HomeMy WebLinkAboutresolution.council.087-14 RESOLUTION #87
(Series of 2014)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF ASPEN AND SGM, INC. AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT AMENDMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract
amendment for Burlingame Ranch Phase 1 Parking Design 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 Burlingame Ranch Phase 1 Parking Design 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 28th day of July 2014.
i
Ste Skadron, Mayor
1, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held July 28, 2014.
xK I Linda Manning, Ci Clerk
EXHIBIT A
July 28,2014
Amendment No. 1
To the Agreement for Professional Services ("Agreement")
between the City of Aspen and SGM, Inc.
Original contract dated 7/26/2013.
The Agreement is amended effective July 28, 2014 as follows:
• ADD Burlingame Ranch Phase 1 Parking Design Stage 2
per attached Exhibit A SGM proposed scope of work and
schedule for the design and engineering of additional $68,660.00
parking at Burlingame Ranch Phase 1 housing development.
AMENDMENT#1 TOTAL: $68,660.00
Original contract and all amended amounts:
Original Contract 7/26/2013 $24,630.00
Amendment 1 7/28/2014 $ 68,660.00
AMENDED TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE $ 93,290.00
OWNER PROFESSIONAL
City of Aspen SGM, Inc
i
Steve Skadron, Mayor J mm d PE
�
Date Date o�
of
EXHIBIT A
City of Aspen
Burlingame Ranch Phase 1 Parking Design — Stage 2
This document outlines a comprehensive scope of work and schedule for the Stage 2,
engineering and design portion of the Burlingame Ranch Phase 1 Parking Study project. The
scope of work is includes the level of effort to complete the design associated with the
recommendations included in the Final Stage 1 Recommendations Report (SGM, January 27,
2014) and illustrated in Figure 1 which includes the design of Lot 6A only. Per the request of the
City, the costs associated with the design of Lot 6C will be approximately $3,000 less than those
presented in the fee table below (see Figure 2 for the location of Lot 6C).
Burlingame Phase 1
Parking & Drainage Analysis
PZ 14
PZ 1$
Lot a
Losand PZ E
® Re-Tree
• RFTA Bus Stop
Cure&Getter PZ a,
^�MSE Wall
Handicap Parking
1
Permeable Pevala PZ 12 _ L414
Paved Spaces
Proposed Panting PZ 7 R I,
tit- s PZ 3 a
RFTA
QPrep—d t MI—y
PZ I
ro
1� s,
PZ 9
IPZ2
Lot 3'.
VIA
PZ 10
Lot 2 ��f
PZ t
t:
br_WfariMa.pnor _.-_.._..4.r
rbaraLLlW�wYti-.em rM.Y..b
Figure 1.Recommended Parking Configuration.
SSGM %'0 p ' '
City of Aspen
Burlingame Ranch Phase 1 Parking Design — Stage 2
Burlingame Phase 1
Parking & Drainage Analysis
PL 14
PZ 13
Let 5
yi
Lot 0
AM.C
1
PZ 5
Lecend _
a RFTA Bus Stop Al,A i
Handicap Park,ng
Pavod Sp t—
Proposed Park,ng P2 7 V
R PTA i PL 3
OPropasod stairway
PZ 12 PZ e
PZ 5
PZ 12.
-
Lot 7
PZ 1 �
•
Lot
Y^'
.PZI
l�
Yr �
5SGM r�......a�.,� - - — - �• 8
nMYa•la•w�tin+.y..•. t•M.OM
Figure 2. Map depicting the location of Lot 6C (for reference purposes only).
Scope of Work
The following scope of work identifies the tasks, objectives and deliverables that will fulfill the
expectations of a complete Building Permit Application for Stage 2 of the Burlingame Phase I
Parking Study per the recommendations presented in the Stage 1 Recommendations Report
(SGM, January 27, 2014). This scope of work also includes the necessary time to coordinate
6SGM :• p 12
City of Aspen
Burlingame Ranch Phase 1 Parking Design — Stage 2
with the various City departments throughout the project, including review comment resolution,
meetings and correspondence, as needed. SGM has teamed with Sopris Engineering to provide
surveying support to document and verify the existing conditions for the proposed parking and
stairwell improvements. SGM will also retain a geotechnical firm to collect soil borings in the
location of the proposed parking lot 6A.
