HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20150223
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
February 23, 2015
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) Notice of HPC approval:530 W. Hallam Street (no staff presentation)
b) Resolution #25, Series of 2015 - Contract: Winter & Company - Residential
Design Standards update
c) Minutes - February 9, 2015
d) Resolution #24, Series of 2015 - Contract Change Order for R.A. Nelson
VII. First Reading of Ordinances
a) Ordinance #5, Series of 2015 - Utilities Development Review Fees
b) Ordinance #9, Series 2015 - Limits on Variations Code Amendment
VIII. Public Hearings
a) Ordinance #8, Series of 2015 - second alternate for HPC and P&Z Commissions
IX. Action Items
a) Resolution #23, Series of 2015 - Regarding the FERC Permit, Pursuit of Micro
Hydro Projects and Reaffirming the City of Aspen's Position Regarding the
Protection of its Water Rights
b) Resolution #22, Series of 2015 - Setting the Ballot Title for the Charter
Amendment Question
X. Adjournment
Next Regular Meeting March 09, 2015
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 Skadron and Aspen City Council
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: Notice of HPC approval of Conceptual Major Development, On-site relocation,
and Variances for 530 W. Hallam Street, HPC Resolution #8, Series of 2015
DATE: February 23, 2015
BACKGROUND: On February 11, 2015, the Historic Preservation Commission approved Conceptual
Major Development Review, On-site Relocation and Variances, and recommended City Council approval
of a Historic Landmark Lot Split, for the property located at 530 W. Hallam Street.
This 9,000 square foot lot is allowed a single family home or two
detached units. Because the property is landmarked, the owner
can subdivide the lot so that the Victorian is on one half of the
site, and a new house is on the other half.
The Victorian has two additions that are proposed to be
removed, and the house will be restored as much as possible
back to the design shown in the photo to the right. The Victorian
will be shifted forward on the site, with an addition placed to the
rear. A new house will be built to the west.
HPC approved a floor area bonus and minor setback variances to
allow the project, along with variances to three Residential
Design Standards which were difficult to fully meet due to the
design of the historic house and the presence of some large trees
on the property and in the adjacent right of way.
Drawings representing the Conceptual approval are attached as Exhibit A. Conceptual review is mass,
scale and site plan only. The next review step will be Council consideration of the lot split request at an
upcoming hearing. HPC Final design review of materials, windows, landscape and lighting will follow.
The HPC Resolution and Minutes are attached as Exhibits B and C, respectively. The board approved
the project by a 4-0 vote. The project was continued once for restudy before receiving approval.
PROCEDURE : This is not a public hearing and no staff or applicant presentation will be made at the
February 23rd Council meeting. If you have any questions about the project, please contact the staff
planner, Amy Simon, 429-2758 or amy.simon@cityofaspen.com. Pursuant to Section 26.412.040(B),
City Council has the option of exercising the Call Up provisions outlined in Section 26.412.040(B)
within 15 days of notification on the regular agenda.
For this application, City Council may vote to Call Up the project at their February 23rd or March 9 th
meeting. If City Council does not exercise the Call Up provision, the HPC Resolution shall stand.
ATTACHMENTS :
Exhibit A: Conceptual Design
Exhibit B: Draft HPC Resolution #8, Series of 2015
Exhibit C: Draft HPC minutes from January 28 and February 11, 2015
P1
VI.a
P
2
V
I
.
a
Scale:
ISSUE
A 9.1
2/3/15Plotted On:3
-D
V
I E
W
S
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R AW I N G S A N D
SPECI FICATIONS ARE THE P RO PERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NO T MEASURE ON E INCH (1 ")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
w
w
w
.
K
i
m
R
a
y
m
o
n
d
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
t
e
l
9
7
0
-
9
2
5
-
2
2
5
2
e
m
a
i
l
k
i
m
@
k
r
a
i
.
u
s
9/18/14
5 3
0
W
H
A
L
L A
M
V I C
T O
R
I A
N
R
E
N
O
V A T I O
N
5 3 0 W
H A L L
A
M
S
T R
E
E
T
SCHEMATIC
A
S
P
E
N , C
O
1/26/15 HPC SUBMITTAL
SCALE: 1:68.57
DOWN THE STREET
SCALE: 1:66.67
ALLEY NE TREETOPS
SCALE: 1:68.57
CORNER SIDEWALK
SCALE: 1:47.53
CORNER TREETOP VIEW
SCALE: 1:68.57
CORNER TREES DEMO
SCALE: 1:73.85
MOD MIDDLE
P
3
V
I
.
a
Scale:
ISSUE
A 0.2
2/3/15Plotted On:S
I T
E
P
L
A
N
- P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R AW I N G S A N D
SPECI FICATIONS ARE THE P RO PERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NO T MEASURE ON E INCH (1 ")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
w
w
w
.
K
i
m
R
a
y
m
o
n
d
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
t
e
l
9
7
0
-
9
2
5
-
2
2
5
2
e
m
a
i
l
k
i
m
@
k
r
a
i
.
u
s
9/18/14
5 3
0
W
H
A
L
L A
M
V I C
T O
R
I A
N
R
E
N
O
V A T I O
N
5 3 0 W
H A L L
A
M
S
T R
E
E
T
SCHEMATIC
A
S
P
E
N , C
O
1/26/15 HPC SUBMITTAL
B B
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
A A
C C
D D
A A
C C
D D
8
8
7
7
9
9
A A
C C
D D
123456789
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
F
D W
16 R. @ 7 1/2"15 T. @ 12"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
910111213141516
5'-0"5'-0"
5'-0"
5 '-0 "
5'-0"
5'-1/2"
41'-6"48'-6"
2 2 '-1 0 "
16'-10 3/4"21'-1"
37'-11 3/4"
6'-1/4"3'-4 3/4"
13'-2 3/4"15'-3"
4'-5"
1 6 '-9 3 /4 "
7'-3"
1 8 '-2 "
FRONT PORCH
F R O N T W A L K
F R O N T W A L K
GARAGE APRON / DRIVEWAY GARAGE APRON / DRIVEWAY
EXISTING TREE TO BE
REMOVED PER CITY
FORESTER
EXISTING TREE
TO REMAIN
EXISTING TREE
TO REMAIN
EXISTING TREE
TO REMAIN
EXISTING TREE
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING TREE
TO REMAIN, IF POSSIBLE
SETBACK LINE
SETBACK LINE
SETBACK LINE SETBACK LINE
S E T B A C K L I N E
S E T B A C K L I N E
S E T B A C K L I N E
S E T B A C K L I N E
P R O
P E R T Y L I N E
P R O P E R T Y L I N E
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
P R O P O S E D N E W
P R O P E R T Y L I N E
HALLAM STREET
F I F T
H
S T R
E
E T
ALLEY
FRONT PORCH
F R O N T W A L K
F R O N T W A L K
GARAGE APRON / DRIVEWAY GARAGE APRON / DRIVEWAY
EXISTING TREE
TO REMAIN
EXISTING TREE
TO REMAIN
EXISTING "LEGACY" TREE
TO REMAIN
EXISTING TREE
TO REMAIN
EXISTING TREE
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING TREE
TO REMAIN, IF POSSIBLE
SETBACK LINE
SETBACK LINE
SETBACK LINE SETBACK LINE
S E T B A C K L I N E
S E T B A C K L I N E
S E T B A C K L I N E
S E T B A C K L I N E
P R O
P E R T Y L I N E
P R O P E R T Y L I N E
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
P R O P O S E D N E W
P R O P E R T Y L I N E
HALLAM STREET
F I F T
H
S T R
E
E T
ALLEY
LINE OF EXISTING
FRONT OF HOUSE
EXISTING TREE TO BE
REMOVED PER CITY
FORESTER
2 SITE PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"
LOT SIZE: 9,000 SF
LOT SIZE: 9,000 SF
P
4
V
I
.
a
Scale:
ISSUE
A 1.3
2/3/15Plotted On:E
X
I S
T
I N
G
E
L
E
V A T
I O
N
S
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R AW I N G S A N D
SPECI FICATIONS ARE THE P RO PERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NO T MEASURE ON E INCH (1 ")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
w
w
w
.
K
i
m
R
a
y
m
o
n
d
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
t
e
l
9
7
0
-
9
2
5
-
2
2
5
2
e
m
a
i
l
k
i
m
@
k
r
a
i
.
u
s
9/18/14
5 3
0
W
H
A
L
L A
M
V I C
T O
R
I A
N
R
E
N
O
V A T I O
N
5 3 0 W
H A L L
A
M
S
T R
E
E
T
SCHEMATIC
A
S
P
E
N , C
O
1/26/15 HPC SUBMITTAL
A B
EXISTING WOOD SIDING AND
TRIM TO REMAIN
EXISTING WINDOW TRIM TO REMAIN
EXISTING FASCIA AND SOFFIT
TO REMAIN
EXISTING BRICK CHIMNEY
TO REMAIN
EXISTING WOOD FRONT DOOR,
TRANSOM AND FRONT PORCH
TRIM DETAILS TO REMAIN
HISTORIC
TO REMAIN
ADDITION TO BE
DEMOLISHED
HISTORIC
TO REMAIN
ADDITION TO BE
DEMOLISHED
UPPER LEVEL PLY
109'-10"
MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
1 2
3 '-8 1 /4 "
EXISTING WOOD SIDING
AND TRIM TO REMAIN
EXISTING WINDOW
TRIM TO REMAIN
EXISTING FASCIA AND
SOFFIT TO REMAIN
HISTORIC
TO REMAIN
ADDITION TO BE
DEMOLISHED
B A
EXISTING CMU CHIMNEY
EXISTING UTILITIES TO
BE RELOCATED
MIDCENTURY
ADDITION TO BE
DEMOLISHED
RECENT
ADDITION TO BE
DEMOLISHED
2 1
EXISTING SIDE PORCH
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING WOOD SIDING
AND TRIM TO REMAIN
EXISTING WINDOW TRIM
TO REMAIN
EXISTING FASCIA AND
SOFFIT TO REMAIN
EXISTING GREEN METAL ROOF
TO BE REPLACED WITH ZINC
STANDING SEAM
EXISTING BALCONY
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING
BULKHEAD /
COAL CHUTE
EXISTING UTILITIES TO
BE RELOCATED
HISTORIC
TO REMAIN
ADDITION TO BE
DEMOLISHED
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
WEST EXISTING
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
EAST EXISTING
P
5
V
I
.
a
Scale:
ISSUE
V
2/3/15Plotted On:P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
S
- V
I C
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R AW I N G S A N D
SPECI FICATIONS ARE THE P RO PERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NO T MEASURE ON E INCH (1 ")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
w
w
w
.
K
i
m
R
a
y
m
o
n
d
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
t
e
l
9
7
0
-
9
2
5
-
2
2
5
2
e
m
a
i
l
k
i
m
@
k
r
a
i
.
u
s
9/18/14
5 3
0
W
H
A
L
L A
M
V I C
T O
R
I A
N
R
E
N
O
V A T I O
N
5 3 0 W
H A L L
A
M
S
T R
E
E
T
SCHEMATIC
A
S
P
E
N , C
O
1/26/15 HPC SUBMITTAL
C
D
C
D
8
8
7
7
9
9
C
D
CD W
4
'
-
9
1
/
2
"4 '-9 1 /2 "
7'-2 1/2"
8'-1/4"
2 6 '-7 1 /4 "
5 1 '-8 1 /2 "
8 "
22'-0"
1 0 '-1 1 /4 "
5 '-6 "
5 '-8 "
3 1/2"13'-0"5 1/2"10'-1/2"3 1/2"
6 '-0 "
4"3'-4 3/4"
4 '-1 1 1 /4 "
3 1 /2 "
5 '-6 1 /4 "
5 1 /2 "
1 3 '-0 "
3 1 /2 "
4 '-6 "
1 4 '-7 "
BEDROOM 3
BEDROOM 2
FAMILY ROOM
W I N D O W
W E L L
W I N D
O W W
E L L
CLOSET
DRESSER
LAUNDRY
O P E N R I S E R S , S T E E L S T A I R S
G L A S S R A I L I N G
BEDROOM 4
F P a n d T V
B A T H 4
C L E A R G L A S S
A T S H O W E R
FROSTED GLASS
AT WC
MECHANICAL
W I N D O W
W E L L
F L O A T I N G
B E N C H
BATH 3
BATH 2
T.O. SLAB
89'-0"
C
D
C
D
8
8
7
7
9
9
C
D
F
D W
16 R. @ 7 1/2"15 T. @ 12"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
910111213141516
5'-1/2"
5 1/2"13'-0"5 1/2"
5 1/2"24'-5 3/4"5 1/2"
5 1 /2 "
1 5 '-7 "
5 1 /2 "
5'-3"2'-0"5 1/2"14'-9 1/2"2'-10 3/4"
4'-6"
2 2 '-1 0 "
6'-1/4"3'-4 3/4"
13'-2 3/4"15'-3"
4'-5"
1 6 '-9 3 /4 "
7'-3"
FRONT PORCH
F R O
N T W A L K
GARAGE APRON / DRIVEWAY
SETBACK LINE
SETBACK LINE
S E T B A
C K
L I N E
S E
T B A
C K
L I N E
FRONT PORCH
F R O
N T W A L K
GARAGE APRON / DRIVEWAY
SETBACK LINE
SETBACK LINE
S E T B A
C K
L I N E
S E
T B A
C K
L I N E
UP
DN
MUD ROOM
LIVING
DINING
FP
TV
ACID ETCHED GLASS
OR PERFORATED STL
ENTRY
PORCH
KITCHEN
POWDER
OPEN TO ABOVE
REMOVE EXISTING FLOOR
ADD STEEL AND WOOD
TRUSSES IN VOLUME
CUBBIES AND
BENCH
F R O S T E D G L A S S P A N E L
LINE OF EXTERIOR
WALL ABOVE L I N E O F E X T E R I O R
W A L L A B O V E
T.O. PLY
100'-0"
T.O. SLAB
100'-0"
GARAGE
P A N T R Y
PATIO
C
D
C
D
8
8
7
7
9
9
C
D
16 R. @ 7 1/2"15 T. @ 12"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
910111213141516
5 1/2"5'-0"
1 1 '-7 1 /4 "
3 '-3 1 /2 "
21'-6 1/2"
DECK
ROOF OVERHANG BELOW
GAS
FIREPLACE W/STEEL SURROUND
MASTER SUITE
F R O S T E D
G L A S S E N C L O S U R E
CLEAR
GLASS ENCLOSURE
TV
STEAM SHOWER
STONE VENEER ON WALL
LOWER ENTRY ROOF
FREE STANDING
TUB
T.O. PLY
110'-2"
OPEN TO BELOW
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
LOWER LEVEL W/BEDROOM
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
MAIN LEVEL PLAN
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
UPPER LEVEL PLAN
P
6
V
I
.
a
Scale:
ISSUE
AV 3.10
2/3/15Plotted On:S
O
U
T
H
A
N
D
W
E
S
T
E
X
T
E
R
I O
R
E
L
E
V A T
I O
N
S
- V
I C
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R AW I N G S A N D
SPECI FICATIONS ARE THE P RO PERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NO T MEASURE ON E INCH (1 ")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
w
w
w
.
K
i
m
R
a
y
m
o
n
d
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
t
e
l
9
7
0
-
9
2
5
-
2
2
5
2
e
m
a
i
l
k
i
m
@
k
r
a
i
.
u
s
9/18/14
5 3
0
W
H
A
L
L A
M
V I C
T O
R
I A
N
R
E
N
O
V A T I O
N
5 3 0 W
H A L L
A
M
S
T R
E
E
T
SCHEMATIC
A
S
P
E
N , C
O
1/26/15 HPC SUBMITTAL
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
1 '-2 "
9 '-1 0 "
2 4 '-1 0 3 /4 "15'-3 1/2"
3 '-0 "
EXISTING SHAKE AND
WOOD GRILLE DETAIL
TO REMAIN
RECONSTRUCT
EXISTING BRICK
CHIMNEY PER HPC
PHOTO
NEW ZINC STANDING
SEAM ROOF
BUTT-JOINT SMOOTH
WOOD SIDING
CEMENTITOUS PANELS
GLASS AND STEEL
RAIL
NEW WOOD SHINGLES
UPPER LEVEL PLY
109'-10"
MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
UPPER LEVEL PLY
110'-2"
MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
MAIN LEVEL PLY
89'-0"
LINK
UPPER LEVEL PLATE
120'-8"
EXISTING STONE
FOUNDATION TO BE
APPLIED AS VENEER
ON NEW CONCRETE
FDN, MATCH EXISTING
ELEVATION
7
7
8
8
9
9
EXISTING SHAKE
AND WOOD GRILLE
DETAIL TO REMAIN
EXISTING BRICK
CHIMNEY BE REBUILT
PER HPC PHOTO
INSTALL DOUBLE-
HUNG WINDOW TO
MATCH HPC PHOTO
NEW WOOD SHINGLES
UPPER LEVEL PLY
109'-10"
MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
MATCH EXISTING
PORCH TRIM PER
HPC PHOTO
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
WEST ELEVATION VIC
P
7
V
I
.
a
Scale:
ISSUE
AV 3.1
2/3/15Plotted On:N
O
R
T
H
A
N
D
E
A
S
T
E
X
T
E
R
I O
R
E
L
E
V A T
I O
N
S
- V
I C
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R AW I N G S A N D
SPECI FICATIONS ARE THE P RO PERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NO T MEASURE ON E INCH (1 ")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
w
w
w
.
K
i
m
R
a
y
m
o
n
d
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
t
e
l
9
7
0
-
9
2
5
-
2
2
5
2
e
m
a
i
l
k
i
m
@
k
r
a
i
.
u
s
9/18/14
5 3
0
W
H
A
L
L A
M
V I C
T O
R
I A
N
R
E
N
O
V A T I O
N
5 3 0 W
H A L L
A
M
S
T R
E
E
T
SCHEMATIC
A
S
P
E
N , C
O
1/26/15 HPC SUBMITTAL
9
9
8
8
7
7
2 5 '-0 "
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
C
C
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
6 '-1 1 1
/4 "
EXISTING SHAKE
DETAIL TO REMAIN
RECONSTRUCT
EXISTING BRICK
CHIMNEY PER HPC
PHOTO
EXISTING SIDING AND
TRIM TO REMAIN
EXISTING GREEN
METAL ROOF TO BE
REPLACED WITH
CLASS A WOOD
SHAKE PER HPC
NEW ZINC STANDING
SEAM ROOF
BUTT-JOINT
SMOOTH WOOD
SIDING
CEMENTITOUS
PANELS
GLASS AND STEEL
RAIL
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
EAST ELEVATION VIC
P
8
V
I
.
a
Scale:
ISSUE
AV 9.2
2/3/15Plotted On:R
E
V
I S
E
D
V
I C
T O
R
I A
N
, N
/S
S
T A
I R
S
3
D
V
I E
W
S
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R AW I N G S A N D
SPECI FICATIONS ARE THE P RO PERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NO T MEASURE ON E INCH (1 ")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
w
w
w
.
K
i
m
R
a
y
m
o
n
d
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
t
e
l
9
7
0
-
9
2
5
-
2
2
5
2
e
m
a
i
l
k
i
m
@
k
r
a
i
.
u
s
9/18/14
5 3
0
W
H
A
L
L A
M
V I C
T O
R
I A
N
R
E
N
O
V A T I O
N
5 3 0 W
H A L L
A
M
S
T R
E
E
T
SCHEMATIC
A
S
P
E
N , C
O
1/26/15 HPC SUBMITTAL
DIRECT VIEW HALLAM 3/8" = 1'-0"
CORNER OF 5TH & HALLAM3/8" = 1'-0"
5TH AVE VIEW 1:29.80
P
9
V
I
.
a
Scale:
ISSUE
M
2/3/15Plotted On:P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
- M
O
D
E
R
N
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R AW I N G S A N D
SPECI FICATIONS ARE THE P RO PERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NO T MEASURE ON E INCH (1 ")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
w
w
w
.
K
i
m
R
a
y
m
o
n
d
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
t
e
l
9
7
0
-
9
2
5
-
2
2
5
2
e
m
a
i
l
k
i
m
@
k
r
a
i
.
u
s
9/18/14
5 3
0
W
H
A
L
L A
M
V I C
T O
R
I A
N
R
E
N
O
V A T I O
N
5 3 0 W
H A L L
A
M
S
T R
E
E
T
SCHEMATIC
A
S
P
E
N , C
O
1/26/15 HPC SUBMITTAL
B
1
2
3 4
123456789
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
21
AM 3.5
22'-5 1/2"
1 5 '-1 /2 "
5 1/2"12'-10"3 1/2"19'-0"
1 9 '-5 3 /4 "
1 5 '-3 /4 "
5 1 /2 "
7 '-1 /2 "
5 1 /2 "
1 1 '-6 1 /2 "
DECK
FP
MASTER SUITE
TV
LOWER ROOF AT GARAGE
CLEAR GLASS
ENCLOSURE AT
SHOWER
FROSTED GLASS
ENCLOSURE AT
WC
FREE STANDING
TUB
BENCH
T.O. PLY
110'-2"
B B
1
2
3 4
5
A
C
D
A
C
D
A
C
D
123456789
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
CD W
5 '-8 "
5 '-8 "
8 "
1 3 '-7 3 /4 "
3 1 /2 "
2 1 '-3 1 /2 "3 1/2"13'-4 1/4"3 1/2"
7 0 '-1 1 1 /4 "
8'-3/4"
6'-9 1/2"
36'-11"
7'-0"13'-10 1/2"8'-6"7'-6 3/4"
1 5 '-3 1 /4 "
2 6 '-8 1 /2 "
1 1 '-5 1 /4 "
1 7 '-6 1 /4 "
5 '-6 "
OFFICE
BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3
BEDROOM 4
LAUNDRY
B O O K S H E L V E S
D E S K
linen
FROSTED GLASS
AT WC
CLEAR GLASS
AT STEAM
SHOWER
MECHANICAL
W
I N D O W
W
E L L
W I N D
O W
W E L L
W
I N D O W
W
E L L
GLASS RAIL AT STAIR
BATH AND POWDER
F R O S T E D G L A S S
A T W C
CLEAR GLASS
AT SHOWER
TV WALL
T V W A L L
T V W A L L
A/V EQUIPMENT
STORAGE
FAMILY ROOM
WET BAR
DRESSER
CLEAR GLASS
AT SHOWER
T.O. SLAB
89'-0"
B B
1
2
3 4
5
A
C
D
A
C
D
A
C
D
F
123456789
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
5
'-0
"
6'-11 1/2"5 1/2"22'-5 1/2"5 1/2"6'-5 1/2"
5 1 /2 "
2 1 '-2 "
5 1 /2 "
1 3 '-7 1 /4 "
5 1 /2 "
1 7 '-2 1 /2 "
5 1 /2 "
2 '-3 "
9 '-7 3 /4 "
1 9 '-3 "
4 '-3 1 /2 "
2 5 '-9 "
2 1 '-7 1 /2 "
1 3 '-1 1 1 /4 "
2 5 '-6 "
1 8 '-9 3 /4 "
2 8 '-1 0 1 /2 "
5'-11"26'-8"5'-3 1/2"
4 '-0 "
2'-3"
16'-10 3/4"21'-1"
37'-11 3/4"
GARAGE APRON / DRIVEWAY
EXISTING TREE
TO REMAIN, IF POSSIBLE
SETBACK LINE
S E T B A C
K L I N E
P R O
P E R T Y L I N E
GARAGE APRON / DRIVEWAY
EXISTING TREE
TO REMAIN, IF POSSIBLE
SETBACK LINE
S E T B A C
K L I N E
P R O
P E R T Y L I N E
POWDER
MUD ROOM
DINING
LIVING
KITCHEN
BUTLER'S
PANTRY
GARAGE
ACID ETCHED GLASS
OR PERFORATED STL
ENTRY
BUFFET
T V A N D F P
WALL OF APPLIANCES
G A R B A G E
E N C L O S U R E
G L A S S E N C L O S E D
W I N E C A B I N E T
COVERED
PORCH
PATIO
T.O. PLY
100'-0"
T.O. SLAB
100'-0"
FRONT PORCH
ACID ETCHED GLASS WALL
LINE OF EXISTING
FRONT OF HOUSE
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
UPPER LEVEL PLAN
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
-1. LOWER LEVEL PLAN
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
MAIN LEVEL PLAN
P
1
0
V
I
.
a
Scale:
ISSUE
AM 3.2
2/3/15Plotted On:S
O
U
T
H
A
N
D
W
E
S
T
E
L
E
V A T
I O
N
-
M
O
D
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R AW I N G S A N D
SPECI FICATIONS ARE THE P RO PERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NO T MEASURE ON E INCH (1 ")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
w
w
w
.
