it is to maintain neighborhood cohesiveness in this
area. Aspen prides itself on being a small town community
without "citylike" structures. The Hotel Aspen will become
just that.
The construction work for 2 years and the underground
parking will benefit the developer and not the neighborhood.
In addition a well established pre-school is across the street.
This development will greatly impact their day to day
routines and learning time with the increased noise and
workers in the area. The 100 year old tree should remain
there as well as the existing structure.
Please make note of my opposition to this unnecessary
development.
Sincerely,
Julie Zats
118 N Garmisch Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4335 / Virus Database: 3705/7098 - Release Date: 02/16/14
P216
VIII.d
From:Junee Kirk
To:Adam Frisch
Cc:Sara Adams
Subject:FW: PUD Hotel Aspen application edited
Date:Thursday, January 23, 2014 2:16:46 PM
Dear Adam:
The present Hotel Aspen is approximately 20 feet high on Main Street and approximately 26” on
the north side of the lot. We need to see an overlay of the existing elevations with the proposed
application so as to determine the exact heights and mass in their respective context.
This application is an abuse of the process. The PUD was written to incentivize owners of “small
lodges” to remodel or upgrade, in order to keep “ the small lodge character”, while allowing them
some free market , and this particular application only benefits the developer.
These “SUPERSIZED” condos in the West End are also too high with the building’s 3rd story, almost
twice the mass as is presently there.
My suggestions to you and other council members is :
1. The applicant should retain the present one story lodge, with a possible second story set
back 26 feet. Fill in the pool and courtyard with additional small lodge rooms , and have
guarantees that they will be moderately priced.
2. The applicant should build a small multi family free market Victorian- type structure on the
north end of the lot, to fit in with the character of the neighborhood.
3. The applicant should not be allowed to cut down any existing trees for any such expansion
or remodel on any lots, for these trees are as much a part of the historic character in the
West End and Main Street as the built environment.
4. The applicant should present an overlay with existing heights and mass to any proposed
application .
5. Affordable housing was always intended to be on location, and should be in this application
if at all possible.
6. The public should not have to bear the burden in $91,000 mitigation fees.
By definition, a PUD should give back to the community in public amenity by preserving the small
lodge character. If this application, which presently gives nothing back to the community, does not
change to meet the concerns of the public in the above stated 5 points, then I should hope council
would turn it down. It would be wrong to approve an application which sets a precedent in the
accelerating degradation of our lovely historic Main Street and attractive, coveted West End.
Sincerely,
Junee Kirk
P217
VIII.d