The overall objectives of this project is to complete the design of the parking and stairwell
improvements recommended by SGM in the Stage 1 Recommendations Report (January 27,
2014) and submit a complete Building Permit Application for the project to the City of Aspen.
Additional design detail will be provided by this project per the request of the HOA Board (April
14, 2014 email to Chris Everson from Diana Ettlinger) include the replacement and/or relocation
of all trees removed as part of this design, the use of a paved parking lot surface, and stairway,
railing, and other proposed materials details.
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— Final Design
Task 3— Implementation Documents
Task 4 — Project and Construction Schedules
Task 5 — Probable Cost of Construction
Task 6 — Project Management & Coordination
Task 1. Detailed Engineering Analysis
Objective: Conduct a detailed engineering analysis that identifies the major issues related to the
project site drainage, utilities, and structural elements, specifically areas where:
• Functioning and non-functioning drainage/stormwater facilities exist
• Excessive vegetation is causing obstructions to the soil surfaces/existing parking spaces
• Lack of positive drainage exists
• Existing utilities will be impacted
• Structural elements exist or will be needed to fulfill the project design
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.
Specifically, the surveyor will verify the location of stormwater inlets and utility features.
This analysis will also include geotechnical engineering services. The geotechnical firm will drill
at least the 5 borings in the location of Lot 6A, as close as practical to the existing buildings and
in the area where the proposed retaining wall is to be located. The boring locations will be
coordinated with the designers to best assist with their design. The borings will be logged and
checked for groundwater levels. Percolation testing will be performed in the borings for
SGM ;, p 13
City of Aspen
BuIlIE3'�,.ia16Ee 9°aa nc�� hbase ra$ Kif$q Mop esiq;n - S4a Le 2
J � S .�s
subsurface infiltration characteristics to be used in the retaining wall design. The borings will be
backfilled with drill cuttings after the percolation testing.
Laboratory testing of samples taken from the borings will be performed to determine their
engineering characteristics. The information obtained from the field and laboratory testing will be
analyzed and a report prepared discussing our findings and providing recommendations for
grading and drainage designs including surface grades, subsurface drainage, backfill material
types, and compaction of earthwork for construction of the new parking lot. The need for
foundation drains next to existing dwellings will also be evaluated.
SGM will retain an irrigation and landscape design firm to support the irrigation and landscape
design components of the project.
The SGM team members will conduct two site visits to discuss the project and document the
existing conditions, infrastructure, drainage patterns, issues and concerns for purposes of the
project. 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, and the City Building Department prior to finalizing the Final Detailed Engineering
Analysis.
Deliverables: Draft/Final Detailed Engineering Analysis. Survey. Meeting with City Engineering,
City Building and City Asset Management Departments. Geotechnical Report.
Task 2. Final Design
Objective: Develop a single construction-level bid package to include design drawings,
specifications and contract documents for the parking and stairwell improvements at Burlingame
Phase I.
Sub-tasks:
• Develop a 30% design package, consisting of:
o Preliminary plan drawings (modify existing as-builts with specific project information)
o Preliminary construction timing/sequencing
o Preliminary construction cost opinion
0 60% level detailed Grading and Drainage Plan; analysis; criteria; and detailed design
• Submit preliminary design package to City of Aspen staff for review and meet on-site to
discuss and receive comments.
• Develop 90% design package, consisting of:
0 100% level detailed Grading and Drainage Plan; analysis; criteria; and detailed
design
0 90% drawings
0 90% technical specifications and general conditions
0 90% bidding and contract documents
o % construction cost opinion
SSGM i P 14
City of Aspen
- udin ar ar-cl Phase i Pa r nag Design — Stage 2
• Submit 90% design package to City staff for review and meet on-site to discuss and receive
comments.
• Produce and submit 100% design package, consisting of:
o Same as 90%, but finalized with City staff input and ready for bid.
Deliverables:
• Two design milestone submittals: 60% and 100% final covering Burlingame Phase I parking
and stairwell improvements.
Task 3. Imploarnentation 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 as 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 4. Project and Construction Schedules
Objective: develop a project and construction schedule.
Deliverables: Project and construction schedules.
Task 5. 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.
Task 6. Project Management & Coordlination
Objective: Provide for communications and coordination necessary to support efficient,
effective, and timely project execution. Maintain consistent and frequent communication with the
City Asset Management Department, the City Engineering Department and the HOA Board.