K
i
m
R
a
y
m
o
n
d
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
t
e
l
9
7
0
-
9
2
5
-
2
2
5
2
e
m
a
i
l
k
i
m
@
k
r
a
i
.
u
s
9/18/14
5 3
0
W
H
A
L
L A
M
V I C
T O
R
I A
N
R
E
N
O
V A T I O
N
5 3 0 W
H A L L
A
M
S
T R
E
E
T
SCHEMATIC
A
S
P
E
N , C
O
1/26/15 HPC SUBMITTAL
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
2 5 '-0 "
5 '-6 "
UPPER LEVEL PLY
110'-2"
MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
UPPER LEVEL PLY
120'-5"
MAIN LEVEL PLY
89'-0"
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
WEST ELEVATION MOD
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
SOUTH ELEVATION VIC
P
1
1
V
I
.
a
Scale:
ISSUE
AM 3.3
2/3/15Plotted On:N
O
R
T
H
A
N
D
E
A
S
T
E
L
E
V A T
I O
N
-
M
O
D
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R AW I N G S A N D
SPECI FICATIONS ARE THE P RO PERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NO T MEASURE ON E INCH (1 ")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
w
w
w
.
K
i
m
R
a
y
m
o
n
d
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
t
e
l
9
7
0
-
9
2
5
-
2
2
5
2
e
m
a
i
l
k
i
m
@
k
r
a
i
.
u
s
9/18/14
5 3
0
W
H
A
L
L A
M
V I C
T O
R
I A
N
R
E
N
O
V A T I O
N
5 3 0 W
H A L L
A
M
S
T R
E
E
T
SCHEMATIC
A
S
P
E
N , C
O
1/26/15 HPC SUBMITTAL
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
C
C
C
C
C
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
2 4 '-6 "
5 '-6 3 /4 "
1/3 POINT OF
12/12 SLOPED ROOF
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
EAST ELEVATION MOD
P
1
2
V
I
.
a
HPC Resolution #8, Series of 2015
Page 1 of 2
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, ON-SITE RELOCATION,
AND VARIANCE APPROVAL, AND RECOMMENDING HISTORIC LANDMARK
LOT SPLIT APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 530 W. HALLAM,
LOTS K, L, AND M, BLOCK 28, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION # 8, SERIES OF 2015
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-25-004
WHEREAS, the applicant, 530 Hallam, LLC, represented by Kim Raymond Architects, has
requested HPC approval for Conceptual Major Development, On-Site Relocation, Variances and a
Historic Landmark Lot Split for the property located at 530 W. Hallam, Lots K, L, and M, Block
28, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that “no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;” and
WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application,
a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project’s
conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section
26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC
may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain
additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, in order to receive approval for Relocation, the application shall meet the
requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.090.C, Relocation of a Designated
Property; and
WHEREAS, in order to receive approval for a floor area bonus, the application shall meet the
requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.110.F; and
WHEREAS, the HPC may approve setback variances according to Section 26.415.110.C.1.a,
Variances; and
WHEREAS, the HPC may approve variances to the Residential Design Standards according to
Section 26.410.020.D; and
WHEREAS, in order to complete a Historic Landmark Lot Split, the application shall meet the
requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.480.030. HPC makes a recommendation to
City Council; and
P13
VI.a
HPC Resolution #8, Series of 2015
Page 2 of 2
WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on January 28, 2015 and February 11, 2015. HPC
considered the application, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal
consistent with the review standards and granted approval with conditions by a vote of 4 to 0.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby grants Conceptual Major Development, On-Site Relocation, and Variance
approval, and recommends City Council approve a Historic Landmark Lot Split, for the property
located at 530 W. Hallam, Lots K, L, and M, Block 28, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado
with the following conditions:
1. HPC hereby grants a 500 square foot floor area bonus.
2. HPC hereby allows a 5’ rear setback at the basement level living space on the west lot, and a 0’
rear yard setback at the basement level on the east lot, instead of the required 10.’ HPC hereby
allows a 10’ combined sideyard on the east lot instead of the required 11.’
3. HPC hereby grants a waiver from the Residential Design Standards related to Secondary
Mass, Building Elements and Build-to line.
4. For the temporary relocation of the Victorian house during basement excavation, the owner
must provide a $30,000 letter of credit, cashier’s check, or other form acceptable to the City
Attorney to insure the safe relocation of the house. A relocation plan detailing how and
where the building will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with
the building permit application, and the applicant shall include documentation of the existing
elevation of the home and the relationship of the foundation to grade in the building permit
application.
5. For Final review, the architect is to create a 6-8” recess of the west façade of the area labeled
“master bath” on the second story of the addition to the Victorian.
6. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1)
year of February 11, 2015, the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to
file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the
Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole
discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a
Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request
for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 11th day of February,
2015.
Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:
______________________________ _____________________________
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Willis Pember, Chair
ATTEST:
___________________________
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
P14
VI.a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2015
6
Chris Foreman said they are on board with the project. The art program has
been handled on a case by case basis and then Park’s reaches out to other
departments for input. We have reviewed how it is to be installed.
Gretchen inquired about the landscaping around the sculpture.
Greg said we would like to center it in the existing red sandstone patio. We
would take the stone up and have an earth buffer between the stone and
marble so that there would be some plants growing around the sculpture to
give it a nature feeling. We would put rock underneath and reset the stone.
Greg said the marble was freshly quaried 5 years ago.
Willis said the process that public art comes to fruition is very
underdeveloped.
Bob said art is very personal. When someone wants to donate a piece it is
very hard to make a judgement.
John said the art comes from the earth and it is very fitting and it is a very
refreshing application.
Nora thanked Maggie and we are all honored to have the piece in Pioneer
Park.
Willis opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The
public hearing was closed.
MOTION: Jim moved to approve Resolution #5, minor development for the
installation of the marble statue in Copeland-Twining Pioneer Park; second
by Bob.
Roll call vote: Jim, yes; Nora, yes; Bob, yes; John, yes; Gretchen, yes;
Patrick, yes; Willis, yes. Motion carried 7-0.
530 W. Hallam Street – Conceptual Major Development, On-site
relocation, historic landmark lot split and variances, public hearing
Bob Blaich recused himself. He received notice.
Exhibit I – public notice
P15
VI.a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2015
7
Exhibit II – revised elevations
Amy said the property is on a corner lot. It is a 9,000 square foot lot with a
Victorian Era house on it. The applicant is proposing a lot split,
subdivision of the property into two lots and the corner lot is about 4,200
square feet and the interior lot is about 4,800 square feet. The same amount
of square footage that could have been built for one home gets divided into
two. They are not increasing their development rights in terms of mass but
they are building two homes instead of one. The lot split takes a lot of
pressure off the Victorian and puts a lot of the construction into the detached
new home. The 1950 photo provided by Nora shows the house in its
original design and that will be used as a reference in any of the restoration
work. The historic house has two additions on it, one to the side and one to
the alley. The proposal is to remove all the non-historic construction, pick
the Victorian up and move it 15 feet forward and 6 feet over and make a new
addition behind it and take the rest of the square footage and build a new
house to the east. The applicant is asking for some variances. The
Victorian is somewhat buried behind trees on this site. The tree in front
absolutely needs to be protected but there are two more trees but one is open
to discussion for removal. The trees are crowding each other. There are
also trees running along the side street. You received revised drawings
addressing staff’s issues. Staff is recommending approval of the project.
Amy said the addition that is proposed to the Victorian does have a
connector element and that has been simplified. The roof design has also
been simplified. In terms of the new house we asked for some effort at the
front part of the home to make sure it wasn’t taller than it needed to be, that
the scale was appropriate. Because of the input from the Parks Dept. and
staff’s concerns there are a few setback variances being requested. There is
also a request for the FAR bonus. We feel the bonus is earned with a few
additions such as putting a wood shingle roof back on the historic house and
restore the chimney and put a window back in that is missing. The architect
is planning on doing all of the above. Staff is supportive of moving the
building forward and the RDS variances. In this new house the linking
element is a little wider but because of the large tree there are constraints.
The porch is not the depth that is required but we don’t want that changed so
a variance is needed. Amy said the setbacks are generated by the tree
situation.
Kim Raymond, architect presented
P16
VI.a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2015
8
Kim said we are doing the lot split and creating a new home. A link will be
added and an addition to the back. We will put the window back and restore
all the trim. We will bring the porch back to the original appearance as
much as we can. We will also put the wood shingles back on and rebuild the
chimney. We will reuse stone as a veneer and match all the trim. We have
simplified the back gable. There are two diagrams with the stairs: one is
going east to west and the other north to south. On the east west stair
orientation we feel it reads better because the link is 15 feet long and the
area that faces 5th street is only 6.5 feet wide and gives more of a distinction.
The stair element sticks out 2 feet to the west of the Victorian. The north
south stair version you don’t see the stair element but there are 3 windows
visible from 5th Street.
Kim said regarding the trees we are 7 or 8 feet past the drip line. The trunk
of the tree is 46 inches in diameter. The Parks requirement is that the new
building not come any farther forward on the lot than the existing addition
on the house. We will excavate from the back. That line is 29 feet back
from the property line which requires a variance.
Willis commented on the east west stair. Why have the two feet out because
this is a new design and you can put the stair wherever you want.
Kim said she was trying not to re-design the entire project. Kim said seeing
into the lot is a good idea and the owner is not opposed to having one of the
trees removed to let sunshine and light into the space.
John asked if the two houses could fit on the lot without setback variances.
Kim said we are not asking for much and it is important for us to have the
bonus. We are going to a great extent to restore the Victorian. That is how
you earn the bonus with the restoration.
Nora said the irony is that you can’t see the building. The only thing you see
is the new addition because of all the trees.
Kim said when we move the Victorian over it won’t be exactly right behind
the tree.
Willis opened the public hearing.
P17
VI.a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2015
9
Jack Wilkie said he lives on the next street within 300 feet of the property.
Basically I don’t have objection to this proposal with one exception. I
deeply resent the use of the term historic which then reflects into incentives.
If you pay attention to what is going on in that neighborhood builders don’t
need any incentives. The incentive program has gone crazy. When I walk
down the street I can’t tell if the house is Victorian. The idea of reversible is
ficticious.
Sara Oates, attorney representing the neighbor to the east, Ted Louvine and
Lusha Swanson. I am concerned about the changes in the plan and the
variances requested.
Amy said to the east house there has been no change. The sideyards are still
complying. The combined sideyard should add up to 11 feet and they are at
10.1 feet. They are asking for a 9 inch reduction. They are asking to go to
the zero lot line for the garage.
Sarah said her client lives in New York and is not able to review the plans
that are being approved tonight.
Amy said projects revolve quiet a bit during the process. We could post an
addendum to the packet.
Jim said it is somewhat difficult as projects can get modified when they
come to the HPC. We try to make sure the notices are consistent with the
constitutional requirement for due process. We do the best we can under the
circumstances to make sure all the procedural steps are met.
Jim said there are circumstances that the changes may be significant and it
be deemed a new application.
Chairperson, Willis Pember closed the public hearing.
Kim said the changes we made were making the house simpler. Kim said the
variances came from the meeting with the Forester.
Gretchen said clearly the trees are driving some of the design to a negative
especially the site plan itself in terms of putting the garage right on the alley.
My garage is off the alley five feet and the snow just piles up. I think the
P18
VI.a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2015
10
zero setback is the wrong thing to do for the city. I love trees but I hate to
see these projects get compromised by maintaining a tree. Why do the trees
take precedence over a better project for the community.
Amy said we met with the foester and the other trees were planted on city
property so in theory the city owns them and we didn’t talk about the side
and he was open to removing one more on the front.
Gretchen said the Victorian is getting lost with the large addition on the back
and it has a lot to do with the constraints of the property. There is a lot of
development around the Victorian.
Willis identified the issues:
Trees
Setbacks
Mass and scale
Which stair option
Willis said guideline 10.6 and 10.9 are still on the table for discussion.
Design an addition that is compatible in size and scale. 10.9 is roof forms
should be similar to those of the historic building. This is a corner site and
we don’t know how it sits within the neighborhood. There is a 2 ½ story
addition to a 1 ½ story historic house. I am generally liking the east/west
stair. I don’t mind the two feet coming out but you have the tools to change
it. Removing some of the trees will enhance the “legacy” tree. All the
setbacks underground are OK. The biggest setback is the zero setback for
the garage. There was a comment on the difficulty getting in and out.
Nora said the neighborhood context is important even if the project meets
the code. Across the street is all small mining cottages. Behind this is a
small house. When you come down the street you don’t see the Victorian
and all you see is the huge addition. Victorian’s are about gardens etc.
which is guideline 10.6. The issue with the garage with a zero setback is not
only trying to get into the garage it is snow removal, garbage trucks etc.
We need to see the Victorian so taking away some trees is preferable.
Gretchen said we are really looking at the addition on the back. The scale
and massing against a 900 square foot Victorian is far from being
conceptually approved. I don’t think either stair is a good solution.
Regarding the new house the concern is the mass and scale of the gable and
P19
VI.a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2015
11
entry. The entry of the Victorian has a break down in scale and is small and
very compatible with all its forms. On the modern house I don’t understand
the roof sticking out past the main building. There doesn’t seem to be any
scale and purpose next to the beauty of the Victorian. I am also not in favor
of the zero setback on the alley. Even three feet would allow a little snow
melt. I have no problem with the sideyard setbacks. My concern is the
visual impact with the Victorian. This is a simple Victorian and all additions
should strive for simplicity as the goal.
Patrick said he would be in favor of the foresters recommendation of
removing the middle tree on the front. On the sideyard maybe remove one
tree to give light but the trees are part of the historic context. Garages need
to be off the alley for functionality. Mass and scale needs to fit the site and
because it is on the corner the addition needs to be sensitive and simplified.
The homes around it are small. The additions are overwhelming the
neigihborhood and need relooked at. As far as the stairs I prefer the first
applicaton because there is not much light on the 5th Street side.
John said he sympathizes with the applicant who has made a lot of strides
working around the trees. You can’t see the historic house and turning it
back to its grandure is commendable. We need to find a even ground
preserving the trees and show casing the beautiful Victorian. I am in favor
of eliminating one of the trees. The alley is a functionality issue.
Jim agreed with Patrick on the tree issue. Pulling the garage off the alley is
recommended. Regarding mass and scale I have no issue.
Willis said the gable form of the new home hitting a flat roof is awkward.
There are certain intersections of the roof transitions that aren’t worked out
on the modern structure and that falls under mass and scale. There is
support for removal of one tree and 3 to 5 feet setback on the alley.
Nora said if the house doesn’t fit on the lot I am not sure I can support it.
We are trying to bring the Victorian back but the rest of the lot is over built.
Gretchen said we are getting back to huge additions on these 900 square foot
Victorians. The lot split code amendment was trying to eliminate that. I
was under the assumption that lot splits were to maintain the Victorian in a
dominant position.
P20
VI.a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2015
12
Amy said they are allowed to us the duplex floor area and split it between
the two houses. That is 4,080 and there is a bonus request.
Patrick said guideline 11.5 talks about not overwhelming the scale of the
historic house.
Amy said one solution is to shift more square footage from the Victorian to
the new house. It is up to the applicant to decide how the floor area is to be
distributed. They could have made a huge addition to the Victorian and
instead they are breaking it up. In general the board feels square footage
should be pushed into a detached structure.
Nora stated that the hallmark of HPC’s success is the Blue Vic and the
Glidden house. All those were done holding to standards where the original
resource has been honored and not hidden away.
Kim said moving the historic home forward actually puts it in line with the
other Victorian down the block. The house directly to the east is not small at
all. It will tower over the new house. The building two doors down has a
flat roof. The flat roof does fit in the neighborhood. Pulling the Victorian
west and forward puts it in a more prominent spot on the lot so you can see
it. We are also taking off the huge additions and then you have a 15 foot
link even before the stairs start. It puts the Victorian out in front.
Willis said he respects the 15 foot setback from the historic resource and he
prefers the east/west stair. In general the four quandrants are all of equal
size visually even on the modern house when you didn’t have to do that.
The strategy conceptualy is good and we are just asking for some
refinements. Some of the roof inersections are awkward.
Nora requested a street scape for the next meeting.
MOTION: Jim moved to continue 530 W. Hallam to February 11th; second
by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried.
MOTION: Jim moved to adjourn; second by Willis. All in favor, motion
carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
P21
VI.a
DRAFT- ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11, 2015
1
Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance were Patrick Sagal, John Whipple, Jim
DeFrancia, Sallie Golden, Bob Blaich and Gretchen Greenwood. Nora
Berko was absent.
Staff present:
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
Amy Simon, Preservation Planner
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
MOTION: Willis moved to approve the minutes of January 28, 2015;
second by Gretchen. All in favor, motion carried.
Bob will recuse himself on 530 W. Hallam
Sallie will recuse herself at 232 E. Bleeker
John will recuse himself at 530 W. Bleeker
530 W. Hallam Street – Conceptual Major Development, On-Site
Relocation, Historic Landmark Lot Split and Variances, Public Hearing
cont’d from Jan. 28th, 2015
Bob recused himself
John recused himself
Amy said this is a 9,000 square foot corner lot in the West End with a
Victorian building on it that has additions on two sides of it. The lot will be
split approximately in half. The Victorian will remain on the corner on a
slightly smaller lot and the interior lot will have a new home built on it. The
historic lot split has been helpful as it takes pressure off the building and
puts the square footage into a separate structure. There were a few things
that caused continuance; the status of trees; restudy the massing in the front
of the new house and restudy the connector. Staff recommends approval.
Two trees can now be removed, one in front and one on the side. The trees
are not in good health and are crowding the other trees. Staff is
recommending approval with the 500 square foot bonus. The house is
going to be stripped back to its original form. There are also a few setback
variances, two below grade and they are one foot shy of the combined side
yard requirement on the new house. RDS variances are also needed. The
linking element on the new house is a little wider than the requirement but
P22
VI.a
DRAFT- ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11, 2015
2
staff feels this is acceptable because of the tree issues and it will not be
visible. The Victorian will be picked up and a basement built underneath.
The garage meets the setbacks.
Kim Raymond, architect
Kim said the stairs are on the interior now and the windows are simplified to
lessen the glass. The Victorian will be moved forward on the lot to be more
in line with the other historic cabins at the other end of the block. The
Victorian house will be eleven feet back. When the tree is removed it will
open up the view to the new house. We took a little more square footage out
of the Victorian and moved it over to the other building in order to make the
adjustment to the stairs. The front of the Victorian will be taken back to its
original state. The stair tower on the Victorian has been revised. We took
square footage out of the Victorian and moved it over to the other building
to make the adjustment to the stairs. The Victorian will be brought back to
its original state. We will replicate everything on the photograph as close as
we can. The link is longer and there are no windows on the stairwell that
face the street. We also simplified the fenestration on the new addition and
there is a very simple gable shape. The front gable of the new house is
shorter than the gable on the Victorian.
Willis inquired about the materials.
Kim said the link will be a different material and not wood. I like a similar
color palate on the Victorian and new home. There will not be a contrasting
color. There will be wood shingles on the Victorian and asphalt shingles on
the addition to the Victorian.
Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no
public comments. The public hearing was closed.
Willis summarized the issues:
Mass and Scale
FAR bonus
Setback variances
5 foot rear setback
1 foot variance for the combined
Willis commented that the project is much improved and thanked the
applicant for addressing the stair and making the FAR smaller. The packet
P23
VI.a
DRAFT- ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11, 2015
3
did include neighborhood photos and that is good. One concern is the
fenestration. In the presentation you claimed that the double hung windows
matched the resource in size on the west elevation and they really aren’t.
The proportions are all different. The living room windows are the smallest
and awkward. I would recommend studying the west elevation of the
addition to the Victorian. I also support the variances. There needs to be
more considerate composition.
Gretchen said the addition should look well composed as the historic
resource. I still feel the massing on the addition is very large in respect to
the Victorian. The stair is good between the two buildings. Part of the
detailing of the Victorian is the beauty of the fascia, the thinness of it. That
should be represented in the drawings so you understand the scale.
Regarding the new structure possibly eliminate the gable on the front due to
the amount of glass. When that glass is lit up at night it will be quite bright.
My comments do not need to hold up the process.
Patrick said he appreciates the changes especially the pitched and gabled
roofs giving a continuity if historic character to the neighborhood. The stairs
without the windows are appropriate. The two story mass on the west wall
of the addition should be broken up so that it isn’t so massive.
Kim said she can address the roof line and pull it back around 6 inches.
Gretchen said the applicant is working with our suggestions.
Jim said the project has improved especially the stair element. The tree
issue is resolved with the Forester and I am in favor of the variances, bonus,
mass and scale of the project. I also agree that the west wall needs restudied.
MOTION: Willis moved to approve Resolution #8 with the condition that
the offset plane of the west wall of the new addition be addressed. That area
is the master bath. Motion second by Jim. All in favor, motion carried.
Roll call vote: Jim, yes; Willis, yes; Gretchen, yes; Patrick, yes.
MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn; second by Jim. All in favor, motion
carried.
Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
P24
VI.a
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council
FROM: Justin Barker, Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
MEETING DATE: February 23, 2015
RE: Resolution No. 25, Series 2015. Contract: Winter & Company
– Residential Design Standards Update
REQUEST OF COUNCIL : Staff is requesting Council approval to proceed with a contract for
professional services for Residential Design Standards updates. A detailed scope of work is
included in Exhibit A. The contract is for $24,900.
SUMMARY : As part of the 2015 budget, City Council approved $25,000 for updates to the City’s
Residential Design Standards. The purpose of the updates are to organize, streamline, and
provide minor modifications to the existing standards in order to better serve the community and
provide attractive, compatible development.
Staff solicited proposals through the City’s standard procurement process to select professional
services. Seven proposals were received by the City. One proposal was submitted by Winter &
Company out of Boulder. Winter & Company provides an extensive background of expertise
working with design guidelines and standards throughout Colorado and developed the
Commercial Design Guidelines for Aspen. Staff selected Winter & Company due to their
extensive experience updating and writing design standards.
The City of Aspen Residential Design Standards were first adopted in 1995 as a way to maintain
design quality and compatibility with historic features of the community. Since then, minor
amendments have been processed to add additional standards and create a variance process.
Under the current scope and budget, this update would provide a more comprehensive clean-up
and clarification of the current standards with a focus on standards that are often confusing to
designers and property owners.
Staff believes it may be worthwhile to complete a more extensive update to the standards. For
instance, the current scope is limited to single-family and duplex developments, and excludes
multi-family developments (which are part of the existing standards). The local design
community may also want a more-extensive scope. Staff believes setting clear expectations on
possible scope expansion is important at the project outset.