Task Description:We would like to have a project Kickoff Meeting with representatives of the
City's Asset Management, City Engineering, and the Building Departments to review the project
SSGM ti`t p 1 5
City of Aspen
Ranch Burlingame I a i Pl y g Design _._- to g e L
goals, and the proposed project design. This upfront meeting will also facilitate communication
and coordination throughout the project, ultimately leading to a streamlined permit approval.
Sub-tasks:
• Hold one internal project kickoff meeting and initiate QA/QC process.
• Provide bi-weekly project status update emails to the City of Aspen Project Manager.
• Conduct monthly project budget and schedule checks and review invoices.
• Communicate with City staff, as needed, on project progress, etc.
• Internal coordination and communication.
Deliverable: Meeting Minutes.
Schedule
We are anticipating a 16-18 week schedule following a Notice to Proceed:
Weeks 1-2
• Kickoff Meeting
• Site visit
• Utilities located/verified (weather permitting)
Week
• Conduct survey (weather permitting)
• Geotechnical soil drilling
• Begin Engineering Analysis
Weeks 4-7
• Develop initial grading and drainage options/concepts
• Meet with Project Manager and City Engineering 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
• Develop/submit Geotechnical Report
Weeks 7-1
• Develop/Submit Detailed Engineering Analysis and Design
• Meet with Project Manager and City Engineering to review concepts/approach
• Drainage and Grading plan detail design
Weeks 1012
• 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
15SGM p 1 6
�. a
City of Aspen
Burlingame an&-, P sase I Parkin Design — Stage 2
Week 14-16
• Final project 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 Relimbursables
We propose to perform the Scope of Work associated with Stage 2 of the Burlingame Ranch
Phase 1 project for a fee of$68,360. We would anticipate reproduction reimbursables in the
range of$300 for a total fee of$68,660.
This cost estimate assumes:
• Irrigation design for 2-3 acres (maximum)
• Two site visits for SGM and Sopris Engineering
• No as-built drawings will be developed
• Parking Lot 6A design (the cost estimate can be reduced by approximately$3,000 if Lot
6C is selected)
• Coordination with the HOA Board regarding design details
The following table outlines the hours and costs per task.
QA/QC and Prol lect 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.
6SGM p1 '
i
City of Aspen
Burlingame Ranch Phase 1 Parking Design — Stage 2
Table 1 . Fee Estimate.
SGM Staff Hours Subconsultants
Ja Hammond Angle Fowler/Andrew Rapeijko
Task/Task Y Lee Barger Mike Fowler Ter Bendetti
sk/Task Description Princi al In Charge Project Manager/ Terry Survey Irrigation Landscape Design Geotechnical Reimbursables Total Hours Task Totals
P g Project Engineers Project Engineer Structural Engineer Project Designer Design
Task 1.Detailed Engineering Analysis 2 20 20 32 80 $3,500 $7,500 $150 $27,9pp
Task 2.Final Design 24 16 8 $5,000 $8,500 $19,580
Task 3.Implementation Documents 4 16 4 6 $500 $150 $4,030
Task 4.Project and Construction Schedules 16 24 4 $5,160
Task S.Probable Cost of Construction 1 16 32 12 $6,925
Task 6.Project Management and Coordination 1 20 20 0 $5,065
Total Cost $660 513,500 $14,080 $5,940
$9,180 $3,500 $5,000 $8,500 $8,000 $300 236 $68,660
SSGM P , 8
City of Aspen
Burlingame Ranch Phase 1 Parking Design — Stage 2
We appreciate the opportunity to continue working with you. Please do not hesitate to contact
me if you have any questions or concerns about this proposal.