FINANCIAL /B UDGET IMPACTS : The original intent of these updates is not for a full rework of the
Standards; however, staff sees value in expanding the scope beyond simply language clean-up
P25
VI.b
Page 2 of 2
for single-family development only. The estimated costs of various additional services are
outlined as follows:
1. $5,000 – Professional graphics: Effective diagrams and graphics would provide clarity
to many of the requirements which are difficult to describe in text only. The simple
diagrams in the current Standards have been very helpful. Alternative: These graphics
could be developed by staff with consultant review.
2. $5,000 – RDS handbook: This would be similar to the Commercial, Lodging and
Historic District Design Objective and Guidelines as a separate document referenced in
the Land Use Code. This allows for more flexibility in future updates as needed.
Alternative: Maintain the Standards within the Land Use Code.
3. $15,000 – Multi-family development: The current Standards attempt to apply single-
family design requirements to multi-family projects. Evaluation of design elements
specific to multi-family development would require additional time and resources to
produce effective results. Alternative: Maintain the current requirements and/or look for
simple amendments.
4. $ ?? – Full-scale rework of Standards: A complete re-evaluation of the entire
Residential Design Standards, including purpose, approach, etc. This would probably
produce the most effective long-term results, however it would require a much longer
timeframe and significantly larger budget. If this option is sought, staff would work with
the contractor to develop an alternative scope and pricing. Alternative: Clarity with the
local design community regarding project scope.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Staff is requesting approval of the service contract with Winter &
Company. Staff is also seeking commentary on possible scope options for this effort.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS :
RECOMMENDED MOTION : “I move to approve Resolution No. 25, Series of 2015, approving a
contractual agreement for professional services between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and Winter
& Company for a Residential Design Standards update.”
ATTACHMENTS :
Exhibit A – Agreement for Professional Services
Exhibit B – Proposal
P26
VI.b
RESOLUTION # 25
(Series of 2015)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND WINTER & COMPANY 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,
between the City of Aspen and, 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
and update to the City of Aspen Residential Design Standards, between the City of
Aspen and Winter & Company, 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 23 rd day of February, 2015.
Steve Skadron, Mayor
I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council
of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held February 23 rd , 2015.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P27
VI.b
Agreement Professional Services 0
CITY OF ASPEN STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT V 2009
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
City of Aspen Project No.: 2014-153.
AGREEMENT made as of 8th day of January , in the year 2015.
BETWEEN the City:
Contract Amount:
The City of Aspen
c/o Community Development
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: (970) 920-5055
And the Professional:
Winter and Company
c/o Nore Winter
1265 Yellow Pine Avenue
Boulder, CO 80304
Phone: 303.440.8445
For the Following Project:
_____________________________________________________________________
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: ___________________________
Resolution No.:___________________
Exhibit A: Scope of Work.
Exhibit B: Fee Schedule.
Total: $24,900.00
P28
VI.b
Agreement Professional Services 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 31, 2015 . 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 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.
P29
VI.b
Agreement Professional Services 2
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 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.
P30
VI.b
Agreement Professional Services 3
(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
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.
P31
VI.b
Agreement Professional Services 4
(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.
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.
P32
VI.b
Agreement Professional Services 5
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.
“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
P33
VI.b
Agreement Professional Services 6
(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:
(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.
P34
VI.b
Agreement Professional Services 7
(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
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;
P35
VI.b
Agreement Professional Services 8
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.
P36
VI.b
Agreement Professional Services 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: Noré V. Winter
[Name] [Name]
Title: ____________________________ Title: Owner, Winter & Company
Date: ___________________ Date: 02/13/2015
Approved as to form:
_______________________________
City Attorney’s Office
P37
VI.b
Agreement Professional Services 10
EXHIBIT A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
The objective of this work is to organize and streamline the existing Residential Design
Standards and review process in order to better serve the community. Winter & Company will
serve as support to City Staff, who will be producing the materials, and will assist with the
process, from outreach through adoption. The components are identified on the following pages.
P38
VI.b
Agreement Professional Services 11
COMMUNITY OUTREACH
We use community outreach strategies that highlight the assets of each community, establish a
strong vision for the future and provide clear, practical guidance for improvements. This requires
public participation strategies that engage a range of participants in meaningful activities.
We will assist City staff to identify groups and organizations that should be engaged in the
process. We will facilitate meetings for the identified advisory group and are also available to
facilitate stakeholder groups that are scheduled during our visits to Aspen. Finally, we are
available to conduct additional meetings or public open houses as an additional service.
Our proposed public outreach strategies are summarized below.
Advisory Group
We will work with staff to identify a small advisory group that will help review and provide
feedback on alternative design standards. An initial assumption is that the advisory group will
include local architects, developers, property owners and/or real estate professionals.
We will facilitate two meetings of the advisory group at major project milestones (Winter Co
staff will facilitate one on-site meeting and Suzannah Reid will facilitate the other). We will also
conduct additional video conferences with the advisory group. As an optional service, Suzannah
Reid is available to facilitate additional on-site advisory group meetings.
Stakeholder Meetings
Stakeholder meetings provide participation opportunities for key individuals or groups whose
advice is critical to the success of the project. Issues discussed may be more technical than those
addressed in public meetings. We will work with staff and the advisory group to identify
potential stakeholders to invite to drop-in or scheduled meetings.
While on-site, we are available to facilitate stakeholder meetings during project step 1. We will
also develop agendas and other materials to assist staff in conducting additional stakeholder
meetings, if necessary.
Website
We will work with the City to maintain a web page that publishes interim reports on the progress
of the project.
Public Open Houses (optional additional service)
Public open houses and workshops are designed to engage the greatest numbers of people and to
highlight a diversity of ideas. We organize participants into teams for hand-on activities while
also providing worksheets, surveys or other opportunities for individual feedback. An open
house may be organized around presentation boards or other opportunities to learn about the
project and ask questions.
As an additional service, we are available to facilitate workshops or open houses.
P39
VI.b
Agreement Professional Services 12
IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES
We will begin the project by evaluating the existing standards to determine where they may
present design or financial challenges for architects and designers, or where they may present
administrative difficulties for City staff.
We will first discuss the existing standards with staff before opening the discussion to the
advisory group and then specific stakeholder groups, such as architects, developers and real
estate professionals. Key questions to answer will include:
• Do the existing standards sufficiently address neighborhood compatibility?
• Are the existing standards sufficiently understood by applicants and property owners?
• Do the existing standards allow sufficient flexibility for design creativity that would be
compatible with neighborhood context?
• Are the existing standards sufficiently context-sensitive, or will it be necessary to determine
that some or all of the standards should not apply in some contexts (i.e., when new homes are
part of a large new development vs. individual infill within an established neighborhood)
IDENTIFICATION OF SOLUTIONS
We will develop solutions based on the evaluation of existing standards and a discussion of
issues with staff, the advisory group, stakeholders and the overall community (optional). While
we understand that the City of Aspen does not intend to completely rework the existing
residential design standards, it will be important to consider a range of alternatives to address
identified issues. These may include:
• Revisions to existing standards and/or introduction of new tools (note that the strategy report
will include illustrated definitions of a range of tools that could address identified issues).
Design tools are likely to focus on:
- Elements relating to pedestrian orientation
- Compatibility with adjacent lower-scale structures
- Ensuring that large new structures are designed to remain residential in appearance
• Adjustment to the geographic application of existing or new tools
• Revisions to definitions or measurement systems
• Use of more refined and easy to understand language within the standards
• Adjustments to review thresholds, variance processes or other administrative processes
We will summarize the issues and potential alternative tools in a concise strategy report. Based
on a review of alternatives, we will also work with staff and the advisory group to establish a
recommended set of tools to be included in an ordinance to update Aspen’s residential design
standards. Minimizing staff and board work loads, and expediting review and decision-making
will be key objectives.
P40
VI.b
Agreement Professional Services 13
DRAFTING UPDATES
We will draft language for updates to the residential design standards that implement the
recommended tools. These tools will promote defined goals for the project and address identified
issues. The text updates will be provided to staff in Microsoft Word format. After review and
feedback, we will assist staff to transition the language updates into ordinance format.
It is assumed that updates will apply to all single-family residential development in the city, with
the exception of development of the RB-15 zone district. The specific application of the updates
are likely to vary based on:
• Zone district or areas of special character
• Location within the defined Aspen Infill Area (East of Castle Creek and South of the Roaring
Fork River)
• Location adjacent to a designated historic structure
• Lot size or type
• Project type
POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL SERVICES
We are available to provide additional services to support the residential design standards project.
A proposed budget for additional services is provided on page 19 of our proposal. Potential
services include:
Community Workshop or Open House
Winter & Company is available to conduct open houses or workshops as described on page 14 of
our proposal.
Illustration of Standards (new and revised graphics)
Winter & Company has extensive experience with illustration of design standards and guidelines.
Graphics included in a zoning code should be simple, clear and focused on specific design topics.
They should also illustrate compatible design conditions in a context that will be familiar to
Aspen users. Winter & Company is available to provide graphics to illustrate the text design
standards. It is assumed that graphics would be generated using SketchUp and Adobe Illustrator,
with the final graphics provided as Adobe PDF or JPEG files.
Design Standards Handbook or Manual
Depending on the nature of the recommended tools, we may suggest that the residential design
standards be referenced in a separate residential design standards manual or handbook. This
would be an optional approach for discussion with staff and the advisory committee. Winter &
Company is available to draft a manual or handbook as an additional service in combination with
the additional services for illustration of the standards described above. It is assumed that the
handbook would be developed using Adobe InDesign software and posted on the web for users
in interactive Adobe PDF format.
P41
VI.b
Agreement Professional Services 14
Assistance with Adoption
Winter & Company is available to assist with adoption of the residential design standards as part
of an additional on-site trip. We would create and deliver a presentation for elected officials and
could also host an additional public workshop or open house during the visit.
P42
VI.b
Agreement Professional Services 15
P43
VI.b
Agreement Professional Services 16
EXHIBIT B PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Fee Schedule
BASE SERVICES BUDGET
The budget below provides costs for base services to define issues, identify solutions, and draft
text updates to the residential design standards. It includes two on-site visits and meetings with
staff, the Advisory Committee and stakeholders as described in Step 4: Timeline.
P44
VI.b
Agreement Professional Services 17
OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL SERVICES BUDGET
The budget below provides anticipated costs for potential optional services that could include
additional meetings, on-site visits, illustrations or handbooks.
P45
VI.b
PROPOSAL FOR:
Planning Services for Aspen
Residential Design Standards
WINTER & COMPANY DECEMBER 19, 2014
P46
VI.b
P47
VI.b
ASPEN, COLORADO iii
Mr. Chris Bendon
Community Development Director
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO
81611
Dear Chris,
Winter & Company is delighted to present the enclosed proposal to provide professional planning services for
an update to Aspen’s residential design standards. We have assisted the City of Aspen with regulatory updates
and historic preservation in the past, including the 2007 Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines. As you
know, we have also developed residential design standards for communities around the country and in Colorado,
including Denver, Boulder, Durango, Fort Collins and Telluride. in each project, we endeavor to create streamlined
regulations that promote neighborhood compatibility while providing maximum flexibility for property owners
and their architects. This project is a great opportunity to streamline existing regulations, provide greater clarity
and limit requests for variances.
Our team is inspired and ready to contribute innovative ideas from our nationwide expertise. Winter & Company
will direct the project, and create final documents in close collaboration with City staff. We are joined by Suzannah
Reid of Reid Architects, who will contribute her local architectural experience and be available for additional
on-site meetings if needed. This proposal includes short summaries of several relevant projects that we have
completed in other communities. We have also posted sample documents from these and other projects to our
web site at: www.winterandcompany.net/aspen_proposal.html
We strive for results, just as you do, and we are confident we can provide a final product that will meet the
community’s needs. i urge you to give our proposal close consideration, and would welcome an opportunity to
further discuss a scope and process that would best meet your expectations. As always, we would look forward
to an opportunity to work with you to help shape Aspen’s future.
Sincerely,
Noré Winter
Principal
Winter & Company
nore@winterandcompany.net
Winter & Company
Urban Design | Historic Preservation
1265 Yellow Pine Avenue
Boulder, CO 80304
303.440.8445
www.winterandcompany.net
P48
VI.b
P49
VI.b
Section 1: Introduction
ASPEN, COLORADO 1
Section 1: Introduction
Established in 1985, Winter & Company is a planning and urban design firm
based in Boulder, Colorado that consults nationwide to public agencies,
neighborhood associations and private property owners. Many projects
focus on maintaining community character and protecting livability. A
special area of emphasis is drafting form-based design regulations to
direct compatible infill development in established areas.
The firm has completed projects for more than 120 communities across
the nation, including a number of resort communities, college towns and
other special contexts. Our services include downtown plans, historic
preservation plans, zoning updates, design guidelines and design review
training.
Project personnel proposed for this project include Noré Winter, Abe
Barge, Cheney Bostic, Julie Husband and Suzannah Reid. Their resumes
follow.
Contents
Section 1: introduction ....................1
Section 2: Qualifications .................7
Section 3: Approach......................13
Project Foundation .........................13
Community Outreach .....................14
identification of issues ....................15
identification of Solutions ..............15
Drafting Updates ............................16
Potential Additional Services .........16
Section 4: Timeline ........................17
Section 5: Costs ............................18
Base services budget .....................18
Optional Additional
Services Budget .............................19
P50
VI.b
PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES FOR RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS2
Section 1: Introduction
Noré V. Winter
Principal & Owner
Winter & Company
Noré Winter is an urban design and planning consultant with more than
thirty years experience nationwide. He focuses on design strategies that
promote the distinctive characteristics of individual communities and
neighborhoods while enhancing economic vitality, sustainability and
heritage conservation. Services cover vision plans, master plans, design
standards and guidelines, and character-management strategies.
Mr. Winter is currently assisting with a zoning code rewrite for the City of
Los Angeles, California. He has supervised a form-based code character
analysis and visioning process in Arvada, Colorado. Other projects
involving form-based standards are in Boulder, Colorado; Denver,
Colorado; Galveston, Texas; West Palm Beach, Florida; Athens, Georgia;
and Raleigh, North Carolina.
Winter’s urban design work includes downtown plans for Bellingham,
Washington; Boulder, Colorado; Flagstaff, Arizona; Georgetown, Texas;
Bloomington, indiana; Monroe, Washington; Monterey, California and
Walla Walla, Washington. He also developed corridor plans in Bozeman,
Montana; Durango, Colorado; and Lexington, Kentucky.
He has developed design guidelines for many special design review
overlays, historic districts and conservation areas. Guideline projects that
address new development in established communities are in San Antonio,
Texas; Denver, Colorado; Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Bellingham, Washington;
Monterey, California and Ann Arbor, Michigan. Smaller communities he
has served include Brattleboro, Vermont; Dubuque, iowa; Juneau, Alaska;
Ste. Genevieve, Missouri; Lahaina, Hawaii and Oysterville, Washington. He
also worked on design guidelines for residential neighborhoods and a
commercial corridor in Reno, Nevada.
Mr. Winter is frequently a featured speaker at conferences and conventions,
including the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the National Park
Service and the American Planning Association. He also has conducted
special seminars for the APA and the National Trust on design management
systems and guidelines.
Education:
B. Arch, Tulane University
M. Arch. & Urban Design, UCLA
Awards:
"Contribution to the Built Environ-
ment," AIA Western Region
Colorado APA - Aspen Preserva-
tion Guidelines
Washington State Department of
Commerce - Walla Walla Down-
town Plan
Texas APA - Galveston Height &
Density Study
California APA - Truckee River
Corridor Plan
APA Colorado - Durango Form-
based Standards
Utah Heritage, Inc. - Design
Guidelines, Ogden
Washington Trust for Historic
Preservation - Oysterville Design
Guidelines
APA Colorado - Aspen Preserva-
tion Guidelines
California Preservation Founda-
tion - San Jose Design Guidelines
Memphis Heritage, Inc. - Design
Review Guidelines
P51
VI.b
Section 1: Introduction
ASPEN, COLORADO 3
Abe Barge, AICP
Senior Planner
Winter & Company
Abe Barge is a senior planner with more than ten years of experience
serving communities across the nation. He is skilled in crafting form-
based codes, improving design review systems, generating master plans
and developing neighborhood character management strategies. He
has refined a process for assessing existing development regulations
in terms of their effects on neighborhood character, and for testing the
potential impacts of new and revised standards and guidelines. He is
skilled at conducting community workshops, meeting in focus groups with
representatives of neighborhoods and the development community and
in working with Planning Commissions and City Councils. in-house, he has
refined methods for illustrating the effects of zoning codes and design
guidelines in a wide range of communities, from small neighborhoods to
major cities.
Abe was closely involved in several zoning and regulatory updates,
including the citywide form-based code for Denver, Colorado; zoning and
design guidelines for Downtown Ann Arbor, Michigan; new residential
zoning for Fort Lauderdale, Florida and Town Center Design Guidelines
for Simsbury, Connecticut.
His downtown and neighborhood plan experience includes Downtown
Ann Arbor, Michigan Framework Plan; Village of East Davenport, iowa
Master Plan; Old Town Helotes, Texas Master Plan and Mammoth Lakes,
California Main Street implementation Plan. Abe’s experience with
downtown planning includes identification of potential redevelopment
sites and coordination of pro forma economic evaluation.
Abe is currently working on a variety of projects, including a conservation
district strategy for Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; architectural design guidelines
for Farragut, Tennessee; a Unified Development Ordinance update for
Overland Park, Kansas; and a bulk plane/FAR review for Cherry Hill Village,
Colorado. Recently completed projects include a citywide zoning code
update for Olathe, Kansas; development of citywide design guidelines
for Roswell, Georgia, which complement the city’s recently adopted form-
based code; and preservation guidelines for Denver, Colorado.
Abe lives across from Denver’s Union Station and volunteers with the local
Bike Share program. While working as a planner for the City of Boulder,
Colorado, he assisted with a major update to the local comprehensive plan
and helped plan for transit-oriented redevelopment of an area surrounding
Boulder’s future commuter rail facility.
Education:
B. History
U of Montana, Missoula
M. City & Regional Planning
University of Colorado
P52
VI.b
PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES FOR RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS4
Section 1: Introduction
Cheney Bostic, LEED AP
Senior Planner/Designer
Winter & Company
Cheney joined Winter and Company in 2013 with 10 years of experience in
architecture, urban design and planning with extensive experience in the
public planning process. She assists the firm in all aspects of urban design
and planning. Prior to joining Winter and Company, Cheney worked for
Van Meter Williams Pollack in Denver where her focus was designing transit
oriented developments and new urban neighborhoods.
Cheney is currently the project manager for an update to the Housing
Element of the General Plan for Encinitas, California; Voluntary Design
Guidelines for the District in Columbia, Missouri; and Welton Street Design
Guidelines in Denver, Colorado. Recently completed projects include the
Main Street implementation Plan and Feasibility Studies for Mammoth
Lakes, California and Downtown Master Plan Update for Georgetown,
Texas. Cheney served as project manager for numerous projects at Van
Meter, including: Rifle Strategic TOD Plan in Rifle, CO; Kalaelao Net Zero
Neighborhood on Oahu, Hawaii; Aiea-Pearl City Neighborhood TOD
and Waipahu Neighborhood TOD Plans in Honolulu, Hawaii; West Colfax
Neighborhood TOD Plan in Denver, CO; Clear Creek Transit Village in
Adams County, Co; North End Station TOD and Design Guidelines in
Thornton, CO; and Superior New Town Center in Superior, CO. She also
contributed to a national research project funded by the FTA entitled: ‘Land
Use Planning for Transit Supportive Development: A Practitioner’s Guide’
and co-authored a book entitled ‘Colorado Urbanizing’, which highlights
over 100 new urbanist projects in the state of Colorado.
Cheney is well-versed in all aspects of project development, including
leading community design charrettes, writing project reports, developing
presentations, building 3-D models in Sketch Up, as well as free-hand
sketching and design. She cares deeply about the environment and
incorporates this awareness into every project.
She serves as Vice President of the Colorado Chapter of the Congress for
the New Urbanism and volunteers for WalkDenver and Architecture for
Humanity. She occasionally guest lectures at the University of Colorado
Denver’s Master of Urban and Regional Planning program.
Education:
B. Arch
Southern Illinois University
M. Arch
University of Oregon
P53
VI.b
Section 1: Introduction
ASPEN, COLORADO 5
Julia L. (Julie) Husband
Director of Urban Design Studio
Winter & Company
Julie Husband directs urban design work at Winter & Company, where she
has worked for the past twenty years on master plans, design guidelines,
design review, urban design strategies, historic preservation plans, and
building rehabilitation projects. She is skilled at project management and
in working closely with city staff on staging interactive public outreach
programs.
Currently, Julie is the project manager for a residential guidelines project
in the historic Cleveland Park neighborhood of Washington, DC. She
also is leading a preservation plan project for Cedar Rapids, iowa and is
developing citywide guidelines in Goodyear, Arizona.
Recently completed projects include residential design guidelines in
Camden, South Carolina, updates of citywide guidelines for Dubuque, iowa,
and the Old Town and River Districts in Fort Collins, and development of
design guidelines for the Monterey, California, National Historic Landmark
district. Julie also directed development of a plan for the Government Hill
Neighborhood, the oldest residential district in Anchorage, Alaska and
she managed the development plan for the Midtown Bus Rapid Transit
corridor Fort Collins, Colorado. She also worked on the East Village Master
Plan for Davenport, iowa and the Downtown Framework Plan and Design
Guidelines for Arvada, Colorado.
Julie also played key roles in the following projects: A Height and Density
Study for Galveston, Texas; a River Revitalization Plan for Truckee, California;
the Bellingham City Center Plan in Washington; the North 7th Avenue
Design and Connectivity Plan for Bozeman, Montana; and St. Anthony
Falls Historic District Design Guidelines in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Her
plan for Rolla, Missouri, received award recognition from the Missouri state
APA chapter.
She has helped draft design standards and guidelines for residential
and commercial buildings in historic districts, conservation districts, and
new neighborhoods throughout the country. Such assignments include
guidelines for Bellingham, Washington; Carmel, California; Sausalito,
California; Durango, Colorado; Lexington, Kentucky; Juneau, Alaska’s
Waterfront and Historic Districts; and San Antonio, Texas. The guidelines for
the Third Street area of Durango won awards from Colorado Preservation,
inc. The Truckee Preservation Plan won the California Preservation
Foundation Award and the Governor’s Historic Preservation Award.
Education:
B. Arch
Montana State University
P54
VI.b
PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES FOR RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS6
Section 1: Introduction
Suzannah V. Reid
Principal
REID ARCHITECTS, Inc.
Suzannah Reid is a licensed architect based in Aspen, Colorado. She has
more than 25 years of experience in architecture and design and founded
REiD ARCHiTECTS in 1996. She is currently working with the Redstone
Historic Preservation Commission to develop code language and design
guidelines to direct the size, location and character of commercial signage
on Redstone Boulevard. Other recent design guidelines projects include
Historic Design Guidelines for Carbondale and a re-write of the 1996
guidelines for construction in the Redstone Historic District.
in addition Suzannah has written grants for historic building rehabilitation.
Grant-funded projects include Emma Store Phases 2 and 3 and Canyon
Creek School House. She prepared a successful National Register
Nomination for the Holland Thompson House, conducted a historic
structure assessment of the Thompson Ranch House and conducted
historic structure surveys in Carbondale and Meeker. She also assisted in
an Urban Renewal Boundary Study in Alamosa.
Suzannah is active in the Aspen community and has served on the Area
Community Plan Committee, Historic Preservation Task Force, infill
Committee and Historic Preservation Commission. She has also served
on the AiA Colorado Board of Directors. She has been the Pitkin County
Historic Preservation Officer since January 2000 and was a historic
preservation consultant for the Town of Carbondale from 2007-2011.