Sincerely,
Ojefte4&
Angie Fowler, PE
Project Manager
SSGM ;, P 1 9
EXHIBIT B BUDGET
Burlingame Ranch Phase IIAii, Buildings 5-7, 34 units
2014 Detailed Budget Estimate (including carry-forward from 2013)
rev.June 20,2014 rt REV2 Ll
42013 QRCES Budd tCarry-Forward Balance $ 4,411,189 $ 4,411,189 $
il Budget Approval $ 15,056, 15,056,020 $
CORE Application May 2014) $
Total Sources $ 19,467,209 $ 19,467,209 $ _
USES
nstruction-GC/GMP $ 15,256,167 $ 15,803,742 $ 547,575
Access/Infrastructure Remaining(Haselden) $ 470,383 $ 501,189 $ 30,806
Vertical Buildings 1-4 Remaining(Haselden) $ 3,356,670 $ 3,293,233 $ (63,437)
Vertical Buildings 5-7 including Solar Thermal(RANelson) $ 11,279,114 $ 11,504,114 $ 225,000
2014-2015 Irrigation connectivity-design and construction $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $
Deferred Park1/Pond2 Scope to work with Parks Dept $ 355,206 $ 355,206
B. Construction-Developer Responsibilities(City of Aspen) $ 129,000 $ 111,141 $
Offsites Sunk
Mitigation Sunk $
Offslte Storm Sewer $
Site Gas Supply,Electrical Design,Utility Oversight $
Site Elect Underground $
Site Elect Supply $
Site Sanitary Line $
Owners OCIP Insurance $ 129,000 $ 111,141 $ (17,859)
C. Soft Costs $ 1,836,033 $ 2,479,931 $ 64308
Design
Administrative Services
COA PM $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $
Legal $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $
Presales $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ -
Owner's Agent $ 390,880 $ 446,268 $ 55,388
Architect 8,Consultants $ 408,609 $ 508,939 $ 100,330
CxA Constr Phase $ 138,630 $ 152,290 $ 13,660
Enhanced Civil Oversight $
Enhanced Vertical Oversight $ 64,130 $ 74,050 $ 9,920
Professional Services
Materials Testing
Geotech(inc materials testing) $ 44,000 $ 66,000 $ 22,000
Survey $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ -
Medium voltage electrical oversight $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $
Fees
Sewer Tap Fee $ 191,784 $ 190,512 $ (1,272)
Water Tap Fee-waived
Parks Impact Fee-waived
TDM Impact Fee-when buildings online $ 37,000 $ 36,306 $ (694)
School Impact Fee-when buildings online $ 31,000
$ 31,000 $ -
Road Impact Fee-n/a only for Pitkin County Permit
Building Permit Fee $ 150,000 $ 149,566 $ (434)
Stormwater Fee-waived
Land Use Fee-done in 2011
Home Sales Fee
IHOASetup $ 20.000 S 20.000
Burlingame Phase I Parking,Design+Construction $ 75,000 $ 500,000 $ 425,000
Other
Construction Resources,Natural Gas,Power,Water $ 10,000 $ 30,000 $ 20,000
D. Contingencies $ 2,246,009 $ 1,072,395 $ (1,173,614)
2014 Contingency $ 2,24.6,009 h $ 1,072,395 $ (1,173,614)
Project contingency expressed as%of construction cost 14.7 6,80/
Total Uses(A+B+C+D) $ 19,467,209 $ 19,467,209 $
Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT C - INCREASED DENSITY AGREEMENT
Ver 4 213/2010
Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Association, Inc.
Agreement/Understanding with the City of Aspen
Shall Article I, Section 32 of the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Subdivision Declaration
be amended to allow for a density increase from 236113 to 258/13. The vote to Increase density
is conditioned upon the adoption by Council Resolution within 90 days of the vote on the
increase in density of the following terms and conditions, and are part of an agreement to
amend this section of the declarations. If such resolution is not adopted by Council as set forth
herein this vote shall become null and void. Furthermore if any unit owner successfully
challenges the validity of this vote, the validity of the increase in the maximum number of units
that may be created or the validity of any expansion resulting from this action,then this
agreement shall become null and void and any obligations or commitments on the part of the
City shall be terminated ab initlo.
. 258 total units (245 multi-family units and 13 single-family lots). The location of the 6
additional SF home sites shall be agreed upon by city and owner representatives.
2. Eliminate the $60 per month per unit mobility fee and amend the PUD accordingly.
(The Burlingame home owners realize that bus service may increase or decrease according to
transportation budgets and demand.)
3. Retroactively forgive the Burlingame Ranch I Condominium Association, Inc. and the
Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Association, Inc. all unpaid mobility fees.
4. Amend the PUD to add additional parking to the development that would increase
the parking ratio from 1.67 to 2.0 (excluding the 26 "bandit" parking spaces behind
current tuck-in parking spaces from the calculation) and include visitor, loading zones
and handicapped spaces (as required by code).The City would retain the right to add
as many as 3 additional parking spots to the project total, dedicated to the CarShare
program—and not count those spots towards the new 2.0 ratio. (The funding for additional
parking is contingent on voter approval for phase 11/111. The additional parking would be one of the 1 tt
projects sought in phase 11. The siting and design of the additional parking will be developed in conjunction
with homeowner representatives. In the interim before the voter authorization on funding of Phase►1!111, the
City will agree to review the potential for restriping of spaces on Mining Stock to add some spaces and look
at creating some temporary parking by the use of gravel over dirt spaces.)
5. The COA will contribute $25,000.00 toward the completion of the Commons bldg.
(This money is not associated with the bond vote and so the city can contribute the funds whenever needed
for completion of finish work to commons building.)
6. Construct a staircase/sidewalk from Mining Stock Pkwy. to Callahan Court Parking
lot. (The funding for this project is contingent on voter approval for phase 11/111 and will be done in
conjunction with the additional parking to be provided in Phase 1 —as one of the 1st projects undertaken in
Phase 213.)
7. Emphasize open space in Phase 11 1111, in particular buildings clustered around
courtyards with "usable open space" and sidewalks similar to the courtyard located
on Molly and Lindvig Courts, and create a minimum of 100 square feet of Usable
Open Space for every 1000 square feet of living space that is created in the design of
phase 111111. "Usable Open Space" refers to areas that are sodded with grass, not
native seeded areas and not all drainage basins,which are frequently inundated with
Page I of 5
Ver 4 2/3/2010
water and are unusable. (The City noted that after meeting with the O'Callaghan and reviewing our
budget for landscape maintenance that we likely do not have enough to cover our expenses currently. if we
would be willing to allow two of the SF homesites to stay in phase l then they could build another city park
at the NW corner of the phase IL This would be in addition to the 100 square ft of usable open space per
1000 square ft of livable space built in phase 1i. The city asks us to consider this carefully because our
budget will also go up. We should keep in mind that the city will maintain the 2nd city park at their
expense.)
8. Allow Owner Representatives or such other committee established by the Owner
Representatives to have input In all phases of design review.
9. Follow all design review guidelines and green building standards as required in Phase 1.
10. Eliminate the requirement for the Master or Condominium Association to pay the
$75 per space rental income to the City and will amend the Mobility Plan and PUD to
reflect this. If any spaces continue to be available for rental;the funds for such spaces
shall remain the property of the Master or Condominium Association,as applicable.
11. Complete its (COA)planned connector trail improvements from Burlingame
Ranch to the Airport Business Center and shall pursue its plans to provide a direct
route to the Roaring Fork River and the Rio Grande Trail and Bridge off the Airport
Business Center connector trail. (THE DESIGN OF A NARROW DIRT TRAIL iS CONTINUING
WHICH WILL CONNECT THE NORTH END OF BURLINGAME RANCH TO THE BUSINESS CENTER
THE CiTY HAS CONTACTED PARKS DEPT.AND CONSTRUCTION MAY BEGIN AS EARLY AS THIS
FALL)
r Z. No additional units will be built in Burlingame Ranch Phase I or Phase 11/111 in the
future, other than the number the owners approve in this vote or agree to under the
applicable standards of approval at whatever point in the future such changes will be
proposed.
13* Sign at entrance posting "No Dogs, Fines Imposed". (Will be part of a series of
"insubstantial amendments"to the PUD.)
14. Speed limit reduction to 15 mph. (traffic study is complete and signs have ordered)
S. Audit of Association books prior to transfer of control to owner Board not
completed. (The COA has authorized the contract)
16. Provide Legal Corrections to Association governing documents(both
Condominium and Master Association) mandated by SB 89 and SS 100 and
recommendations or supporting language for policies that need to be adopted. (The
COA is working with the law firm, Ballard, Sparhr,Andrews and Ingersoll, LLP in Denver to complete all
revisions.) .
17. Confirm all common areas have been properly conveyed to each association or
follow through and convey them.
18* Drainage: including safety grates on drainage culverts and correction of improperly
draining drainage detention areas. (DRAINAGE OF THE DETENTION AREAS HAVE
BEEN CORRECTED, POND 2 BEHIND 19 LINDVIG COURT HAS CONCRETE
FLOW CHANNELS AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT IS WORKING WITH
STREETS DEPARTMENT TO OBTAIN OR FABRICATE GRATING FOR
CULVERTS. COA is not satisfied with the drainage of Pond 2 across from Transit 1. They have brought
this to Shaw's attention numerous times. If the city take over this repair then it will have to go through a
public bid process. The COA is commit to resolving this problem.)