Education:
Institute for Architecture and
Urban Studies, New York City
B. Arts
Skidmore College
M. Arch
University of Pennsylvania
P55
VI.b
Section 2: Qualifications
ASPEN, COLORADO 7
Section 2: Qualifications
Winter & Company focuses on design and planning services for established
neighborhoods and contexts where the compatibility of infill development
is a key consideration. We often work to integrate form-based tools into
existing zoning regulations and development review systems to provide
flexible solutions for context-sensitive development.
The roles and experience of key personal and four comparable projects
are summarized below and on the following pages. We have also posted
sample documents from these and other projects to our web site at: www.
winterandcompany.net/aspen_proposal.html While these projects
were generally broader in scope than what is proposed for the Aspen
Residential Design Standards, they do address many relevant design
considerations.
Role and Experience of Key Personnel
Abe Barge, Senior Planner at Winter & Company, will serve as project
manager. His responsibilities will include client contact and major
deliverables. He will conduct much of the overall conceptualization of
the guidelines, facilitate key meetings and direct public presentations. As
summarized below, Abe will be joined by Cheney Bostic, Noré Winter,
Julie Husband and Suzannah Reid.
Personnel Role Relevant Experience
Abe Barge, AiCP
Senior Planner
»Manage consultant services for
project
»Lead meetings and outreach
»Develop design standards
»Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods.
Boulder, CO
»Citywide Zoning Code Update for Denver, CO
»Design Standards for Building Mass and Scale in Historic
Districts, West Palm Beach, FL
»Eastside-Westside Neighborhood Character Study, Fort Col-
lins, CO
»Neighborhood Development Criteria Revisions, Fort Lauder-
dale, FL
»Residential Design Standards and Follow-up Evaluation for
Cherry Hills Village, CO
Cheney Bostic
Senior Planner & Designer
»Develop alternative design
concepts
»Create design illustratives (includ-
ing sketches and 3-D models)
»Main Street Corridor Plan, Mammoth Lakes, CA
»Housing Study, Encinitas, CA
»Design Guidelines for Georgetown, TX and Columbia, MO
Noré Winter
Principal
»Oversee project strategies
»Assist with meetings and out-
reach
»Assist with development of alter-
native urban design concepts
»Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines, Aspen, CO
»Residential infill Design Standards and Guidelines, Durango,
CO
»Residential infill Strategy and Development Standards,
Alamo Heights, TX
Julie Husband
Project Oversight
»Assist with document develop-
ment
»Project administration
»Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods,
Boulder, CO
»Old Town Design Standards Update, Fort Collins, CO
»River District Design Guidelines and Standards, Fort Collins,
CO
Suzannah Reid
Licensed Architect
»Serve as local liaison
»Assist with meetings and out-
reach
»Test alternative design concepts
with knowledge of local market/
construction trends
»Commercial Signage Design Guidelines, Redstone, CO
»Historic Design Guidelines, Carbondale, CO
»Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, Redstone, CO
P56
VI.b
PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES FOR RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS8
Section 2: Qualifications
Comparable Projects Completed Within the Last Five Years
Client Reference:
Susan Richstone
Comprehensive Planning Manager
City of Boulder
1739 Broadway
Boulder, CO 80306
303.441.3270
richstones@bouldercolorado.gov
Highly visual graphics were developed as part of new context-sensi-
tive design standards to enhance their ease of use.
Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods
Boulder, Colorado
2009
Boulder is a vibrant college town at the foothills of the Rockies. it has a
long history of public involvement from a citizenry seeking to protect its
high quality of life.
A consultant team led by Winter & Company assisted the City of Boulder with
tools to protect the character of its neighborhoods. The project began with
an identification of issues, goals and objectives, followed by development
of a specific strategy outlining recommended policy alternatives. The final
phases of the project included streamlining of existing zoning and green
building regulations as well as new context-sensitive design standards for
infill development in residential neighborhoods.
The process included active public participation in a series of community
workshops. in these workshops, participants identified the character-
defining features of the city’s residential districts and current building
issues that impact character. Solutions that balance compatibility objectives
with the needs of individual homeowners were explored. Considerations
included:
• Quality of life and sense of community
• The ability of residents and builders to invest and expand
• Current trends in residential development
• The effectiveness of current regulations
• The simplicity and ease of use of any future regulations
Side wall jog reduces
wall lengths.
The survey included ques-
tions to generate feedback on
how different design variables
affect the compatibility of
development in single-family
neighborhoods.
P57
VI.b
Section 2: Qualifications
ASPEN, COLORADO 9
Residential Design Standards and Follow-up Evaluation
Cherry Hills Village, Colorado
2010 & 2014
Cherry Hills Village is an affluent residential community just south of Denver,
Colorado. Residents have expressed concern that some newer homes
negatively impact the character of their neighborhoods. Specific concerns
include losing the traditional semi-rural character of the community, views,
solar access, privacy and open space.
Winter & Company developed recommendations for bulk plane standards
to address the mass and scale of additions and new construction in
residential neighborhoods. Such standards lower the permitted height of
development near front, side and/or rear property lines by establishing an
inclined plane over which buildings may not protrude. By pushing taller
building elements towards the center of a lot, a bulk plane may be used to
reduce looming impacts on neighboring properties and promote access
to light and air.
The project includes an evaluation of existing development patterns in the
city’s six residential zone districts, three dimensional modeling of the effect
of alternative bulk plane standards, and a report recommending specific
amendments to the City’s zoning standards. The project was completed
in 2010.
Winter & Company is currently working with the community to evaluate
how the standards are working. Tasks include a review of construction
trends, visual evaluation of ordinance impacts and an evaluation report
with recommendations for updates or improvements.
Computer models illustrate the impact of the Cherry Hills Village bulk plane
standard on building massing.
BULK PLANE
MIN. SIDE SETBACK
BEFORE
BULK PLANE
MIN. SIDE SETBACK
AFTER
Client Reference
Robert Zuccaro
Community Development Director
City of Cherry Hills Village
2450 East Quincy Avenue
Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113
303.783.2749
rzuccaro@cherryhillsvillage.com
Winter & Company generated com-
puter models of existing conditions
and development trends in a variety
of neighborhood contexts through-
out Cherry Hills Village for the
2010-2011 Residential Development
Standards project.
CONTEXT H
CONTEXT A
DEVELOPMENT TREND
DEVELOPMENT TREND
P58
VI.b
PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES FOR RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS10
Section 2: Qualifications
Citywide Form-Based Zoning Code
Denver, Colorado
2010
The City of Denver has updated its citywide zoning code to facilitate
context-sensitive development in established residential neighborhoods.
Residents in these neighborhoods are concerned with the scale and
character of the new infill development permitted by the city’s existing
zoning. Within this setting, Winter & Company worked with a team of
consultants to craft a strategy for introducing form-based standards for
different building types and contexts.
Winter & Company defined a system of character areas which describe
neighborhood framework level features, site characteristics and building
form. These areas were used to inform development of context-sensitive
standards that encourage compatible infill development throughout the
city’s varied neighborhoods.
The City adopted the new zoning code in June 2010.
The differing neighborhood contexts of Denver are illustrated on posters that
document street patterns, site design and building character.
Client Reference
Tina Axelrad
Principal City Planner
City of Denver
Community Planning & Develop-
ment
201 W. Colfax Avenue
Denver, CO 80202
720.865.2937
tina.axelrad@denvergov.org
4-18 | DENVER ZONING CODEJune 25, 2010
H
K
PRIMARY STREETPRIMARY STREET
ALLEY
S
I
D
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
I
D
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
PRIMARY ST
R
E
ET
SIDE S
T
R
E
E T
E E
G
H G
F F F
I J J
H
E
I I
H
PRI
MARY ST
R
E
ET
SIDE S
T
R
E
E T R ear 35
%
o
f
Z one
L ot D epth
F r o n t 65%
o
f
Z one
L ot D epth
Prima
ry Street
Setb
a
c
k
C
D11A B
Denver’s new zoning code provides
form-based design standards for a
range of building types, including
traditional single-family residences.
P59
VI.b
Section 2: Qualifications
ASPEN, COLORADO 11
Design Standards for Residential Historic Districts
West Palm Beach, Florida
2010
The City of West Palm Beach is experiencing rapid growth and facing
redevelopment pressure. A consultant team led by Winter & Company
assisted the City of West Palm Beach with tools to protect the character
of its historic districts. The City and consultant team developed context
sensitive dimensional standards and improved guidelines to ensure that
new infill and additions are compatible with the surrounding design
character.
The process included active public participation in a series of community
workshops. in these workshops, participants identified the character-
defining features of the city’s historic districts and current building
issues that impact the character. Solutions were explored that balance
preservation objectives with the needs of individual homeowners.
The project’s initial assessment phase set the stage for a strategy to select
the appropriate regulatory tools to address building scale and preliminary
recommendations. After establishing the strategy, Winter & Company
developed and presented tools to address mass and scale throughout
historic districts in West Palm Beach. The regulations were adopted in
April 2010.
In the first phase of the project, Winter & Company modeled infill trends in
different contexts throughout historic districts in West Palm Beach. The mod-
els help identify potential issues occurring with new development.
Client Reference
Friederike Mittner
City Historic Preservation Planner
Department of Planning & Zoning
200 2nd Street
West Palm Beach, FL 33402
561.882.1435
fmittner@wpb.org
West Palm Beach is seeking to pro-
tect its unique architectural heritage.
The community participated in the
planning process through a series of
public workshops.
P60
VI.b
PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES FOR RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS12
Section 2: Qualifications
Additional Experience Related to the Aspen Assignment
The table below lists a number of additional Winter & Company projects that relate to the Aspen Residential
Design Standards, including projects in Colorado and other historic mountain contexts.
Project Name and Location Services Project Dates
Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines
Aspen, Colorado
»Character analysis
»Administrative process review
»illustrated standards and guidelines
2007
Historic Preservation Policies, Criteria and
Design Guidelines
Aspen, Colorado
»Design guidelines for established residential neighbor-
hoods
»Analysis of visual character
»Design review training
2004
Training Manual and Contractor Certifica-
tion System for historic properties
Aspen, Colorado
»Community workshops and focus groups
»Contractor review packet
»Contractor exam
2000
Residential infill Strategy and Development
Standards
Alamo Heights, Texas
»Neighborhood character analysis
»Code analysis
»Computer modeling of alternatives
»Residential development standards
2005 - 2006
Vision Plan
Breckenridge, Colorado
»Hands-on workshops and focus groups
»Vision statement and objectives
2002
Residential infill Design Standards &
Guidelines (Strategy, code changes and
guidelines)
Durango, Colorado
»Visual analysis with neighborhood modeling
»Neighborhood survey
»Design guidelines for residential buildings
»Design standards (city code amendment)
2006
Eastside & Westside Neighborhoods
Compatibility Study (Strategy & zoning
changes)
Fort Collins, Colorado
»Community workshops
»Visual survey sent to homeowners
»Context-sensitive design standards
»Citizen, relator and construction industry focus groups
2012
Modifications Plan for Residential Zoning
and Design Review
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
»Community workshops
»Context-sensitive design standards
»Work sessions with elected officials
2010
Design Review Services
Ketchum, idaho
»Design review
»Modeling
»Massing analysis
2009
Design Standards and Guidelines
Steamboat Springs, Colorado
»Design guidelines for residential buildings
»Design standards and guidelines for commercial buildings
2001
Single Family Compatible infill Project
(Strategy & design standards)
Terrell Hills, Texas
»Mass and scale studies in neighborhoods
»Focus groups
»Design standards for mass and scale in residential zones
2006 - 2007
Townwide Design Guidelines
Telluride, Colorado
»Visual character analysis
»Neighborhood design guidelines
»Design review training
1998
P61
VI.b
Section 3: Approach
ASPEN, COLORADO 13
Section 3: Approach
Aspen is recognized for its livability and quality of life, much of which it
derives from the character of its residential neighborhoods. These are
places where residents have invested and contributed to the vitality of
the community. The City of Aspen has determined that neighborhood
character is an important issue. The City also seeks to ensure that its
residential design standards are well-organized and sufficiently streamlined
to balance community needs.
Our understanding and approach to the project are summarized below.
PROJECT FOUNDATION
Key factors that should be considered as the project moves forward include:
Accommodating Creative Design
Proud of its support of innovation, the City wishes to assure that creativity
is encouraged. The residential design standards will provide flexibility for
creative approaches that respect neighborhood context.
Considering Context
Characteristics that define the context for new construction may vary within
different Aspen neighborhoods. These distinctions will be described in a
manner that facilitates informed discussion about compatible design.
Adjusting to Change
Some negative reactions to new buildings may simply be in response to the
pace of change within the community. it will be important to understand
which issues relate to specific design characteristics and which relate to
change in general.
Focusing Discussion
The community has had considerable past dialog regarding design character
and residential compatibility. At this time, it will be important to avoid
having an open-ended discussion, and instead focus on specific aspects of
the existing design standards that could be improved or streamlined.
Clarifying Intent
The intent of the residential design standards should be clearly understood.
Revisions should be considered to the intent statement for the overall
standards, as well as to the intent statements for specific standards or
groups of standards.
Limiting Variances
The design standards should be structured in a way that reduces the
currently high number of requests for administrative and P&Z variances.
Looking Forward
To reach a practical solution, we must build upon previous efforts while
also taking a fresh look at the issues. it will be important to understand
what can be built under current regulations in a variety of contexts and
work with the advisory group and stakeholders to define compatibility and
ensure that proposed solutions are simple and easy to understand.
A computer model compares the ex-
isting maximum building envelope
(transparent form) with a potential
new building using Winter & Compa-
ny’s proposed revisions to the code
to the residential design standards in
Terrell Hills, Texas.
Winter & Company’s standards for
Durango’s established neighbor-
hoods limit wall height at the side
yard setback.
Winter & Company generated a
series of alternative infill construction
models in a variety of existing con-
texts to support evaluation of new
residential design standards for West
Palm Beach, Florida.
P62
VI.b
PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES FOR RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS14
Section 3: Approach
COMMUNITY OUTREACH
We use community outreach strategies that highlight the assets of each
community, establish a strong vision for the future and provide clear,
practical guidance for improvements. This requires public participation
strategies that engage a range of participants in meaningful activities.
We will assist City staff to identify groups and organizations that should
be engaged in the process. We will facilitate meetings for the identified
advisory group and are also available to facilitate stakeholder groups that
are scheduled during our visits to Aspen. Finally, we are available to conduct
additional meetings or public open houses as an additional service.
Our proposed public outreach strategies are summarized below.
Advisory Group
We will work with staff to identify a small advisory group that will help
review and provide feedback on alternative design standards. An initial
assumption is that the advisory group will include local architects,
developers, property owners and/or real estate professionals.
We will facilitate two meetings of the advisory group at major project
milestones (Abe Barge will facilitate one on-site meeting and Suzannah Reid
will facilitate the other). We will also conduct additional video conferences
with the advisory group. As an optional service, Suzannah Reid is available
to facilitate additional on-site advisory group meetings.
Stakeholder Meetings
Stakeholder meetings provide participation opportunities for key
individuals or groups whose advice is critical to the success of the project.
issues discussed may be more technical than those addressed in public
meetings. We will work with staff and the advisory group to identify
potential stakeholders to invite to drop-in or scheduled meetings.
While on-site, we are available to facilitate stakeholder meetings during
project step 1. We will also develop agendas and other materials to assist
staff in conducting additional stakeholder meetings, if necessary.
Website
We will work with the City to maintain a web page that publishes interim
reports on the progress of the project.
Public Open Houses (optional additional service)
Public open houses and workshops are designed to engage the greatest
numbers of people and to highlight a diversity of ideas. We organize
participants into teams for hand-on activities while also providing
worksheets, surveys or other opportunities for individual feedback. An
open house may be organized around presentation boards or other
opportunities to learn about the project and ask questions.
As an additional service, we are available to facilitate workshops or open
houses.
Workshop participants use “game
pieces” to indicate appropriate infill
design solutions for their neighbor-
hood.
P63
VI.b
Section 3: Approach
ASPEN, COLORADO 15
IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES
We will begin the project by evaluating the existing standards to determine
where they may present design or financial challenges for architects and
designers, or where they may present administrative difficulties for City
staff.
We will first discuss the existing standards with staff before opening the
discussion to the advisory group and then specific stakeholder groups,
such as architects, developers and real estate professionals. Key questions
to answer will include:
• Do the existing standards sufficiently address neighborhood
compatibility?
• Are the existing standards sufficiently understood by applicants and
property owners?
• Do the existing standards allow sufficient flexibility for design
creativity that would be compatible with neighborhood context?
• Are the existing standards sufficiently context-sensitive, or will it be
necessary to determine that some or all of the standards should not
apply in some contexts (i.e., when new homes are part of a large new
development vs. individual infill within an established neighborhood)
IDENTIFICATION OF SOLUTIONS
We will develop solutions based on the evaluation of existing standards
and a discussion of issues with staff, the advisory group, stakeholders and
the overall community. While we understand that the City of Aspen does
not intend to completely rework the existing residential design standards,
it will be important to consider a range of alternatives to address identified
issues. These may include:
• Revisions to existing standards and/or introduction of new tools (note
that the strategy report will include illustrated definitions of a range
of tools that could address identified issues). Design tools are likely
to focus on:
»Elements relating to pedestrian orientation
»Compatibility with adjacent lower-scale structures
»Ensuring that large new structures are designed to remain
residential in appearance
• Adjustment to the geographic application of existing or new tools
• Revisions to definitions or measurement systems
• Use of more refined and easy to understand language within the
standards
• Adjustments to review thresholds, variance processes or other
administrative processes
We will summarize the issues and potential alternative tools in a concise
strategy report. Based on a review of alternatives, we will also work with
staff and the advisory group to establish a recommended set of tools to be
included in an ordinance to update Aspen’s residential design standards.
Minimizing staff and board work loads, and expediting review and decision-
making will be key objectives.
P64
VI.b
PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES FOR RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS16
Section 3: Approach
DRAFTING UPDATES
We will draft language for updates to the residential design standards
that implement the recommended tools. These tools will promote defined
goals for the project and address identified issues. The text updates will be
provided to staff in Microsoft Word format. After review and feedback, we
will assist staff to transition the language updates into ordinance format.
it is assumed that updates will apply to all single-family residential
development in the city, with the exception of development of the RB-
15 zone district. The specific application of the updates are likely to vary
based on:
• Zone district or areas of special character
• Location within the defined Aspen infill Area (East of Castle Creek
and South of the Roaring Fork River)
• Location adjacent to a designated historic structure
• Lot size or type
• Project type
POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL SERVICES
We are available to provide additional services to support the residential
design standards project. A proposed budget for additional services is
provided on page 19. Potential services include:
Community Workshop or Open House
Winter & Company is available to conduct open houses or workshops as
described on page 14.
Illustration of Standards (new and revised graphics)
Winter & Company has extensive experience with illustration of design
standards and guidelines. Graphics included in a zoning code should be
simple, clear and focused on specific design topics. They should also
illustrate compatible design conditions in a context that will be familiar
to Aspen users. Winter & Company is available to provide graphics to
illustrate the text design standards. it is assumed that graphics would be
generated using SketchUp and Adobe illustrator, with the final graphics
provided as Adobe PDF or JPEG files.
Design Standards Handbook or Manual
Depending on the nature of the recommended tools, we may suggest that
the residential design standards be referenced in a separate residential
design standards manual or handbook. This would be an optional
approach for discussion with staff and the advisory committee. Winter
& Company is available to draft a manual or handbook as an additional
service in combination with the additional services for illustration of the
standards described above. it is assumed that the handbook would be
developed using Adobe inDesign software and posted on the web for
users in interactive Adobe PDF format.
Assistance with Adoption
Winter & Company is available to assist with adoption of the residential
design standards as part of an additional on-site trip. We would create and
deliver a presentation for elected officials and could also host an additional
public workshop or open house during the visit.
6’
40’
An illustration from Winter & Com-
pany’s residential design standards
for Fort Collins illustrates maximum
facade widths for larger infill con-
struction in a traditional setting.
Diagrams illustrate dormer excep-
tions that are built into Winter &
Company’s residential design stan-
dards for Cherry Hills Village.
P65
VI.b
Section 4: Timeline
ASPEN, COLORADO 17
Section 4: Timeline
The anticipated overall project timeline is provided below. A proposed budget for each project step is provided
in the next section.
Completed by:
Step 1: Define the Issue
1.1: Conduct video conference to evaluate standards with staff and discuss advisory group February 13, 2015
1.2: Conduct video conference with staff to discuss on-site visit February 20, 2015
1.3: On-site visit
»Meet with staff
»Tour “issues” with staff
»Meet with Advisory Committee
»Focus/stakeholder groups (1-2x)
»Community Open House to introduce project and gather feedback (optional additional service)
March 13, 2015
Step 2: Identify Solutions
2.1: Deliverable - Strategy Report Draft #1 April 3, 2015
2.2: Conduct video conference with staff and Advisory Committee to review Strategy Report Draft #1 April 17, 2015
2.3: Deliverable - Strategy Report Draft #2 (15-20 pages with illustrations)May 15, 2015
2.4: Conduct video conference with staff and Advisory Committee to discuss strategy (S. Reid on site)June 5, 2015
2.5 Focus/stakeholder groups (facilitated by S. Reid)June 5, 2015
Step 3: Draft Updates
3.1: Deliverable - Standards Text Draft #1 June 26, 2015
3.2: Conduct video conference with staff to discuss standards draft #1P July 6, 2015
3.3: Deliverable - Standards Text Draft #2 July 24, 2015
3.4: Conduct video conference with staff and Advisory Committee to discuss Standards Draft #2 August 7, 2015
Step 4: Illustration & Adoption (optional additional services)
4.1: Deliverable - Design standards illustrations (optional additional service)August, 2015
4.2: Deliverable - Draft and final design standards handbooks (optional additional service)August, 2015
4.3: Additional on-site visit (optional additional services)
»Meet with staff to discuss adoption strategy
»Meet with Advisory Committee to discuss adoption strategy
»Assist with presentation of standards at adoption hearing
»Community Open House to present ordinance
August, 2015
P66
VI.b
PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES FOR RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS18
Section 5: Costs
Section 5: Costs
BASE SERVICES BUDGET
The budget below provides costs for base services to define issues, identify solutions and draft text updates to
the residential design standards. it includes two on-site visits and meetings with staff, the Advisory committee
and stakeholders as described in Step 4:Timeline.
Page 1 of 1
Step 1: Define the Issue
Personnel Rate Hrs.Amount
A. Barge $110 30 $3,300
C. Bostic/J. Husband $110 6 $660
N. Winter $180 3 $540
Winter & Company Design Associate $60 0 $0
S. Reid $110 9 $990
STEP 1 FEES $5,490
STEP 1 EXPENSES Unit Cost Freq.Amount
Technical and Travel Expenses $555 LS $555
TOTAL STEP 1 EXPENSES $555
TOTAL STEP 1 FEES AND EXPENSES $6,045.00
Step 2: Identify Solutions
Personnel Rate Hrs.Amount
A. Barge $110 60 $6,600
C. Bostic/J. Husband $110 11 $1,210
N. Winter $180 8 $1,440
Winter & Company Design Associate $60 24 $1,440
S. Reid $110 17 $1,870
STEP 2 FEES $12,560
STEP 2 EXPENSES Unit Cost Freq.Amount
Technical Expenses $555 LS $555
TOTAL STEP 2 EXPENSES $555
TOTAL STEP 2 FEES AND EXPENSES $13,115.00
Step 3: Draft Updates
Personnel Rate Hrs.Amount
A. Barge $110 32 $3,520
C. Bostic/J. Husband $110 8 $880
N. Winter $180 5 $900
Winter & Company Design Associate $60 0 $0
S. Reid $110 4 $440
STEP 3 FEES $5,740
STEP 3 EXPENSES Unit Cost Freq.Amount
Technical and Travel Expenses $0 LS $0
TOTAL STEP 3 EXPENSES $0
TOTAL STEP 3 FEES AND EXPENSES $5,740.00
TOTAL FOR BASE SERVICES $24,900.00
P67
VI.b
Section 5: Costs
ASPEN, COLORADO 19
OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL SERVICES BUDGET
The budget below provides anticipated costs for potential optional services that could include additional
meetings, on-site visits, illustrations or handbooks.