Page 2 of 5
Ver 4 2/312010
19. Erosion on path connecting Transit I to Roch Place. (The COA is planning to rebuild most
of this portion of the trail/walking path)
20. Address water rights -provision of ditch water and lease from City for provision of
water for irrigation from City's ditch rights (at no cost to HOA). (The COA is working with
Ballard, Sparhr,Andrews and Ingersoll, LLP in Denver to complete a lease agreement)
21 . Address landscaping: weeds Issues, and properly complete seeded areas and
planting beds. (The COA has completed ail reseeding we will have to wait for next summer to observe
the successful germination and growth or lack thereof,)
22. The Condo I Board is requesting the installation of boulders to help prevent the
irrigation from being damaged by cars. (The city is willing to help with this. The city also notes
that the sprinkler heads that are being damaged are at 18 from the side of the road and therefore can
only be damaged by individuals deliberately driving off the road.)
23. Address and repair all issues raised by third party roof commissioner and address
hazardous areas Identified by O'Callaghan. (ROOF WORK HAS BEEN COMPLETED
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ROOF COMMISSIONING AGENT AND THE
SNOW DROP AREAS IDENTIFIED WILL RECEIVE SNOW FENCING. )
24. Address all Phase I punch list and warranty issues presented by Board and
O'Callaghan Prop Mgt. Phase I punchlist and warranty issues include:
G1)The fire system has more than the average trouble codes, error codes, dact,and
communication errors. Progaurd is aware of the buildings that have chronic
problems and have been meeting with Seimens to find a solution. The system is
going to require alot of Technical work to get the problems fixed. The buildings
involved include, but are not limited to:42 Mining Stock Place ("MSP"), 99 MSP,
129 MSP, 44 Callahan Court ("CC"), 45 CC, 185 Forge Road ("FR"), 19 Lindvig
Court("LC"). (PROGUARD iS WORKING TO RESOLVE ALL ISSUES AND THE CITY
1S WAITING ON THEIR REPORT OF CONDITIONS. SEIMENS IS SENDING A NEW
PANEL FOR INSTALLATION AND TESTING IF THIS PANEL SOLVES THE ISSUES
THEN THEY WiLL REPLACE TROUBLESOME. IF THiS PANEL DOES NOT RESOLVE
THE ISSUES THEN MORE TROUBLESHOOTING MUST BE DONE. THIS IS NOT A
FiRE REPORTING DEFECT THAT WOULD JEPORDIZE THE REPORTING OF A FIRE.)
b)Fire Sprinkler system commissioning completion. Pro Guard did not complete a
review of storage areas,which are causing system malfunctions. (PROGUARD IS
WORKING TO RESOLVE ALL ISSUES AND THE CITY IS WAITING ON THEIR REPORT
OF CONDITIONS.)
C) There are several areas in which the siding is popping out, or cracked,and the
paint is either peeling or the wrong color. Shaw has fixed some of the areas that
were popped out and are in the process of getting the rest replaced. They are in
contact with the manufacturer to find a solution for the peeling and discolored
paint. (SHAW IS ADDRESSING THIS AS A WARRANTY ISSUE AND IS SCHEDULE FOR
CORRECTIVE ACTION iN AUGUST.)
d) 163 FR has a small gas leak in the mechanical room. Source Gas confirmed that
the meter was not installed by them and did not belong to them. (THE METER
WAS PART OF THE TESTING PROGRAM BY THE NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY
LABORTORY iN BOULDER. THE METER HAS BEEN REMOVED.)
e) 124 FR, 170 FR, 99 MSP have had blowers replaced due to a leak or gush of water
coming down from the ceiling onto the boiler. 170 FR was checked in the
Page 3 of 5
ver 4 213/2010
mechanical room by John Y (who?). and he said he didn't see any water at the time
however he did not go into the units above to investigate the bath 1 shower to see
if this was the source of the water. (SHAW IS ADDRESSING THIS AS A WARRANTY
ISSUE.)
0 The staircase lighting at 34 Molly Court ("MC") has not worked for more than 2
years. The City's Property Manager Terri Kappelli was aware of this issue due to
constantly burning out light fixtures.The electrician came out to look at it but
didn't have time to fix it. His suspicion was that the wiring inside the storage unit
next to the stairs had been damaged. (SHAW HAS ADDRESSED THIS AS A
WARRANTY ISSUE. COMPLETE.)
g) The common building 2nd bathroom area has tile installed but there is no grout.