Optional Services Budget for Each Additional On-site Meeting*
Personnel Rate Hrs.Amount
A. Barge $110 2 $220
C. Bostic/J. Husband $110 0 $0
N. Winter $180 0 $0
Winter & Company Design Associate $60 0 $0
S. Reid $110 3 $330
TOTAL FEES $550
TOTAL FEES AND EXPENSES $550.00
*Additional on-site Advisory Committee or Stakeholder meetings facilitated by Suzannah Reid in steps 1-4
with Abe Barge connected via phone or video conference
Optional Services Budget for Each Community Open House*
Personnel Rate Hrs.Amount
A. Barge $110 8 $880
C. Bostic/J. Husband $110 2 $220
N. Winter $180 1 $180
Winter & Company Design Associate $60 8 $480
S. Reid $110 3 $330
TOTAL FEES $2,090
TOTAL FEES AND EXPENSES $2,090.00
*Interactive community open house facilitated by Abe Barge in conjunction with on-site visit
includes presentation and interactive open house materials (visual activities to review design alternatives, etc.)
Optional Services Budget for Design Standards Illustration*
Personnel Rate Hrs.Amount
A. Barge $110 16 $1,760
C. Bostic/J. Husband $110 12 $1,320
N. Winter $180 1 $180
Winter & Company Design Associate $60 30 $1,800
S. Reid $110 0 $0
TOTAL FEES $5,060
TOTAL FEES AND EXPENSES $5,060.00
*Draft and final technical illustrations to complement design standards text (approx. 10-12x)
Optional Services Budget for Design Standards Handbook*
Personnel Rate Hrs.Amount
A. Barge $110 26 $2,860
C. Bostic/J. Husband $110 5 $550
N. Winter $180 1 $180
Winter & Company Design Associate $60 24 $1,440
S. Reid $110 0 $0
TOTAL FEES $5,030
TOTAL FEES AND EXPENSES $5,030.00
*Residential design standards published in a separate visual InDesign/Acrobat handbook (approx. 10-20 pages)
Would be used in combination with optional services for design standards illustration
Optional Services Budget for Additional On-Site Visit
Personnel Rate Hrs.Amount
A. Barge $110 30 $3,300
C. Bostic/J. Husband $110 0 $0
N. Winter $180 1 $180
Winter & Company Design Associate $60 0 $0
S. Reid $110 4 $440
STEP 3 FEES $3,920
EXPENSES Unit Cost Freq.Amount
Technical and Travel Expenses $555 LS $555
TOTAL STEP 2 EXPENSES $555
EXPENSES $4,475.00
TOTAL FOR OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL SERVICES $17,205.00
P68
VI.b
PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES FOR RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS20
Section 5: Costs
P69
VI.b
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 9, 2015
1
SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES .................................................................................................. 2
CITIZEN COMMENTS AND PETITION ................................................................................................... 2
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2
AGENDA ADDITIONS ............................................................................................................................... 3
BOARD REPORTS ...................................................................................................................................... 3
CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................. 3
Resolution #18, Series of 2015 – Approving Rubey Park Intergovernmental Agreement ............... 3
Resolution #21, Series of 2015 – Authorizing a Contract Amendment with GFOA Technical
Services for Vendor Selection, Contract Negotiation and Implementation Advisory Services ................ 3
Minutes – January 26, 2015 .............................................................................................................. 3
PUBLIC HEARING FOR POLICY RESOLUTION - Resolution #15, Series of 2015 – amend Section
26.212 and 26.220 of the Land Use Code ..................................................................................................... 3
Ordinance #7, Series of 2015 - 1450 Crystal Lake Road – Aspen Club & Spa Planned Development
Amendment ................................................................................................................................................... 3
Ordinance #8, Series of 2015 – Amend Section 26.212 and Section 26.220 of the Land Use Code to add a
second alternate to HPC and P&Z ................................................................................................................ 4
Ordinance #2, Series of 2015 – 730 E. Cooper Street – Base 1 Lodge Planned Development .................... 5
Ordinance #6, Series of 2015 – Amend Chapter 9.10 – Conduct of Municipal Elections of the City of
Aspen Municipal Code ............................................................................................................................... 17
Ordinance #4, Series of 2015 – Right of Way Calculations Code Amendment ......................................... 17
Ordinance #39, Series of 2014 – 709 E Durant – Sky Hotel Planned Development/Subdivision .............. 18
P70
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 9, 2015
2
At 4:10 pm Mayor Skadron called the special meeting to order with Cpuncilmembers Frisch, Mullins,
Romero and Daily present.
Jim True, city attorney, recommend council go in to executive session pursuant to 24.6.402.b- discussion
with attorneys for water issues. The special meeting was properly noticed but not noticed on web site.
Councilman Romero move to go into executive session; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in
favor, motion carried.
At 4:12pm Council entered into executive session.
At 5:00 pm Councilman Romero moved to come out of executive session; seconded by Councilman
Frisch. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Romero moved to adjourn the special meeting; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor,
motion carried.
At 5:10 pm Mayor Skadron called the regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Frisch, Mullins,
Romero and Daily present
SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES
Ruthie Brown representing the Aspen Chapter of the Citizens Climate Lobby(CCL) told the Council they
are a non-partisan organization that was created to address climate change. Climate change is the biggest
crisis that we have ever faced. Mona Newton said CCL is a national organization with over 250 chapters
with a goal to get federal legislation passed. We cannot accomplish the goal of creating a long term
livable world. They are here to request Councils participation at the national conference in June by
sending someone from Council and staff. She also requested a work session to talk about carbon in the
valley. We need to work together at a national level. David Hyman said the effects of change effect the
livability of the planet. The CCL is familiar with the canary initiative and responsibility and hopes that
Council supports the work of the climate lobby. Rebecca Weiss requested that Council support the work
by sending a Councilmember and staff member to the Washington DC conference in June. Aspen
representatives will meet with Gardner and Tipton to pass carbon fee legislation.
Mayor Skadron said Council will consider the comments and find time on the agenda for a work session.
CITIZEN COMMENTS AND PETITION
1. Bert Myrin passed out a handout of the home rule charter on open space. The charter
amendment they drafted is based on the restrictions for open spaces. The proposed amendment
would add four things to charter relating to height, FAR, parking and housing. They are
community assets and should be considered as. He said he would love to have Council support
the petition.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
1. Councilwoman Mullins attended the History Colorado awards in Denver where they presented
the Steven H Hart award for exceptional project to the City for the Aspen Modern program. Amy
Simon and Sara Adams also gave a presentation on the program.
2. Mayor Skadron thanked the Aspen Youth Center and Adam and Katie for supporting the spelling
bee. It was an extraordinary event and a huge amount of work to benefit the youth center. Mayor
Skadron congratulated Robin Smith the winner.
P71
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 9, 2015
3
AGENDA ADDITIONS
Mayor Skadron said there is a change in the agenda order. The order of the public hearings has been
changed with 730 E Cooper – Base 1 lodge first, Ordinance 6 second, followed by Ordinance 4 and the
Sky Hotel last.
BOARD REPORTS
There were none.
CONSENT CALENDAR
• Resolution #18, Series of 2015 – Approving Rubey Park Intergovernmental Agreement
• Resolution #21, Series of 2015 – Authorizing a Contract Amendment with GFOA Technical
Services for Vendor Selection, Contract Negotiation and Implementation Advisory Services
• Minutes – January 26, 2015
Councilman Frisch moved to approve the consent calendar; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor,
motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING FOR POLICY RESOLUTION - Resolution #15, Series of 2015 – amend Section
26.212 and 26.220 of the Land Use Code
Linda Manning, City Clerk, told the Council this will add a second alternate to the Historic Preservation
and Planning & Zoning Commissions. Interviews were held last month to fill vacancies and it took about
nine month to get enough qualified applicants for the process. With some of the recent projects there
have been members who have to recuse themselves since they or their firm worked on the project. Staff
feels in general a second alternate would allow for a fuller board to hear and vote on applications. Since
this section is in the land use code there is a policy resolution and if this is approved there will be a first
reading of the ordinance later tonight.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public
comment.
Councilmember Romero moved to adopt Resolution #15, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilman
Frisch. All in favor, motion carried.
Ordinance #7, Series of 2015 - 1450 Crystal Lake Road – Aspen Club & Spa Planned Development
Amendment
Mayor Skadron stated he didn’t know Michael Fox well for the original approvals and now he is a close
friend with him and his family so he is recusing himself. Councilman Daily said he crafted the original
PUD and he is also recusing himself.
Jessica Garrow, community development, told the Council this is for a PUD amendment, growth
management review and commercial design review. They are proposing to remove the approved
subgrade garage and relocate the parking to the surface at grade. They are also proposing an additional
five lodge bedrooms and a decrease of one lodge unit. They will improve ADA access and add an
elevator. This lot has grade changes and the elevator will enhances ADA access. Some design changes
are related to the reconfiguration. They are proposing to use a synthetic roofing material that appears as
metal. There are minor dimensional clean ups and some dimensional changes. There is a proposed
P72
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 9, 2015
4
decrease in overall floor area and set back changes. P&Z unanimously recommended approval and Staff
also recommends approves.
Councilman Frisch asked for the difference in lodge units and bedrooms. Ms. Garrow replied lodge units
are individual units that are rentable and bedrooms are the bedrooms within the units.
Councilwoman Mullins asked for a recent project that used the same roof. Ms. Garrow replied the music
school and she will have a sample at second reading.
Councilwoman Mullins asked for options for the permeable paving for the parking area for second
reading.
Councilwoman Mullins asked about the visual from the Ute trail and more detailed landscape plans.
Councilman Romero asked if there was any public outreach to report on. He said he imagines the
construction impacts to remove the parking will be seen as unfavorable to the neighbors. Ms. Garrow
stated the applicant is required to do the standard public notice in advance of the March 9 meeting and
staff recommend enhanced outreach.
Councilman Frisch asked to see more information on the visualization from the top of the mountain. He
asked if there are any increases or changes in variances. Ms. Garrow said there is a decrease in floor area
and some changes in set-backs due to removal of the garage. Councilman Frisch asked for the second
roof idea is the code behind the times. He is supportive of the synthetic roof and we should try to update
the code. Ms. Garrow said this project was approved in 2010 and falls under an older code. Some of this
is bringing it up to today’s standards.
Councilman Romero moved to read Ordinance #7, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins.
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 7
(SERIES OF 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING LODGE AND AFFORDABLE
HOUSING GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEWS, AND A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
AMENDMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1450 CRYSTAL LAKE ROAD (THE ASPEN
CLUB), LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 15-A THROUGH 15-E OF CALLAHANS
SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Councilman Romero moved to approve Ordinance #7, Series of 2015 on first reading; seconded by
Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Romero, yes; Frisch, yes. Motion
carried.
Ordinance #8, Series of 2015 – Amend Section 26.212 and Section 26.220 of the Land Use Code to add
a second alternate to HPC and P&Z
Linda Manning, city clerk, stated this is the ordinance that will add the language for the second alternate.
Language was also added stating the second alternate will only vote with the absence of the first alternate
and one regular member or the absence of two regular members. The public hearing will be on February
23 rd .
Councilman Romero moved to read Ordinance #8, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins.
All in favor, motion carried.
P73
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 9, 2015
5
ORDINANCE NO. 8
(SERIES OF 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER
26.212 –PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AND 26.220 HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMISSION, OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE.
Councilman Frisch moved to approve Ordinance #8, Series of 2015 on first reading; seconded by
Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Romero, yes; Mayor
Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
Ordinance #2, Series of 2015 – 730 E. Cooper Street – Base 1 Lodge Planned Development
Sara Adams told the Council this is for planned development, growth management, commercial design
and tree removal.
No variations are requested for this project. The height is under what is allowed in the commercial zone.
The bathrooms have been removed from the roof. It is under the allowed floor area. The size of the
rooms are 170 square feet and cannot be changed without a planned development amendment. There
were questions at the last public hearing about affordability and a possible deed restriction. Staff is
comfortable that the size of the rooms and the location prohibit an increase. For parking, the code allows
the requirement to be established with the planned development review. It is not considered a variation
but establishing the parking requirement. The applicant found 15 spaces at the St. Regis. They are off
site spaces. Accommodating the parking on site changes the type of project that is being proposed. There
is no incentive for high density lodges as far as parking goes. Redevelopments get to use the existing
deficits on site. With new product they must mitigate for all new lodge rooms. Ms. Adams calculated
they are mitigating to 62 percent of what the code says at .5 space per room. When you look at
occupancy rates, based on a sample of lodges the rate is 25-70 percent occupied. This will provide 62
percent mitigation and Staff is comfortable with the proposal. They commend the applicant for going out
to the private sector to look for parking.
As for housing, Staff is comfortable using the .3 lodge preservation generation rate. The requirement is
.99 FTE and the applicant is proposing cash in lieu or affordable housing mitigation credits. For impact
fees the code allows reductions or waiver of fees. When the applicant first came in there was a request to
waive fees. That is taken off the table and they propose to pay all fees.
For architecture there are two new renderings to show wood louvers. They are proposed to soften the
look and are more contextual with the neighborhood. Staff thinks the design is indicative of the use and
they are excited about the architecture. The large windows make a small room feel bigger. There is a
definite mixed context of the neighborhood and lots of architecture types. The site plan clean ups the
corner. It removes the curb cuts and restores the sidewalks. Overall it adds to the character of town.
Staff talked a lot about the architecture and did not think an affordable lodge with a focus on next gen
should have architecture that fades into the background. It is a good addition to town.
At the last meeting Council asked if they are asked to determine if Mark is asking for more than he is
offering. He is not asking for much at all. He responded to Council and the public concerns. He is
bringing in low glare glazing to reduce some of the lighting concerns. He is playing within all the rules of
the code. The 2012 AACP says without diversity of lodging we limit the ability of future generations to
experience Aspen. All the review criteria are met and Staff recommends approval.
Councilman Frisch said at the last meeting the memo said they are required to provide 23 parking spaces
and now at its 15. With no variances how does that work. Ms. Adams replied the planned development
P74
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 9, 2015
6
uses the code as a guideline. It is not considered a variation. The number went down from 25.3 to 24.3
due to a miscount. Staff has come up with 15 based on occupancy rates and historical data.
Councilwoman Mullins asked if it is .5 space per room at 60 percent occupancy. Ms. Adams replied it is
one space for 1,000 square feet.
Councilman Romero asked how much air time the application got on the issue of affordable housing. The
underlying zone is CL and for large parts Staff is measuring against that criteria. How much discussion
occurred on the notion of applying LP which are more beneficial for affordable housing mitigation. Ms.
Adams said they spent a good amount of time on it when the application first came in. .06 is the CL
requirement and is based on the level of service. LP is for the small lodges that have a different level of
service. Staff felt comfortable using .3 for this project.
Councilman Daily asked if the St. Regis spaces will be permanent spaces for this project and are not
committed to other uses. Ms. Adams said the Regis has 220 spaces in the garage. They are required
under the code to have 150 for the number of units. They have an overage of parking. They will have to
do a PD amendment to change how the parking is allocated.
Councilman Daily said it is a better proposal than the last one.
Councilwoman Mullins asked if the proposal is for a valet service. Ms. Adams replied yes.
Councilwoman Mullins asked if there are areas for drop offs. Ms. Adams said there are two loading
zones required and the location is based on approval by engineering and parks. There is a requirement for
two loading zones.
Mitch Haas said the logic behind the type of lodging is more akin to the LP zone than the St. Regis, Nell
or Jerome. The code does provide for that flexibility and for the employee generation review.
For the big picture there has been an incredible amount of work over the last two weeks and he thanked
Council for their direction and input. They made a real genuine effort to address those concerns. The
AACP concept of equal access in regard to lodging has been present since 1976. It has been a 40 year old
goal to provide affordable lodging. This is the first real earnest effort to provide an entry level lodge that
is true to that goal. There is no free market or timeshare component. 177 square foot rooms where
everything else is open to the public to enjoy. How do people know it’s there. Same as how we know we
can go in the limelight or Jerome. The whole concept is geared that way as a place where locals hang out
with guests.
There is no onsite parking requirement for any property. Off street parking is a requirement but not on
site. They are asking for Council to not waive the requirement but establish it at 13-15 spaces. Similar
uses support these numbers. This identical proposal, if moved 150 feet to the west, is zero. He gave other
examples around town to support this including the St. Mortiz with 37 units and no off street and the
Hotel Aspen with 45 units and no off street parking. These are the types of lodges we try to support in
town. None have been called a problem with a lack of parking. None have been the undoing of Aspen.
Most use adjacent City right of way free of charge. They are not asking for that. They are asking to use
off site parking that Mark will lease from a private property owner. They are hoping this is an adequate
solution and will not cause the City to walk away from the opportunity of a meaningful affordable lodge.
If we took the same proposal and tripled the average room size the result would be 14 lodge rooms and a
code require seven parking spaces. Affordability is lost and the price point changes. Parking would be
accommodated on site with a free market and fractional component. The amenities would be privatized
and similar to the Dancing Bear lodge. They have done quite a bit to reduce the number of vehicles. If
P75
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 9, 2015
7
not here where. They don’t know where. It is a good site for this type of development. It is 100 percent
in keeping with the commercial zone district. If not now, when. The goal has existed for 40 years and
none have stepped up to the challenge. The City is currently reviewing 4 other lodging options with a
combined total of 25 new lodge units and not all affordable, including 11 fractional, 2 free market at
Molly and 3 at Lenado. This is 40 units with no fractional or free market. We must not allow this
opportunity to slip through our hands.
What is there today is the existing building with parking, driveway, tree and picnic bench. From the alley
it is a continuous curb cut. There are not really sidewalks present. It is hard to believe vehicles fit in the
alley. Cars come and go in every direction out of the lot. It will be cleaned up to make it more functional
and safe. He showed photos of the front and current side walk and the alley with roof overhangs and
dumpsters. It is not a wonderful piece of property with a public amenity space. In the new design the
curb cuts are all gone and replaced with detached sidewalks and trees. There will be new parallel parking
spaces, a permeant we-cycle station, a courtyard in the center, a notch out for dumpsters and utilities, a 20
foot wide functional alley and bidirectional ADA ramps with cross walks. Mr. Haas talked about the tree
permit appeal and showed a phot of the tree in the middle of the sidewalk. The removal permit was
denied so they are appealing to Council. The City has made an effort of achieving accessibility standards.
They cannot provide accessible sidewalk without losing a lot of rooms. They have gone to a lot of effort
to provide a design that engages the street. It is a cotton wood tree that is currently healthy but he does
not think it will survive the construction.
Mr. Hunt said the interiors have not really changed. The concept is to provide affordable rooms for the
next generation. The 177 square foot rooms are built out of efficiency. People are not coming here to
stay in their rooms. The balance of property is designed to be social and communal. It is built off of the
mining history of Aspen. It is a year round space for visitors and locals. There will be a multi-use check
in with sundry and lots of communal spaces for food and beverage. There are plans for a bowling alley
and a roof top deck. They will use natural products and finishes. It speaks to community with a front
desk, tenants and operators who engage and welcome the local community and a barber shop. There will
be a courtyard with a walk up window. He showed an Aspen historical photo of inside the smuggler
mine. There are some concerns about the architecture. The neighborhood is eclectic and this lends to the
history. He does want it to be a bit bold. It is intriguing and a building you want to go in. It is important
to design an experience rather than a building with rooms in it. He showed a taller steel building from an
earlier rendering. Then one with darkened steel and added street level windows. They softened it up
more with going to wood. They have been working with the glass manufacture and there is lots you can
do with glass in the way of zero reflectivity and tinting. They added screens and wood slats. It cut down
on the light and added some privacy and less glare.
They got the message last time loud and clear on parking. Go to the private sector before going to the
public. He understands the concerns of using the rio grand. He went out to a handful of people looking
for parking. He heard back from a lot of community members about parking in their garages. He met
with the St. Regis via John Sarpa. They took the approach that they want to be part of the community and
believe in affordability and would like to try to help. The St. Regis is committed up to 15 spots. They
were blown away with the philosophy of getting people here and understanding the next generation. The
reality is most people come back.
There will be a snow melt system on the roof and no shoveling or snow removal. The idea is a place
where guests and the community can go. As for the questions relating to noise, they have the same
P76
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 9, 2015
8
concern since it is a hotel and they sell sleep. They are committed to working with the neighbors on a
curfew.
Would we do base 1 without base 2. Early on he would have said no. Through this process it grew into
something bigger than what it started out as. He visited five other communities where they offered to
donate the land to put the lodge on. It is not just an Aspen problem but an industry one. He would love
to build it here. It is not perfect. It would be a great addition and opportunity to add rooms to the town.
Mr. Hunt said he would love the first one to be here.
Councilman Romero had some questions around the details of the parking arrangement and affordable
lodging. He asked for more on the off street parking arrangement with the St. Regis. He appreciates they
are going back into the market place to solve the problem. He is curious as to strength of the deal. Mr.
Haas said it would be a long term lease with the ability to replace parking down the road. Councilman
Romero asked what happens if the parking lease blows up. Mr. Haas said they would have to find more
parking. Parking and affordable housing are the hardest things to address on a project to project basis.
Councilman Romero said if lease were to blow up there needs to be an if then statement in the ordinance
to address what happens. The valet service commitment is hand and glove with the parking model. It
underscores the requirement of a valet service. There is a higher level for the staffing model into valet.
Mr. Haas said it is a valet lot only. Councilman Romero said valet means more staff on campus. He
appreciates they erased the other variances out of the application. It is affordable small letter versus
affordable big letter. He wants to make sure that they are committing to it instead of just the hope and
aspiration that will keep it affordable. Is it the design of the unit that will keep it affordable. Mr. Haas
said they believe it is affordable by design. The demographic and amenity space lends itself to a certain
market. The rooms are small. There will be times when it is priced higher but it will be extremely
affordable on the Aspen end. Councilman Romero said there are going to be times when someone will
offer 10 times to take the top floor and the team will make the smart business decision and take it.
Councilman Frisch said he appreciates the fee waivers going away. It is easier to digest when the
variances go away. Regarding noise, his belief is the city has a code regarding noise that is objective.
Regarding the dark sky initiative is there something equal in objectivity we can use. Ms. Adams said
there are light requirements that specify fixtures and wattage. They included a specification that low light
glazing be added. Councilman Frisch said no one stands outside with a light meter in the country. Ms.
Adams said the specific plans and fixtures meet the lighting code. A zoning officer checks for
compliance. Councilman Frisch asked to hear more about the height issue and where they were before
and where they are now.
Mr. Haas said the building didn’t change they just got rid of the bathrooms on the roof. It became an
issue with the code. It is under all the height requirements but it got thrown into being counted as a fourth
floor due to the bathrooms. It is unfortunate not to have a bathroom up there. Councilman Frisch asked if
the bulk and mass of the bathroom is replaced by mechanical. Mr. Haas replied yes the added height is
allowed for mechanical but not a bathroom.
Councilman Daily stated he appreciates the responsiveness to the concerns and eliminating three or four
variance requests. Mitch raised the questions of if not here or when. Those are real questions. They are
coming very close to answering those. It is truly an opportunity for the community. There has been a
goal for a long time for more affordable lodging and this is the first project that offers that. The small
rooms are hard to argue against. He asked how the valet will work. Mr. Haas said they will pull up and
unload get a ticket and the car goes away. Ideally you get the car back when you are ready to leave. The
P77
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 9, 2015
9
thought is it is car storage while you stay. There will be a nominal fee. If you want the car in between
they will discourage that by making it an expensive fee. There is We-cycle, shuttle, a free bus and town
is walkable. They will use the ski storage room for bikes in the summer. The idea of the valet is not to
get your car four or five times a day.
Mayor Skadron said this is a tough environment to support development and he’s torn. There is no
mechanism for price control. Nothing in this town is affordable and this leaves him unsettled. He does
not want to be sold a concept that does not come to fruition. Prices at the limelight have reached a point
that are not affordable and that project was sold to the public as affordable. Mr. Haas said as it relates to
Aspen it is affordable. Mayor Skadron said a room will cost 350 dollars and he wants to be clear the
community knows what it is getting. Mr. Haas said it is not a motor lodge or youth hostel. There is a big
gap between that and what else is available in town. The gap is the affordability. Mayor Skadron said he
wants to make sure the verbal representations come to fruition. It is designed to provide an entry point to
those who can’t come. Mr. Hunt said the average daily rate will be 150 dollars. For Christmas and New
Year’s people are not coming here for 150. It opens the door for people who would not otherwise be
here. Mayor Skadron said that should be the goal. He asked them to comment on how important the
internal programing is specifically the amenities to the overall strategy. Mr. Hunt said it is critical. With
rooms being small it is important and a big part of the experience. Mayor Skadron asked if it is unfair to
say the overall foot print would be reduced if the amenities are excluded. Mr. Haas said the amenities are
on the lower level and the roof top. Mayor Skadron said they used the term engage in a creative provision
for parking. Have we satisfied the creative provision. Mr. Haas said he believe so. He is not aware of
any projects that have offsite parking at all. Mr. Hunt said there are a lot more rooms as it relates to
parking.
Mayor Skadron asked where they are at on fees. Ms. Adams said they are offering to pay all the fees.
Mayor Skadron asked if there is a mechanism to prevent the conversion to condos. Ms. Adams said they
would have to go through a planned development. She said there is no language in the code for indoor
lighting and that is one of the reasons they added low light emitting glazing to the ordinance. Mayor
Skadron asked if it is zoned CL and not CC. Ms. Adams said it is one block from CC maybe two. Mayor
Skadron asked for the height in CC and C1. Ms. Adams said the north side of the street is up to 38 feet in
C1, 40 in CC and in CL a max of 40. The applicant is proposing 25.5. The south Side is 28. Mayor
Skadron said the code talks about neighborhood compatibility as a criteria. When a commercial is
adjacent to a residential building in what context do we discuss neighborhood compatibility. What
criteria do we use. Ms. Adams said that is something that P&Z struggled with also. You need to look at
the actual context of the neighborhood and what is allowed in the zoning. There is a mix of zone districts
here including a grocery store, mixed development, town homes and affordable housing. Mayor Skadron
asked the applicant to talk to the Benedict Common neighbors about the rooftop activity and how it might
affect their quality of life and neighborliness.
Mr. Hunt said they talked to them but not everyone came to the meetings. Johnny’s pushes 150 cars
through a day. There is no direction or sidewalks. When he first sat down with them he looked at it more
from the standpoint that it will be the biggest amenity. There is good and bad. It is inconvenient to go
anywhere. He wants to be respectful that they are right next door. He explained the alley and that they
can control the waste pickups. If there is a problem now you don’t know where it is coming from. This
is the best amenity and a single point of contact. Traffic will be significantly reduced. Right now there is
nothing obvious about the corner.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment.
P78
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 9, 2015
10
1. Jay Maytin said it is amazing what happens when you start a project with someone who wants to
start something. It is a project that was almost pushed off at first reading and now has no
variances. You don’t see that often. Wouldn’t Hotel Aspen been amazing if instead of three free
market homes it would have been 15 more rooms. Town would love this if it was 20 rooms with a
private residence on top. We have a commitment from a development for rooms. Working with
Mark he learned that this is something near and dear to his heart. He believes he wants to provide
this for our community. It is setting a precedent that development does not need a private sector
tied to it. The problem with parking is not the development dragging people into town. The
problem is people who live here drive their car in every day. The problem isn’t people who are
going to stay at the hotel but the behavior of our community. Mark shouldn’t be penalized for us
who drive every day, park our car then drive home. There is a precedent that we award some
lenience on parking and have the discussion of locals driving every day. The bottom line is ski
and hockey teams and corporate events can spend 150 per night opens a door to new people. He
is not asking for anything but maybe seven parking spots that are not needed.
2. Ian Peary said he is wearing two hats, one as a young business owner and another as Mr. Hunt’s
tenant. He could not be more excited. It is impossible to invite people when there are no
affordable accommodations. He understands the concern of pricing remaining affordable. It is a
small room. Aspen has nothing like this and it is our best chance. He does not think the project
could get better. It is a new sense of vitality to a decrepit building. He is also a tenant to Mr.
Hunt. His space may be redeveloped and Mr. Hunt has been more than fair and caring. He is a
proud new home owner and a non-car owner. We should be proud of our transportation system.
3. Marcia Goshorn stated she appreciates Mr. Hunt made the effort to talk to people one on one. He
took the input and changed the plan. She is not sure if the parking is enough but he is putting it in
a place where it will not impact people as much. She does not think it will be just a next gen
place. She appreciates that he got rid of most of the variances. She think he is a good addition to
town.
4. Bill Tomcich said Mark sat down with him one on one. He is strongly supportive of the project.
The issue of pricing is one of supply and demand. The wonderful destination is responsible for
the demand. There are times when the demand outpaces the supply. No matter what controls are
in place prices will be high. Between peak demand pricing relaxes quite a bit. Athletes are
staying here while they compete in Vail. Increasing the supply will help bring back into balance
the demand.
5. Rubin Sadowsky said Aspen will never be a budget travel destination but these rooms will help
bring people here who could not afford it. Aspen is special and this could be the heart of a new
renaissance. The project has come to code and Mark has reached out to the community. We’re
missing a range of thinkers, artists, musicians and athletes.
6. Andrew Sandler said he wants to say well done to everyone who already spoke. Mark has
become a yoga star and gave in to what everyone asked for. He has seen Mark meeting with a
bunch of people. He has done everything he can to meet expectations.
7. Nicolette Cantis said she is a Benedict Commons owner and is impressed by what Mark has done.
Her concern was parking and it is awesome they are not using their garage. He has changed her
mind and she is now for the project. Mark has done a great job and met her concerns.
8. Ron Cossack said he started out visiting here. This will help a lot of the 20 somethings come and
fall in love and want to move here. 5, 10, 15 years down the line we will see the benefits. He
wants to have his friends here too.
9. Mendel Mints stated in the last year his organization rented 300 hotel rooms and the lack of
quality affordable rates is a challenge. This is a project well worth it and will do a lot for us. He
hopes Council will support it.
10. Terri Butler said she owns the smallest lodge in town with eight suites and 12 bedrooms and no
parking. She made a big mistake. It is hard to keep the hotel full and she depends on repeat
customers. She has trained her clients not to rent a car. She does buy parking passes. Less than
20 percent rent cars. When Mark first proposed the hotel she thought do we really need it. She
has one room below 300 dollars per night and it has always sold. She turns away a lot of people
P79
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 9, 2015
11
in that budget. If she had to do it over again she would have 20 bed rooms and no suites. It is too
late for her to change but he has a good idea. It is up to Council to decide if it’s a good idea and
he’s the right person for it. It is important as elective representatives that they speak for us and
recognize when something good comes by. People will remember the good things that happen to
our town. If you want it you need to step up to the plate and figure it out.
11. Yvonne Klika said she lives at silverbell and is the only person in the room who doesn’t feel the
project should be acceptable. If it doesn’t fit on the lot don’t put it up. Less traffic on the corner
is nonsense it will always have heavy traffic. She thinks the city has done a disservice to Mr.
Hunt by encouraging him through P&Z. It should not have got here to council. It is too modern
with too much glass. It needs to be toned down. The drainage problems will continue. One thing
she agrees with is removing the tree. It’s dangerous. Removing the pine tree is something else.
In order to get the building up the pine tree will have to come down. It will not be affordable for
the holidays. We have several good lodges that cater to families. Where are workers going to eat
their lunch. We need a place for them.
12. Phyllis Bronson said they gave great presentations. It is a great project. It is a difficult
environment when we are so disturbed about so much that has been built. We elected Steve to
maintain the small town character but we should not ignore the possibility of a great project. It is
the first time she is excited about a project since 1975. It resonates. It feels like one of the old
lodges. There is a feeling of community. She appreciates he’s softened the exterior. It is quite
beautiful. Currently it is a true eyesore. She can’t think of a better use for this bit of land. The
only question she is uncomfortable with is the commitment of pricing. 150-200 resonates
beautifully. She gets a little nervous when she hears that will change at times. She would like to
see the blackout dates when it will change.
13. Steve Jaorwski stated he signed the charter petition. What council has inherited is hard to deal
with. Inside of town we can only do what we can. He support this project because he think this
corner needs uplifting and this can do a good thing here. He understand what Mr. Hunt is trying
to do. In other town there is so much development outside of the towns. Those areas are more
developable. It is hard to look at all this inside of town when we should be looking outside of
town. Use Cozy point for development. Generally he is in support of this project.
14. Basil Falcone said Mark Hunt could make a significant change in this town. Infrastructure and
variances can be resolved. The town is very sensitive to the architecture that is very
contemporary and very different than what represents this town. Ask Mr. Hunt to focus on
maintaining more of a look of historic preservation.
15. Sheri Petlar said she is an architect and urban designer and is in favor of the project. It seems to
be what we have been looking for. It is a straight forward project that is doing what it says it is
going to do. The architecture really resembles the Tippler hotel as an aspen icon. It is
conforming to the architectural history of Aspen. She believes it is an appropriate architecture for
Aspen.
16. Tom McCabe said addressing the issues from the previous meetings show good faith. The thing
left is how do you maintain an affordable lodging rate. Council does not have anything in the
code that addresses that. He asked the developer to think outside of the box with a metric that
could be offered for the future.
17. Mack Keeling stated he is the son of an affordable lodge owner. He is a huge advocate for the
project and the process. Mark figured out the parking. He addressed everything from the last
meeting. He is close to meeting a goal that’s been around from before he was born. It is not
perfect but it is perfect for Aspens future.
18. Maria Morrow said Mark is the right person to do this. She loves his passion. This was done in a
time when development is viewed negatively. She told Mark he is on a suicide mission. He has a
passion for the project and is the right person. She asked Council to visualize what 17x10 is. It’s
small and will be affordable. She likes that it is both looking back and forward. She is blown
away by how innovative it is. It is also the wave of the future. It is designed for people who will
live like us. She loves the idea of parking storage and discouraging guests from driving. I know
P80
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 9, 2015
12
we are part of the problem. Is the code the mandate of what we need. Are we so afraid of
variances that we don’t want to have a bathroom on the top floor.
19. Sammy Hewings said he has had a business in the buckhorn for 11 years and has lived in
Benedict Commons for the last 4. He is supportive of base one. Jay had a great point that the
neighborhood can help with the parking. There are cars that should be in the garage that are
parked on the street. These are little things that can help. He is glad to see some of the benedict
common owners are switching sides. He may have a space in the new building. It is the most fun
idea.
20. Josh Landis said he lives in Benedict Commons. He thanked Mark for speaking with the owners
and going out of his way. A good number of us are in favor. The main reasons is it gives them
things they can actually use over high end retail. He is ready for a bowling league over there.
They will have a coffee shop close by. He would like to see the traffic study and noise on the
roof top. He is less concerned with the alley after seeing how much width they will gain. They
met with Mark as an HOA board. He encouraged everyone to have their own opinion. A slight
majority is against it but it is moving in the other direction. Half of the members have not
expressed an opinion. He can count six who are more inclined to be for it. Half have not chimed
in. Those against it haven’t come to the meetings to get their concerns addressed. He is here
representing his own interest not the HOA.
21. Mark Campezi revoiced his support. Mark has a lot to lose if he doesn’t follow through on his
word. He has a lot to risk with his other properties.
22. Connie Daily asked Council to go to Benedict Commons and stand in the courtyard and look up
to see how it will affect them. She asked Council to go and take a look.
23. Mick Ireland asked Council to ask the hard questions that don’t pertain just to this project. He
said he was in this room when the limelight came through. They were told it would be a
moderate priced lodge. He likes the limelight and it serves its purpose well. He lives in
affordable housing but it has a deed restriction. Why can’t we have a deed restriction here and
trade guarantees for hope. Guarantee is the right to develop the property in certain ways. The
City cannot go back and should not. In return they are being asked to hope the rooms are
affordable. They are doing that without any empirical review of rates. Smaller is not always
cheaper. There is nothing in writing and no assurance he will continue to own the lodge. The
affordable housing issue is a larger issue that this proposal. The ordinance says for LP the
employee generation is .3 FTE per bedroom. No affordable housing mitigation is required.
There is something wrong in the code. .3 x 44 is 13.2. Housing 13.2 employees may not mean
they are not working there. They will generate employees and the cost will be borne by the tax
payers by increasing transportation or building housing. It’s not free. It should be a city wide
conversation. Independent of the zone there will still be this issue. Parking needs a
reexamination. He would ask the applicant what we do when people come to town and don’t
want their car seven blocks away. What will the impact on the neighborhood be. That study
should be done. Council is not an architecture review board. It is not appropriate for the public
to speak on architecture and a dangerous path to go down. It should be made clear that we are not
an architecture review board. It is a subjective standard and should not be a factor in the approval
process. If standards are too difficult they should be revised on a broader basis not an individual
application. If this project meets the standards without variances that is proof it will be no harm
putting in the home rule charter no variances.
24. Jim said the parking situation is real. He does not think the parking solution is the end all. The
corner is outstanding. He is trying to bring affordable lodging into the core. He could have put
commercial use there.
25. Dana Horton said we have the hind sight. The design is the guarantee it will remain affordable.
Aspen is an ambassador in so many ways why not let Base be the ambassador for affordable
lodging.
26. Kim Raymond stated she was opposed to this when it was first on the table. She lives directly
across the street and is concerned with congestion and parking. It is important for the community
and working people that the rules are applied the same to everybody. Tighten up the code and
P81
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 9, 2015
13
make it simpler. The code only deals with exterior lighting. The earlier design was better. She
does not think the roof top deck does anything for a public amenity. Parking can be taken care of.
Cleaning up the alley is a great thing. The amenities will increase the congestion on the corner.
The community does need affordable lodging and the deed restriction is critical.
27. Lex Truemeons said he supports the project. It is a solid project. The market will dictate the
room rate. There is no need for a deed restriction. They will be the smallest rooms in town in a B
minus location. Development is not all black and white. Council needs flexibility to work with a
developer to make a project work. This project is what the community has been asking for.
There are higher and better uses for this lot.
28. John Haily said they need more parking than 15 spaces. Everyone is competing for the same
spaces.
29. Peter Greney said he truly thinks it is affordable by design. He is concern if we overburden the
applicant he will pull this. Parking needs studied. He rents his place out on air BnB. They never
ask about parking. He is confused how affordable lodging generates affordable housing.
Affordable lodging is a community need and the applicant is going above and beyond. How can
we prescribe this for the future. He encouraged Council to approve.
Mayor Skadron asked Mark CAmpezi to come back. He asked for a response to Kim’s comments about
traffic. Mr. Campezi said there is traffic from 11-5. After 5 the traffic is gone. He thinks this will
alleviate traffic. His business is 65 percent delivery and 35 percent carryout. They have one delivery
vehicle.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
Ms. Adams said for the affordable housing calculation the project is required to provide .99 FTE if using
the LP generation rate. This is based on the existing credit and figuring out the difference. The average
room size provides the percent you need to mitigate for. For rooms this size it is ten percent. There is a
credit. Any conversion of the limelight would require a land use application and a Council review. It
would require mitigation and impact fees.
Mr. Haas said the deed restriction seem to have come from the experience of the limelight. As a planner,
just having an idea doesn’t get you near the finish line. This design is guaranteed by the physical nature
of its size. We have to decide if this is right today. There are some kinks to address but this is it.
FTE generation is in the code. You get a credit for the employees that are there. Rooms under 300
square feet the code says you house ten percent of them.
One block over is the athletic club. It was considered contemporary and now it is historic. This will fit
in. We need to rely on the code and when we do they say maybe the zoning is not right. He wrote the
city’s outdoor lighting code. No one has asked us to address the indoor lighting but we have. It won’t be
left on all night.
Mr. Hunt said this one is tricky. If asked to tie it in to other properties I don’t know another place where
this could go. I do want to be respectful of Aspen’s roots but I want it to be fun. I would rather look at a
different use than make this work in something more quaint or boring. It is a real opportunity.
Mr. Haas said so far Mark has built one project in town and it’s not horrible. This is a different spot.
There is no pattern of architecture.
Mr. Hunt said he understands John’s concern. 50 people a week. John is doing considerably more with
24 spots. The likelihood of someone using that parking for a hotel is different than someone grabbing a
sandwich. There is a single point of contact.
P82
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 9, 2015
14
Connie mentioned the courtyard. No one is guaranteed a view. We are building a building that meets the
code.
Ben Carlson, city forester, said they were approached regarding Base 1 and asked to submit comments.
The concern involves two trees, specifically one. There is a spruce tree in the south east corner on private
property that we permitted for removal. It is small in size and on private property. The second tree where
the permit removal was denied is for the cottonwood tree. It has good structure and is healthy and on the
City right of way. We don’t have very many in the down town area. It is an important public amenity.
Councilman Frisch asked if it is good in the sidewalk. Mayor Skadron asked if the tree can stay. Mr.
Carlson replied absolutely but with the project as proposed no. It is 70 years old with approximately
another 30 years life expectancy.
Councilwoman Mullins said it is surviving in a pretty inhospitable environment. Would construction
adjacent hurt it more. Mr. Carlson said construction would come two feet within the trunk of the tree.
That excavation will cause the death of the tree. Councilwoman Mullins asked how many other
cottonwoods are on that block. Mr. Carlson said none but some on the block before that. Councilwoman
Mullins said she fights to save any of these trees in town. They are an important part of the historic
streetscape. She would like to see it stay. It is a really hardy tree. Two feet from the trunk doesn’t work
but construction could work.
Mayor Skasron said she is absolutely right. It is a sensitive topic. A fabulous hotel application gets
impeded because of the tree. He asked if they can save the tree. Mr. Hunt asked what if we pull the
building back and go 4 floors. He finds it a little humorous and it is so dangerous as it sits. A City that
fights so hard for developers and making ADA compliant it is so hard. Mr. Haas said they notched the
building out and could notch the basement. I think the tree is still going to die in the construction
anyways and it was all for naught.
Councilwoman Mullins said if the tree is well enough protected and the construction is limited it would
not necessarily die. Mr. Carlson said the limit would be ten feet away from the trunk and 15 feet away
from the canopy. Chris Forman, parks, said the emphasis is not only on size and health but it is
completely off the property and in the public right of way. They take that very seriously. There is an
opportunity to have the discussions on how to create an amenable sidewalk. The conversations have not
come to fruition to explore other options. Mr. Haas said they will lose two plus lodge rooms on each
floor for the canopy. We can’t eliminate enough building to preserve the tree. There is no middle ground
compromise. We are going to plant some trees.
Councilwoman Mullins said a few summer ago construction impacts were significant lot line to lot line.
The possible loss of this tree is another result of lot line to lot line construction. Mr. Haas said the tree
would have to be a casualty of this development. If there was a way to work with the tree we would have
tried to. Maybe there is a reason there is only one.
Councilman Romero said the courtyard is a vital design characteristic. The feedback from the forestry
group is well placed. He believes they are internally consistent and do look at private development. It is
appropriate to have a conversation around this. His hunch is that they could solve it and it is not a fatal
flaw to the business model. It could be a good faith gesture. The tree does not need to be a casualty.
P83
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 9, 2015
15
Councilman Daily said he respects the experience of the forestry group. They think it can be saved. He
would like them to take a shot at a design that can preserve the tree. His concern is if they do that and the
tree can’t survive. If we are certain we can save the tree and get it built in a reasonable configuration we
should try.
Councilman Romero said the good news is we are talking about saving a tree and not the project. Mr.
Carlson said if the set back is 15 feet away from the canopy some pruning can happen. Mr. Haas said the
trunk is two feet off the property. 13 feet is a big chunk of the building. Councilman Romero said the
deal is going to die on the preservation of the tree.
Councilman Frisch said if it plays out the tree stays and the tree dies does it have big ramifications going
forward. Will it become something where we change setbacks to accommodate trees. What is 15 feet
based on. Mr. Forman said it is our charge to preserve the right trees. Our distances are based upon site
specific conditions and history. There is a level of exposure. We mitigate that and tender to it with our
experience. I don’t think it would change the way we do business. It is another piece of information we
have for the next project.
Councilman Frisch said leave the tree where it is and finish the conversation or include it with everything
else.
Mr. Haas asked what the radius is. Mr. Carlson said ten feet on the north and east side. Mr. Haas said
they would lose one room per floor and have to put more mechanical on the roof. Mr. Carlson said their
biggest concern is where the construction will happen. Mr. Haas said they could accommodate it but lose
two bedrooms of lodging.
Councilman Romero asked for the process where this goes next. Ms. Adams said it should be a condition
to be flushed out at the P&Z design review. They can deny the tree permit appeal and work with staff on
the notch then it goes back to P&Z.
Councilwoman Mullins said she appreciates the applicant coming back in. They clearly listened to the
conversations. There are no variances or waivers. She does not know of anything smaller or less
expensive in lodging. It is increasing the range of lodging in town. The price will fluctuate with seasonal
changes but will probably be the least expensive. She would not support a deed restriction. It is a great
solution to the parking by using parking that is already built. This is a flex situation until we get to the
point where cars don’t come in to town. She is not worried about noise or lighting. What is compatible
in a neighborhood like this. Something that is not detrimental, overbearing and still creates a pleasant
street scape. They have done that without being a certain style. For the traffic impact, intuitively you
would think vehicles will be down. There is the challenge of construction management. The tree is a
challenge. She needs a more defined description of proof of offsite parking. Overall she thinks they are
creating a public amenity. It is a great improvement to what is existing.
Councilman Frisch said Councilwoman Mullins has the right view. There is a noise ordinance that is
there to be used. People are not shy about using it. It is an industry problem and is amplified in this town
because of the lack of supply. This extends the range and we should reach out to find what is appropriate.
Where the applicant is going is where we need to get to liven up the lodging base. It is a better product
than I would have ever dreamed of a couple years ago. Never would have thought of a stand alone lodge
with no free market or a huge ask. The existing businesses are probably a bigger hindrance to the city
market business than a lodge. There are rules about two hour parking without a permit and some
P84
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 9, 2015
16
enforcement to be used. The St Regis is a good resource to use. Some type of solidification more than
what we have now would be great. We have no control over the change of use. His heart says it would
be great to work out the price thing but his head says no. It’s a lot more trouble than its worth. Mick is
right this is not the board to get into design review. He does not see a lot of faux anything in this town
and he thinks that’s important. With technology and design you are seeing a lot more glass used and it’s
a little simplistic to say don’t worry about what goes inside. We are seeing more and more buildings with
inside lights that effect the external. He is supportive of the project. As far as the tree, he would love to
see the tree and a hotel.
Councilman Romero said at first reading he sent a clear message. You responded with great creativity,
enthusiasm and problem solving posture. The conversation around the tree hasn’t happened enough. He
would prefer to refer the issue back to P&Z and let it be resolved. If it does need to go to keep this deal
together he would support it. He is comfortable with the neighborhood compatibility and prepared to
move forward
Jim True said we have to address how to have parking as a long term commitment. It needs to be
discussed here. The applicant indicated they are working on a long term lease. The question is what
happens if the lease goes away and it can’t be replaced. Councilman Romero said it would default back
to seeking out other options in the private sector. There is still that idea of the Rio Grande as a back stop.