(THIS BATHROOM WAS NOT TO BE FINISHED AND WAS NOT TO EVEN BE TILED
THEREFORE THE TILE THAT WAS INSTALL WAS NOT GROUTED.)
h)There are some circulating pumps that are not wired, including but not limited to
42 MSP. (SHAW IS ADDRESSING THIS AS A WARRANTY ISSUE.)
0 124 FR common entrance door to the storage units is missing the lock. (SHAW IS
ADDRESSING THIS AS A WARRANTY ISSUE;MATERIALS HAVE BEEN ORDERED.)
j) 170 FR is missing the common entrance storage door, the entire doorl (SHAW IS
ADDRESSING THIS AS A WARRANTY ISSUE;MATERIALS HAVE BEEN ORDERED.)
k) 55 MSP unit 102 and 129 MSP unit 102 have uncompleted landscaping dirt areas
underneath the bedroom windows. The neighborhood cats have made these areas
Into litter boxes. (SHAW HAS ADDRESSED THIS AS A WARRANTY ISSUE AND IT IS
COMPLETE.)
67 MC dirt area between the parking lot and sidewalk is not landscaped per the
City's plans and specifications. (COA DESIGNING PLAN. NO SHRUBS WILL BE
PLANTED BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE DESTOYED BY SNOW REMOVAL.)
M) 170 FR, 129 MSP, and 44 CC - snow slides either from upper roof or solar
panels onto the stairs or the side walk. Steve Bossart is aware of the issues and
will be contacting Roof Tech. (SHAW IS ADDRESSING THIS AS A WARRANTY ISSUE,
MATERIALS HAVE BEEN ORDERED.)
n)The entrance doors to the trash/ recycling areas at transit 2 & 3 do not close
properly. Rick Wilson had worked on them but as soon as they were unhooked for
the trash removal they wouldn't close again. The City shall oversee and pursue
this issue unto completion and to the satisfaction of O'Callaghan and the Owner
Representatives. (SHAW 1S ADDRESSING THIS AS A WARRANTY ISSUE.)
O)There are dead trees that require replacement at the following locations:
Retention Pond behind the single family houses/lots, 123 FR unit 201 parking lot
side, 123 FR unit 206 parking lot side, 185 FR parking lot side between units 102 &
103, 18S FR at the end of the parking lot next to the side street, in between 185 FR
& 163 FR street side, 123 FR between units 202 & 203 street side, MSP big sod area
I st tree closest to the common building, S5 MSP next to unit 201, 161 MSP in front
of unit 204 half dead.(THIS WAS A WARRANTY ITEM AND WORK OF
REPLACEMENT IS COMPLETE.)
P)Native grass at 185 FR parking lot side is very sparse and unsatisfactory. (SHAW
AND THE CITY HAVE RESEEDED THESE AREAS SEVERAL TIMES.)
Page 4of5
Ver 4 213120 10
q)42 MSP all the bushes on the courtyard side at unit 105 died,were removed by
O'Callaghan and require replacement. (SHAW IS ADDRESSING THIS AS A
WARRANTY ISSUE; WORK IS COMPLETE.)
f) 42 MSP courtyard side in front of unit 106 is not landscaped per the City's plans
and specifications. (SHAW IS ADDRESSIGN THIS AS A WARRANTY ISSUE; WORK IS
COMPLETE.)
S) Parking signage needs to be installed and re-striping requires completion. (We are
aware that City staff Is waiting for input for Burlingame Condo I Board members. CITY
HAS DEVELOPED A PLAN FOR THE ROAD RIGHT-O&WAYS AND THE HOA PARKING
AREAS. THE CITY 1S WORKING WITH THE STREETS DEPARTMENT TO ORDER AND
INSTALL SIGNS ALONG THE STREETS AND WILL WORK WITH THE HOA WHEN SO
DIRECTED WITHIN THE PARKING LOTS.)
t) Weed Removal (The type of weeds, the location of those weeds, and the method of removal will be
decided at a meeting on site;at least one board member from the Condo Board and one member of
the Master Association board—must be a homeowner, not city staff'—will be present to approve the
conditions of removal. The conditions of removal will be approved in writing;a representative from the
COA Parks department and Asset department must also be present;the weeds will then be removed
by pulling, cutting or spraying, one time only, within two weeks;after l:er this one-time event the City of
Aspen will be relieved of any and all responsibility for removal of weeds.)
Page 5 of 5