Mr. True said it needs to be specified. He wants to make sure we have the ability to address it. There
needs to be a term of years of a minimal lease if they are not able to provide a permanent easement. He is
not sure what to recommend. Ms. Adams said they are comfortable with it as part of the development
agreement. It is a requirement to get a CO and they can include much more specific language in the
development agreement. Councilman Romero asked what the number of the initial base term is. Mr.
Hunt said they are looking at five years with five year options. Ultimately he wants to control his own
destiny. Councilman Romero said he is comfortable with those windows and the development
agreement. Mr. True said a five year term with at least one five year option. Councilman Daily said the
longest term we can get with a comfort range. Councilman Frisch said it needs to be in perpetuity. Mr.
True said the development agreement would have terms to initially be five years with five year option and
satisfactorily substitution thereafter. The specifics would be hammered out in the development agreement
with satisfaction of the city attorney.
Mayor Skadron said there is clear direction on the next steps with the tree. Ms. Adams said it would go
back to P&Z with a way to keep the tree or put the permit appeal on hold. Councilman Frisch asked if the
applicant is denied an appeal does it shut them out from coming back. His preference is to put the appeal
on hold. Personally he does not want to deny the appeal and at the end of the day the tree comes down or
they find an alternative plan. Mr. True said there is an option to put the appeal on hold. Mayor Skadron
said his preference is to maintain the tree. It is a principle the community stands on. It is fundamental to
the roots of the community. It is a much more fundamental principle of holding on to the things we
prioritize.
Mr. Haas said they have to go to P&Z for detailed review. If they are unable to do it through P&Z they
will be back. Mr. Hunt said they are losing two trees and planting five.
Mayor Skadron said as Phyllis said it is a tough environment to support development. Generally there is
a strong dislike of development approvals. Specifically penthouses that arose from a previous councils
attempt at a moratorium and how the land use code is inconsistent with community values. There has
P85
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 9, 2015
17
been damage to the down town core we hold dear. He learned from people who sat here before. Rachel
Richards said don’t let good be the enemy. Because the art museum causes angst it should not keep us
from recognizing when something good comes in front of us. The AACP says reach broader
demographics and this application accomplishes that without variances. At this time, I can find for the
staff recommendation for approval and the applicant satisfies the approval. He needs further comment on
the construction management plan, lighting and the bathroom. Is the construction management plan
hammered out. Mr. Haas said it is clearly not hammered out yet. He is perfectly comfortable with the
condition it be hammered out before detailed review. P&Z will hear it. Ms. Adams said the lighting is
required to meet the standards in the code. Section 15 of the ordinance added low light emission glazing.
Council agrees with the bathroom on the roof.
Mr. True said he is concerned with section 9 it needs to be amended for the appeal of denial of the tree
removal permit is tabled pending review by P&Z for further consideration of design of the project. The
appeal needs to be tabled and in section 9A.
For the deed restriction regarding the price of rooms we don’t have the structure in the statutes to create it.
There is no mechanism for it. It is not appropriate at this time. It is a legitimate thing to consider for
proper legislation.
Ordinance #6, Series of 2015 – Amend Chapter 9.10 – Conduct of Municipal Elections of the City of
Aspen Municipal Code
Linda Manning, city clerk, told the Council the current election section of the municipal code does not
speak to mail ballot elections. This would add a section setting out the dates specific to a mail ballot
election. The petition window would be extended to the second Monday in March and the write in and
withdraw dates would be based off of this date.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public
comment.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #6, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilman Daily.
Mayor Skadron stated he will not be voting in favor of this and we should not be going to all mail ballots.
Roll call vote Councilmembers Daily, yes; Frisch, yes; Romero, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, no.
Motion carried.
Ordinance #4, Series of 2015 – Right of Way Calculations Code Amendment
Councilman Daily recused himself. Jessica Garrow, community development, told the Council this
ordinance will amend how previous right of ways are calculated related to floor area. The current code
excludes right of ways for the floor area density calculation. A 6,000 square foot property with no
vacated right of way gets to use the entire property or 6,000 square feet. If there is a property with a
vacated right of way with 1,000 vacated that area is excluded from the calculation and in this scenario you
could build 5,000. This was added in 1975. At the time it exempted pre 1975 vacations. In 1988 the
City recodified and the exemption was removed. The record is unclear if it was ever discussed. Currently
the right of ways are excluded. The applicant is proposing to bring back the pre 1975 exemption. Using
the same examples it would restore the development potential. The applicant proposes this for only the
lodge zone district and Staff recommends approval. The impacted areas include everything in the lodge
zone district. There are nine vacations that would be impacted affecting six properties. The St Regis alley
was vacated in 1960 for 3,700 square feet of floor area. Right of ways two and three are the Sky. Four is
the Sky and Aspen Alps. The Alps would need a planned development to take advantage of it. Five is
Lift 1 from 1963. The right of way is on Dean Street and is City property and not developed. Seven is
P86
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 9, 2015
18
South Aspen Street town homes. The alley is vacated and would need a planned development review.
Eight is the Lift 1 condos. This would be the most impacted by the amendment. There is the potential for
5,400 square feet. There is no PUD overlay but there would be a planning review. Nine is the Aspen
Alps and does not result in additional floor area. This is a very limited approach for restoring the
development rights.
Councilman Frisch asked if the areas listed would need to have a review to take advantage of this. Ms.
Garrow said that is correct they would need to amend the PD. Lift one would trigger other reviews
including growth management and design.
Ms. Garrow met with P&Z and they are generally supportive. If it is working they should take a look and
perhaps expand it. There was one public comment from David Wish.
John Sarpa said they worked quite a bit with Staff on how to approach this.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment.
1. David Corbin, ski co, said in the larger context this deals with the Sky. It seems like the removal
of the exemption in 88 did not have a public policy piece behind it. By not going back it would
squeeze floor area and there is no point in squeezing FAR out of the lodging district.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
Councilman Romero moved to approve Ordinance #4, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilwoman
Mullins. Roll call vote Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Romero, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes.
Motion carried.
Ordinance #39, Series of 2014 – 709 E Durant – Sky Hotel Planned Development/Subdivision
Ms. Garrow stated this is the continued public hearing for the Sky Hotel. There are no dimensional
variations. There are 107 units, 117 lodge bedrooms, 11 fractional units, 82 traditional bedrooms and 6
bunk rooms. There are also two affordable housing units and 3,400 square feet of commercial space. The
overall floor area is 91,000 square feet. The height at its highest is 40 feet. They are providing 54
parking spaces and 12.5 for the Aspen Alps. There is just under 12,000 square feet of public amenity
space. It exceeds the requirement by 7,500 square feet. All of the proposed amenities meet the code.
Staff examined the location of the affordable housing units. There is a required special review for these
units. They are at or above natural and finish grade. There are significant grade slopes. There is a
generous entry and high ceilings. Staff recommends approval of the special review for affordable
housing. This is the best location for them. The commercial design has no changes. There is a
conditional use to replace the commercial uses on site. It is the same as today. For the growth
management review the housing provided exceeds the requirement. Staff recommends approval.
Sara Broughton showed the view from Durant and Spring with the addition of landscaping on the roof.
She showed the Spring street view of the front door with the modified addition of roof landscape as well
as the public amenity space indicating the landscaping.
Mayor Skadron asked what is significant. Ms. Broughton said based on the feedback they spent time on
the roof plan. They were thoughtful with the placement of the trees. There is a minor reconfiguration of
the pool.
P87
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 9, 2015
19
Councilwoman Mullins asked about the construction management plan. Ms. Broughton stated they are
working on that.
Mr. Sarpa said they are still in discussion with the Alps. There are a lot of layers to this project. It is a
great reflection of the community values. Hundreds of people have helped shape this. He honestly
believes it meets an important niche at the base of the mountain. It is a great example of what can come
out if we work together as a community.
Mayor Skadron asked him to comment on the issues with the Alps.
Mr. Sarpa said it is not so much around heights but the impacts of parking and construction management.
Mayor Skadron asked for comments on what changed in the internal program. Mr. Sarpa said they
eliminated the free market units and converted them to lodge units. When they reduced the free market
they did not need that much affordable housing and converted some of that to lodging.
Mayor Skadron said he is curious how the reduction of free market units replaced by the addition of
fractional lodge units impacts the overall economics. Mr. Sarpa said typically it is less desirable. Whole
ownership of a unit in downtown is an attractive market. Can we let go of that. Was it our preference to
have that, you bet. It is lodging and can be rented more easily and frequently. Fractional blends into the
lodge and is a hotter bed.
Mayor Skadron asked for a comment on the south elevation and address the massing question. Ms.
Garrow said staff recommendation was changes to elevation and roof forms. Council had discussion and
did not share Staff’s concerns. Mr. Sarpa said it reads as a 2.5 story building. Ms. Broughton said it is
very much in keeping with the chalet style. Mayor Skadron asked why staff felt more modifications were
needed. Ms. Garrow said there are lots of roof forms here and they thought combining two was
appropriate. Council did not share these concern and Staff was not going to get hung up on it.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment.
1. Jody Edwards said his primary concern is the issue Ann raised about the construction
management plan. It will be impactful to the neighbors when working on Dean Street. The
Chateau Chaumont are clients and their primary access is Dean Street. They need to ensure they
have the ability to get into their homes as well as police, fire and ambulance. They have been
assured by the applicant that will be taken into consideration but it does not seem clearly written
in the ordinance. He would like assurance they will not have issues to access or emergency
vehicles. It is a tight alley and that is the primary access. The only off street parking are the
spaces along Dean. People need to get there.
Mr. Sarpa said they don’t have a construction management plan yet. Mr. Edwards asked for
specific times and already agreed to those. It will be accessible to emergency vehicles. Ms.
Broughton said the contractor has been in all these meetings.
2. Dave Corbin, ski co, said he has spoken in favor of this in the past. As a ski operator projects
like this are critical and as an effected neighbor and an adjacent neighbor we support this without
qualification. Simply put we ask Council to approve.
3. Dave Cook said he waited to speak because he wanted to make sure they go to the finish line. He
followed the development closely and wanted to add his support. He is a believer of what they
presented. Public amenity is where it needs to be and he feels like this fills the void. It has met
all the criteria.
4. Duncan Clauss stated he watched the process and fully supports the Sky development. He
commend Council for holding a hard line. He commend the Sky team for being creative and
smart. Councilman Romero said today the public amenity space is the pool and bar and you can
see it and access it. The proposed is one elevation up and another on the roof and the likelihood
P88
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 9, 2015
20
is diminished use. Mr. Clauss said he see an improvement on the use. The elevated design gives
a better perspective of the mountain and you will see it coming down the hill.
5. Mick Ireland said he represents the Chateau Dumont. They support the project as proposed and
want to express appreciation to the applicant for bringing it forward without variances. They look
forward to working with the applicant on the details around construction. He thanked the
applicant for their corporation and willingness to work.
6. Maleck Enlow said this project needs to happen for Aspen and the vitality of the town. We are a
tourist based economy and without appropriate/attractive lodging it will not stay as competitive
with other resorts. The Sky needs to be redeveloped because it’s a bit of a mess right now. We
don’t need sky scrapers but we also don’t need to stay at one story level. We need to find a happy
medium.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
Councilman Romero stated he supports Staffs findings and various reviews. There is sufficient evidence
to support the project.
Councilman Frisch said he agrees with Councilman Romero and appreciates the support of the
community.
Councilwoman Mullins concurs with her fellow Councilmembers.
Mayor Skadron stated he finds it satisfies the appropriate criteria.
Councilman Frisch moved to approve Ordinance #39, Series of 2014; seconded by Councilwoman
Mullins. Roll call vote Councilmembers Romero, yes; Frisch, yes; Mullins; yes; Mayor Skadron, yes.
Motion carried.
Linda Manning
City Clerk
P89
VI.c
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jack Wheeler, Evan Pletcher, Capital Asset Department
THRU: Scott Miller, Public Works Director
DATE OF MEMO: February 11, 2015
MEETING DATE: February 23, 2015
RE: 2015 Burlingame Phase II Construction Contract Change Orders
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests City Council approval of one Burlingame Ranch
Phase II construction contract change order of over $25,000.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council has previously approved mitigation efforts for
Burlingame Phase I Transit Stops 1 and 2 to alleviate concerns with snow storage and ice
buildup on sidewalks in these high-traffic areas. The approved 2015 budget included funds for
this project.
BACKGROUND: Burlingame Phase I Transit Stops 1 and 2 were completed in 2006. Ice and
snow buildup on the sidewalks below the roof edge has been a persistent issue due to roofline
drainage and heaved sidewalks that do not shed water as designed. An insurance claim was filed
after a resident slipped and fell on the ice generated in one of these locations. A previous Council
approved repairs to these areas similar to what is being proposed in this memorandum. Work was
never completed after the previous approval.
DISCUSSION:
1) PCO#077. $130,062.46 In the interest of making these transit stop repairs as per agreements
with Burlingame I HOA, staff recommends completing this project in the 2015 construction
season. RA Nelson proposes to use this number as the top set, not to exceed, and to complete
the required mitigation efforts. The work will be billed at actual cost plus RA Nelson’s
contracted mark ups. This work needs to be completed by October 1, 2015.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Funding for all changes described in this memo is
approved in the 2015 budget under Housing Development Fund 150.23.23121., thus this request
of Council is not a “budget increase” .
Burlingame Phase I /
150.23.23121.*
Carry-forward from 2014 $134,400
Anticipated
Expenditures $130,062
Remaining Balance $4,338
P90
VI.d
Page 2 of 2
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends City Council approval of RA Nelson Change
Order #77.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Rider Levett Bucknall (RLB, Owner’s Rep) Recommendation Memo
Attachment B: Current Change Order Register for RAN Vertical 5-7
Exhibit I: RA Nelson Change Order #077
P91
VI.d
RESOLUTION #24
(Series of 2015)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND R.A.
NELSON, LLC, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT
AMENDMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council Change Order #77 to the
contract between the City of Aspen and R.A. NELSON, 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 the changes to the Contract
between the City of Aspen and R.A. NELSON, LLC, a copy of which is annexed hereto and
incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Mayor 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 23rd day of February, 2015.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a
true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, at a meeting held February 23, 2015.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P92
VI.d
Proposed Change Order No. 00077
Project No.:
PROPOSED CHANGE ORDER
Burlingame Ranch Phase IIAII
17-14-00
Date:
Page:
11/25/2014
1 of 2
TO:CONTRACT NO:
DESCRIPTION: DATE:PR-2 , Transit 1, Transit 2
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
PH: 970.920.5085
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
11/25/2014
1
PR-2 Transit Stop #2 revisions, Planset Transit Stop #1 revisions
As part of this proposal, a time extension of 0 day(s) is requested.
Item Units Unit Price Net AmountQuantityDescription
00001 $22,286.25$22,286.251.000Patriacca Framing labor Proposal #12 Transit
#2
00002 $12,452.00$12,452.001.000Patriacca Framing materials Proposal #12
Transit #2
00003 $23,678.24$23,678.241.000Heyl - PR-2 & PR 1 Transit stop dated 11.21.14
00004 $16,132.81$16,132.811.000New Electric - PCO #10 PR#2, PCO #11 Transit
Stop 1
00005 $21,664.00$21,664.001.000Red Eagle Roofing - PR-2 Transit Stop 2 dated
11.24.14, Transit Station 1 Dated 11.25.14
00006 $5,630.69$5,630.691.000Twisted tree - Estimate #3316 Transit Stations
#1&2
00007 $9,652.93$9,652.931.000S2M Change Order #514 Transit 1 concrete,
Change Order #515 Transit 2 concrete
00008 $8,919.75$8,919.751.000General Conditions - RA Nelson
Description Markup AmountMarkup %
Bond $1,023.540.850%
Subtotal $121,440.21
Contingency $2,428.802.000%
Subtotal $123,869.01
Construction Fee $6,193.455.000%
Subtotal $130,062.46
Total Cost:$130,062.46
APPROVAL:
By:
Date:
City of Aspen2]$UFKLWHFWXUH Bruce Gentry
By:
Date:
By:
Date:
DISTRIBUTION OF CHANGE:
Cost Code Description Cost Code Distributed Value
*HQHUDO&RQGLWLRQV 1-3100 $8,919.75
Subtotal of Cost Code $8,919.75
R.A. Nelson LLC
51 Eagle Road #2 / P.O Drawer 5400 / Avon, Colorado / 81620 / 970.949.5152 / Fax 970.949.4379Rev. Date: 06/06/07 Form: f_pco_02m
Digitally signed by Bruce
Gentry
Date: 2015.02.05 09:23:49
-07'00'
Paul L
Schultz
Digitally signed by Paul L Schultz
DN: cn=Paul L Schultz, o=OZ, ou,
email=pschultz@ozarch.com, c=US
Date: 2015.02.05 09:54:18 -07'00'
P93
VI.d
Proposed Change Order No. 00077
Project No.:
PROPOSED CHANGE ORDER
Burlingame Ranch Phase IIAII
17-14-00
Date:
Page:
11/25/2014
2 of 2
DISTRIBUTION OF CHANGE:
Cost Code Description Cost Code Distributed Value
Electrical demo / rough-in 16-1100 $16,132.81
Subtotal of Cost Code $16,132.81
Bond 17-1120 $1,023.54
Subtotal of Cost Code $1,023.54
Construction Contingency 18-1100 $2,428.80
Subtotal of Cost Code $2,428.80
Construction Fee 5%19-2100 $6,193.45
Subtotal of Cost Code $6,193.45
Excavation, backfill, grading 2-3100 $23,678.24
Subtotal of Cost Code $23,678.24
Landscaping 2-9100 $5,630.69
Subtotal of Cost Code $5,630.69
Concrete footings,walls and slabs 3-1100 $9,652.93
Subtotal of Cost Code $9,652.93
Framing Materials 6-1100 $12,452.00
Subtotal of Cost Code $12,452.00
Framing Labor 6-2100 $22,286.25
Subtotal of Cost Code $22,286.25
Roofing / Metal Siding 7-3100 $21,664.00
Subtotal of Cost Code $21,664.00
$130,062.46Total Distributed Value:
R.A. Nelson LLC
51 Eagle Road #2 / P.O Drawer 5400 / Avon, Colorado / 81620 / 970.949.5152 / Fax 970.949.4379Rev. Date: 06/06/07 Form: f_pco_02m
P94
VI.d
BU
R
L
I
N
G
A
M
E
RA
N
C
H
PH
A
S
E
II
‐
R.
A
.
N
E
L
S
O
N
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
5 ‐7 CH
A
N
G
E
OR
D
E
R
RE
G
I
S
T
E
R
Ve
r
s
i
o
n
Fe
b
r
u
a
r
y
17
,
20
1
5
CHANGES TO THE GMP
PC
O
#R
F
I
#A S I
#P
C
O
Da
t
e
B
I
C
B
I
C
Da
t
e
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
ac
t
i
o
n
C
O
Ex
e
c
u
t
e
d
Da
t
e
P
a
y
Ap
p
#
IS
S
U
E
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
CONTINGENCY ALLOWANCE GMP CHANGE AMOUNT
RA
N
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Co
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
c
y
(209,381.00)
$
Al
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
‐
Re
p
a
i
r
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
ha
r
d
s
c
a
p
e
(10,000.00)$
Al
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
‐
Si
t
e
Si
g
n
a
g
e
(3,000.00)$
Al
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
‐
Dr
y
w
a
l
l
Pa
t
c
h
an
d
Re
c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
e
(10,000.00)$
Al
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
‐
RF
I
10
9
‐21
3
(50,000.00)$
Al
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
‐
We
a
t
h
e
r
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
(38,000.00)$
Al
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
‐
Su
b
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
Bu
y
o
u
t
(100,000.00)$
Al
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
‐
Of
f
‐Si
t
e
GL
In
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
(94,000.00)$
$
(5
1
4
,
3
8
1
.
0
0
)
(209,381.00)
$
(305,000.00)$
1
3/
2
7
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
5/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
He
y
l
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
13,940.10 $
2
vo
i
d
vo
i
d
n/
a
vo
i
d
;
no
t
us
e
d
void
3
4/
2
8
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
5/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
Ex
c
e
s
s
Li
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
In
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
an
d
QA
/
Q
C
729.55
$
89,000.00 $ (39,067.00)$
4
5/
1
6
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
5/
2
7
/
2
0
1
4
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
6 ov
e
r
e
x
(1,474.62)
$
40,000.00 $ 78,966.00 $
5
4/
1
6
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
5/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
8 wa
t
e
r
ta
p
re
m
o
v
a
l
(183.91)
$
9,849.00 $
6
5/
1
6
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
5/
2
7
/
2
0
1
4
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
5 ov
e
r
ex
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
(246.76)
$
20,000.00 $ 13,214.00 $
7
4/
1
8
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
5/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
Er
o
s
i
o
n
Co
n
t
r
o
l
Ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
(63.21)
$
3,385.00 $
8
4/
2
1
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
5/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
AI
A
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
Re
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
ni
l
co
s
t
ch
a
n
g
e
‐
$
n/c
9
4/
2
8
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
5/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
Ad
d
e
d
Ic
e
Ma
k
e
r
s
(58.53)
$
3,134.00 $
10
5/
6
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
ch
a
n
g
e
no
t
ta
k
e
n
n/
a
P1
ma
i
l
en
d
ca
p
ro
o
f
change not taken
11
5/
1
6
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
5/
2
7
/
2
0
1
4
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
7 ov
e
r
ex
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
(842.52)
$
26,059.90 $ 45,117.00 $
12
5/
2
0
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
6/
1
1
/
2
0
1
4
Co
A
Of
f
i
c
e
tr
a
i
l
e
r
(219.49)
$
11,754.00 $
13
AS
I
01
1
9/
5
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
9/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
7
P5
an
d
P7
la
t
t
i
c
e
26,396.42 $
14
AS
I
00
3
R
6/
1
2
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
6/
1
7
/
2
0
1
4
Do
o
r
s
sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
‐
fi
n
a
l
co
s
t
re
c
'
d
6/
1
2
(170.01)
$
(9,103.99)$
15
6/
4
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
6/
1
7
/
2
0
1
4
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
‐
Ma
y
16
ve
r
s
i
o
n
as
ba
s
e
l
i
n
e
16
4/
2
8
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
6/
8
/
2
0
1
4
GL
re
a
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
‐
li
n
k
e
d
to
PC
O
3
17
6/
3
0
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
7/
2
5
/
2
0
1
4
5
Win
t
e
r
Wx
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
Al
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
2,500.10 $
18
AS
I
00
2
6/
5
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
7/
2
/
2
0
1
4
5
B6
an
d
B7
Cr
a
w
l
Sp
a
c
e
Fr
a
m
i
n
g
(448.72)
$
5,000.00 $ 24,028.81 $
19
6/
6
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
6/
1
7
/
2
0
1
4
B5
Bo
u
l
d
e
r
Wa
l
l
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Li
n
e
(27.16)
$
1,454.46 $
20
6/
4
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
6/
1
8
/
2
0
1
4
Ts
u
n
a
m
i
Bi
k
e
Ra
c
k
s
(22.73)
$
1,217.01 $
21
6/
4
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
6/
1
8
/
2
0
1
4
Ra
d
o
n
Fa
n
s
& At
t
i
c
Li
g
h
t
s
(139.19)
$
7,453.79 $
22
6/
5
/
2
0
1
4
vo
i
d
vo
i
d
n/
a
vo
i
d
;
no
t
us
e
d
void
23
su
b
m
i
t
t
a
l
6/
9
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
7/
2
/
2
0
1
4
5
Wh
i
r
l
p
o
o
l
Ap
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
Up
g
r
a
d
e
(126.43)
$
6,770.10 $
24
4,
1
2
,
1
7
6/
6
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
6/
1
6
/
2
0
1
4
P5
,
P7
,
B5
fr
a
m
i
n
g
mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
(224.15)
$
12,003.39 $
25
RE
G
me
m
o
5/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
7/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
5
HV
A
C
Mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
at
T2
.
1
/
T
3
.
1
To
w
n
h
o
m
e
s
(466.18)
$
24,963.75 $
26
AS
I
00
9
6/
1
6
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
7/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
5
B5
ad
d
tw
o
win
d
o
w
s
(67.37)
$
3,607.83 $
27
6/
1
6
/
2
0
1
4
vo
i
d
vo
i
d
n/
a
vo
i
d
;
no
t
us
e
d
void
28
6/
2
7
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
7/
2
5
/
2
0
1
4
5
Re
p
a
i
r
Te
m
p
.
El
e
c
t
r
i
c
Li
n
e
Da
m
a
g
e
(73.88)
$
3,956.49 $
29
7/
1
0
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
7/
2
5
/
2
0
1
4
5
DB
#2
Ci
v
i
l
Wo
r
k
(51.43)
$
2,754.27 $
30
AS
I
00
1
r
e
v
7/
9
/
2
0
1
4
vo
i
d
vo
i
d
n/
a
Ac
c
e
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
/
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
s
fo
r
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
1 an
d
3
defer work
31
7/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
7/
2
5
/
2
0
1
4
5
Ow
n
e
r
Up
g
r
a
d
e
Pa
c
k
a
g
e
(1,536.09)
$
82,257.38 $
32
9/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
no
t
ac
c
e
p
t
e
d
n/
a
Pe
a
k
In
t
e
r
i
o
r
s
Dr
y
w
a
l
l
/
R
F
I
Al
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
;
PS
em
a
i
l
10
/
2
0
TBD
33
RF
I
50
8/
1
8
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
11
/
1
9
/
2
0
1
4
8
Fi
r
e
Ra
t
e
d
As
s
e
m
b
l
y
‐
In
i
t
i
a
l
De
c
i
s
i
o
n
by
OZ
10
/
2
3
:
co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
to
pr
o
v
i
d
e
wi
t
h
o
u
t
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
co
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
i
o
n
.
50,390.07
$
34
AS
I
00
5
9/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
10
/
1
/
2
0
1
4
8
Si
t
e
li
g
h
t
i
n
g
ch
a
n
g
e
s
3,876.93 $
35
AS
I
00
6
7/
3
0
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
8/
2
6
/
2
0
1
4
6
P6
ro
o
f
ea
v
e
(53.58)
$
2,869.45 $
36
7/
3
0
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
8/
2
6
/
2
0
1
4
6
P5
an
d
P7
po
s
t
br
a
c
k
e
t
s
(35.70)
$
1,911.79 $
37
AS
I
01
0
r
1
7/
3
1
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
8/
2
8
/
2
0
1
4
7
Tr
a
s
h
En
c
l
o
s
u
r
e
Mo
d
s
.
(193.47)
$
10,360.28 $
38
AS
I
01
2
7/
3
1
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
8/
2
6
/
2
0
1
4
6
PR
V
Ra
i
l
i
n
g
(77.05)
$
4,126.00 $
39
AS
I
00
7
8/
1
9
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
9/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
7
Ad
d
e
d
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
‐
CC
D
00
1
(1,278.10)
$
68,281.68 $
40
8/
1
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
8/
2
6
/
2
0
1
4
6
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Ma
i
n
l
i
n
e
(47.98)
$
2,569.56 $
41
AS
I
00
8
8/
4
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
8/
2
6
/
2
0
1
4
7
Po
n
d
2 Sc
o
p
e
‐
al
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
(23,000.00)$ 23,000.00 $
42
8/
4
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
8/
2
6
/
2
0
1
4
6
Te
m
p
.
Si
t
e
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
‐
al
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
(7,000.00)$ 7,000.00 $
43
65
,
72
,
80
8/
1
3
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
9/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
7
P5
/
7
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
(549.96)
$
29,450.52 $
44
8/
1
9
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
9/
2
3
/
2
0
1
4
7
Ra
d
o
n
Fa
n
Cr
e
d
i
t
27.75
$
(1,486.22)$
45
51
9/
3
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
no
t
ac
c
e
p
t
e
d
n/
a
Win
d
o
w
in
s
t
a
l
l
‐Gr
a
c
e
En
v
($
4
2
2
3
2
.
3
7
)
not accepted/void?
46
9/
2
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
10
/
1
/
2
0
1
4
8
Wx
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
All
o
w
a
n
c
e
Bi
l
l
i
n
g
4,014.85 $
47
AS
I
01
4
9/
4
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
9/
2
3
/
2
0
1
4
7
P7
Is
l
a
n
d
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
(16.60)
$
888.67 $
48
9/
4
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
9/
2
3
/
2
0
1
4
7
Po
n
d
2 Gr
a
d
i
n
g
‐
of
f
s
e
t
PC
O
4
1
al
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
15,547.01 $
49
65
,
66
,
72
,
89
9/
5
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
11
/
2
1
/
2
0
1
4
n/
a
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Bu
b
b
l
e
r
s
‐
OZ
ID
M
re
s
p
o
n
s
e
10
/
2
3
ru
l
e
s
th
a
t
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
co
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
i
o
n
is
wa
r
r
a
n
t
e
d
.
Of
f
s
e
t
$6
5
0
0
RF
I
Al
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
(582.40)
$
6,500.00 $ 24,687.36 $
50
81
9/
5
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
9/
2
3
/
2
0
1
4
7
Ra
i
n
g
a
r
d
e
n
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
(13.54)
$
725.03 $
51
74
9/
5
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
10
/
1
/
2
0
1
4
8
So
f
f
i
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
‐
dr
y
w
a
l
l
al
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
825.64 $
52
10
2
9/
8
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
10
/
2
/
2
0
1
4
8
Er
o
s
i
o
n
Co
n
t
r
o
l
Ma
t
at
5F
on
l
y
‐
re
v
2
(34.73)
$
1,859.75 $
53
10
/
2
4
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
11
/
2
1
/
2
0
1
4
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
Sc
o
p
e
(141.98)
$
7,603.19 $
54
95
10
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
11
/
2
1
/
2
0
1
4
S1
St
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
In
s
t
a
l
l
(478.20)
$
12,804.00 $ 12,804.00 $
55
9/
1
8
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
10
/
1
/
2
0
1
4
8
RF
I
#
1
1
0
mo
v
e
ra
i
n
g
a
r
d
e
n
15
A
(24.10)
$
1,290.72 $
56
10
/
2
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
10
/
2
3
/
2
0
1
4
8
Si
t
e
Ra
i
l
i
n
g
re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
RO
M
(94.70)
$
5,071.09 $
57
10
/
6
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
10
/
2
3
/
2
0
1
4
8
Si
t
e
Mit
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
‐
of
f
s
e
t
PC
O
4
2
al
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
(60.78)
$
3,254.94 $
58
12
3
10
/
6
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
10
/
2
3
/
2
0
1
4
8
So
i
l
Am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
(143.06)
$
7,660.73 $
59
10
/
6
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
10
/
2
3
/
2
0
1
4
8
Fl
o
o
r
Su
b
s
t
r
a
t
e
at
cr
a
w
l
s
p
a
c
e
un
i
t
s
(180.56)
$
9,669.08 $
60
12
/
2
9
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
1/
7
/
2
0
1
5
Ch
i
m
n
e
y
Me
m
b
r
a
n
e
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
.
16,139.16 $
61
10
/
8
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
10
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
4
Ab
a
n
d
o
n
4 wa
t
e
r
ta
p
s
.
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
pe
r
Ci
t
y
Co
u
n
c
i
l
Re
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
#1
3
0
on
10
/
1
3
.
43,600.00 $
62
AS
I
01
5
10
/
8
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
10
/
2
3
/
2
0
1
4
8
Ra
i
n
g
a
r
d
e
n
15
A
(117.06)
$
6,268.32 $
63
95
10
/
1
5
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
10
/
2
3
/
2
0
1
4
8
Ad
d
On
e
(1
)
S2
bo
l
l
a
r
d
‐
re
v
2
(62.50)
$
3,346.82 $
64
11
4
,
11
0
AS
I
00
1
r
1
10
/
9
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
10
/
2
3
/
2
0
1
4
8
Mis
c
.
C
i
v
i
l
Wo
r
k
(63.12)
$
3,380.24 $
65
10
/
1
5
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
10
/
2
3
/
2
0
1
4
8
Hy
d
r
o
m
u
l
c
h
st
a
b
i
l
i
z
e
Po
n
d
2 ‐
of
f
s
e
t
PC
O
4
1
al
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
(82.54)
$
4,419.90 $
66
10
2
10
/
1
5
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
10
/
2
3
/
2
0
1
4
8
Er
o
s
i
o
n
Ma
t
We
s
t
of
P5
,
P7
(118.81)
$
6,362.36 $
67
11
/
4
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
11
/
2
1
/
2
0
1
4
Ph
1
TH
Th
e
r
m
o
s
t
a
t
s
(91.88)
$
4,920.34 $
68
AS
I
00
5
r
1
11
/
5
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
11
/
2
1
/
2
0
1
4
Si
t
e
St
a
i
r
s
,
Fe
n
c
i
n
g
(157.13)
$
8,414.42 $
69
AS
I
00
7
(a
d
d
)
11
/
7
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
11
/
2
1
/
2
0
1
4
Up
g
r
a
d
e
an
d
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
sp
l
i
t
ra
i
l
fe
n
c
e
.
Ma
n
h
o
l
e
ri
n
g
s
(126.43)
$
6,770.22 $
70
11
/
7
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
12
/
8
/
2
0
1
4
Tw
i
s
t
e
d
Tr
e
e
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Wir
i
n
g
(113.00)
$
6,051.28 $
71
11
/
7
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
no
t
ac
c
e
p
t
e
d
Pe
n
c
i
l
tr
i
m
at
Up
p
e
r
ca
b
i
n
e
t
s
($
6
,
6
9
7
.
7
2
)
not accepted
72
11
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
11
/
2
1
/
2
0
1
4
P5
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Up
p
e
r
Sc
r
e
e
n
an
d
Tr
i
m
(36.21)
$
1,938.83 $
73
11
/
1
7
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
12
/
8
/
2
0
1
4
Si
t
e
Mit
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
ro
u
n
d
#2
‐
of
f
s
e
t
PC
O
4
2
al
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
(39.24)
$
2,101.42 $
74
10
9
11
/
2
1
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
12
/
8
/
2
0
1
4
So
f
f
i
t
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
‐
Dr
y
e
r
ve
n
t
s
(35.76)
$
1,915.02 $
CO
N
T
I
N
G
E
N
C
I
E
S
AN
D
AL
L
O
W
A
N
C
E
S
AV
A
I
L
A
B
L
E
WI
T
H
I
N
TH
E
GM
P
TH
E
LI
S
T
OF
CH
A
N
G
E
OR
D
E
R
S
BE
L
O
W
RE
P
R
E
S
E
N
T
S
AL
L
CH
A
N
G
E
S
TO
TH
E
GM
P
AN
D
US
E
S
OF
CO
N
T
I
N
G
E
N
C
I
E
S
AN
D
AL
L
O
W
A
N
C
E
S
P95VI.d
75
12
/
2
9
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
1/
7
/
2
0
1
5
He
y
l
St
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
vi
d
e
o
1,672.96 $
76
12
/
5
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
pe
n
d
i
n
g
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
Wx
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
10,261.65 $
77
PR
#2
11
/
2
5
/
2
0
1
4
Co
A
11
/
2
5
/
2
0
1
4
Ow
n
e
r
re
v
i
e
w
/
ON
HO
L
D
pe
n
d
i
n
g
OZ
PR
‐2:
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
1 an
d
2
TBD
78
12
/
5
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
12
/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
P6
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
bo
l
l
a
r
d
s
;
Ad
d
Kn
o
x
Bo
x
(55.72)
$
2,983.70 $
79
12
/
1
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
12
/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Si
g
n
s
(406.30)
$
21,757.60 $
80
AS
I
01
7
12
/
2
9
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
pe
n
d
i
n
g
B5
Ro
o
f
Dr
a
i
n
Mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
(69.53)
$
3,723.43 $
81
12
/
2
3
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
1/
7
/
2
0
1
5
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
1 ‐4 mo
t
i
o
n
se
n
s
o
r
s
(112.84)
$
6,042.72 $
82
12
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
1/
7
/
2
0
1
5
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
1D
ro
o
f
ov
e
r
h
a
n
g
(25.39)
$
1,359.70 $
83
RF
I
16
2
12
/
1
1
/
2
0
1
4
cl
o
s
e
d
12
/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
Wh
e
e
l
st
o
p
s
(91.02)
$
4,874.18 $
84
1/
2
2
/
2
0
1
5
cl
o
s
e
d
2/
5
/
2
0
1
5
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
/
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
Wx
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
20,616.39 $
85
2/
5
/
2
0
1
5
Co
A
2/
1
6
/
2
0
1
5
Ow
n
e
r
si
g
n
a
t
u
r
e
pe
n
d
i
n
g
Gu
t
t
e
r
at
P1
,
3
(87.48)
$
4,684.71 $
86
2/
6
/
2
0
1
5
Co
A
2/
1
6
/
2
0
1
5
Ow
n
e
r
si
g
n
a
t
u
r
e
pe
n
d
i
n
g
OZ
PR
‐1 gu
t
t
e
r
@ B5
,
6,
7
(209.67)
$
11,227.63 $
87
2/
1
0
/
2
0
1
5
Co
A
2/
1
6
/
2
0
1
5
Ow
n
e
r
si
g
n
a
t
u
r
e
pe
n
d
i
n
g
Ja
n
/
F
e
b
Wx
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
3,255.00 $
88 89
$
99
4
,
4
6
2
.
7
3
38,596.87
$
274,899.13 $ 680,966.73 $
NE
T
TO
T
A
L
$
(170,784.13) $ (30,100.87) $ 680,966.73
OR
I
G
I
N
A
L
GM
P
AM
O
U
N
T
11,297,114.00 $
TO
T
A
L
OF
AL
L
CH
A
N
G
E
OR
D
E
R
S
(A
N
T
I
C
I
P
A
T
E
D
PL
U
S
UN
A
N
T
I
C
I
P
A
T
E
D
)
994,462.73 $ 8.80%
CH
A
N
G
E
OR
D
E
R
S
PA
I
D
FO
R
WIT
H
I
N
TH
E
GM
P
(A
N
T
I
C
I
P
A
T
E
D
US
E
OF
FU
N
D
S
AV
A
I
L
A
B
L
E
IN
TH
E
GM
P
)
313,496.00 $ 2.78%
CH
A
N
G
E
OR
D
E
R
S
WH
I
C
H
CH
A
N
G
E
TH
E
GM
P
(U
N
A
N
T
I
C
I
P
A
T
E
D
US
E
OF
OW
N
E
R
'
S
CO
N
T
I
N
G
E
N
C
Y
)
680,966.73 $ 6.03%
CU
R
R
E
N
T
RE
V
I
S
E
D
GM
P
AM
O
U
N
T
11,978,080.73 $
AL
L
O
W
A
N
C
E
S
AN
D
CO
N
T
I
N
G
E
N
C
I
E
S
RE
M
A
I
N
I
N
G
WI
T
H
I
N
TH
E
GM
P
(200,885.00)$ 1.78%P96VI.d
RAN Proposed Change Order Review
Project BURLINGAME RANCH PHASE IIA ii
Description PCO #77 – Transit 1 and 2
PCO No. 77 PCO
Receipt:
11/25/2015
Issue was put on hold
pending budget
discussions
RLB
Review
Issue:
2/5/2015
Value Claimed $ 130,062.46
Funding Source Add to GMP
Contractor PCO signed date 2/5/2015
Architect PCO signed date: 2/5/2015
Date Issue Identified n/a
Change Order Recommended for Acceptance
REVIEW CHECKLIST Yes No
1. The Change Order constitutes additional scope not contemplated, nor reasonably
inferred to be included in the Guaranteed Maximum Price.
2. Change Order is signed by RA Nelson and OZ Architecture
3. Change Order is received in a timely manner per Clause 15.1.2 of the RA Nelson
A201 Contract General Conditions.
n/a
4. General Contractor Fees and Markups are consistent with the Contract.
5. Sufficient supporting data, including itemized detail and backup of additions and
deductions is attached to support the claim.
6. Unit prices and quantities are substantiated and appear reasonable.
7. If additional Contract Time has been requested, this has been substantiated. n/a
8. 1. Amounts under $5,000 require only Department Head signature;
2. Amounts between $5,000 and $10,000 require City manager signature;
3. Amounts between $10,000 and $25,000 require City Attorney and City Manager
signature;
4. Amounts over $25,000 require City Council approval and signature by the mayor,
or a duly authorized official in his absence.
City
Council
approval
and
Mayors
signature
required
P97
VI.d
RAN PCO 77 Review
2/5/2015
Page 2 of 2
COMMENTS/ANALYSIS
The following RA Nelson PCO is recommended for approval:
PCO #77 – Transit 1 and 2 renovations $130,062.46
PCO #77 dated 11/25/2015 is a result of the Owners desire to renovate portions of two transit
stops (transit 1 and transit 2) previously constructed in Burlingame phase 1. Work scope
emanates from OZ PR-2, which covers transit 1 only, as well as a permitted planset and a written
scope overview provided by the Owner. All documentation used in deriving work scope is
attached and field walk though of the scope was conducted by City staff.
Note that ‘water tap abandonment’ is included in the Owners work scope summary provided.
However, that work has been approved and added to the current contract as PCO #61 approved
10/13/2014 and is thus not included in this PCO.
Cost submitted by RAN within PCO #77 for the subject work has been reviewed by RLB and
appears reasonable. While the premise for conducting this work is outside this recommendation,
RLB recommends the PCO be accepted based on the costs given for the work scope presented.
The Owner should consider adding internal budget for this work in the form of an Owners
contingency. The subject work largely consists of remodeling the transit 2 structure and civil
rework of existing conditions adjacent to both transit stops. Both activities carry the risk of
additional cost due to unforeseen conditions. RLB recommends that the Owner consider
addition of contingency funds managed by the Owner and suggests a range of 7-12% of the cost
of work, at the Owners discretion.
This work is outside RAN limits of work. Care should be exercised by Owner to ensure that this
work scope doesn’t interfere with RAN’s contract work (B5-7).
No contract time extension has been requested within PCO #77. Dates for this work to commence
and complete are TBD and should be established by the Owner.
PCO #77 adds $130,062.46 to the current RAN GMP value for Phase IIaii work (Buildings 5-7).
Cost associated with PCO #77 has been reviewed, analyzed and PCO #77 is recommended for
acceptance.
Craig Roth, RLB
2/5/2015
P98
VI.d
Page 1 of 2
Change wording
here from
“Per ECU”
to
“Per 0.05 ECU”
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Lee Ledesma, Utilities Finance and Administrative Services Manager
THRU: David Hornbacher, Director of Utilities and Environmental Initiatives
Scott Miller, Public Works Director
Don Taylor, Finance Director
DATE OF MEMO: February 9, 2015
MEETING DATE: February 23, 2015
RE: First Reading - 2015 Fee Ordinance Correction --
Utilities Development Fees, Municipal Code Section 2.12.100
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Approval of a single correction to the Utilities Development Fees
for Remodels as adopted by City Council on November 24, 2014. This correction ensures that
the fee for this service is consistent with the 2015 budget presentation and intended projected fee
structure and revenue collection. The correction is not an additional fee or revenue increase.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council’s adopted a fee structure for plans review and
inspections on remodels that coincided with information presented in the October 21, 2014 work
session—see Exhibit A. The wording in the adopted Utilities Development Fee table stated
$59.09 per ECU for remodels of 0.051 ECUs (Equivalent Capacity Unit) and above.
BACKGROUND: Under the Utilities Development Fees, the table should read for Basic
Project – Remodel : “Large - Addition of 0.051 ECUS and Above (Per 0.05 ECU) -- $59.09”,
instead of $ 59.09 per ECU as adopted.
Current – Adopted Utilities Development Fees
Utilities Development Fees
Basic Project – Remodel
Small - Addition of 0.01 to 0.05 ECUs (Flat Rate) $50.00
Large - Addition of 0.051 ECUS and Above (Per ECU) $59.09
Corrected – Utilities Development Fees, Exhibit D
Utilities Development Fees
Basic Project - Remodel
Small - Addition of 0.01 to 0.05 ECUs (Flat Rate) $50.00
Large - Addition of 0.051 ECUS and Above (Per 0.05 ECU) $59.09
P99
VII.a
Page 2 of 2
1. DISCUSSION: The wording correction to Utilities Development Fees is specific to
applications with remodels adding more than 0.05 ECUs. Services provided by City staff
for remodels include: downloading building application, research of water account and
property including existing water fixtures, water tap size and special conditions,
conversations with contractor, completion of Utility Connection Permit with stated
existing ECUs, proposed ECUs and requested additional ECUs, calculation of Utility
Connection fee/tap fee, review of packet by supervisor, email of packet to
developer/owner, and performance of final walk through when project is complete.
Following are three specific examples comparing the current to the corrected remodel
review fee and estimated revenue.
1. Application to add a shower (0.05) = 0.05 Additional ECUs
• current Development Review Fees = $50.00 flat fee
• corrected Development Review Fees = $50.00 flat fee
Revenue loss -- None
2. Application to add one bedroom (0.10), one steam shower (0.08), one kitchen (0.25),
one dishwasher(0.10), one disposal (0.05), one bar sink (0.05), one washer (0.10), one
dog wash (0.05), and one hose bib (0.05) = 0.83 Additional ECUs
• current Development Review Fees = $49.04 total
• corrected Development Review Fees = $980.89 total
Revenue loss -- $931.85
3. Application to add two bedrooms (0.20), two toilets (0.10), two tubs (0.10), two
steam showers (0.16), one kitchen (0.25), one dishwasher (0.10), one kitchen sink
(0.05), one disposal (0.05), one 1,000 gallon hot tub (0.10) = 1.11 Additional ECUs
• current Development Review Fees = $65.59 total
• corrected Development Review Fees = $1,311.80 total
Revenue loss -- $1,246.21
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The financial implications of the corrected 2015 Utilities
Development Fee ordinance for both expenses and revenues are outlined in the adopted 2015
budget documents. If the correction is not adopted, staff is projecting a $66,000 revenue
shortfall for 2015.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance 5, Series 2015, (see
Exhibit B), to correct language for remodels above 0.05 ECUs to read “(Per 0.05 ECU)”.
ALTERNATIVES: Council may forego approval of requested correction in 2015 and utilize
existing Water Fund funds received from general customer base to offset the estimated $66,000
utilities review fee shortfall.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance 5, Series of 2014.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Utilities Development Fees – Rates and Projected Revenues
Exhibit B – Ordinance 5, Series 2015 – Correction to Utilities Development Fees
P100
VII.a
Classification Hours $/ECU Avg #/Yr Revenue Services Included
Basic Project
Rate is Per ECU - each 0.05 ECU equates to 1 hour
Remodel - Small - addition of 0.01 to 0.05 ECUs - flat fee of $50 per submittal 1 $50.00 2 $100 i.e. adding a toilet, sink or washing machine
Remodel - Medium to Large - addition of 0.051 ECUS and above -- Average # of water
fixtures added per review = 0.50 ECUs 10 $59.09 120 $70,912
Administrative services--line locates, work orders; Plans Review; ECU
count sheet(s) and transmittal; Final Walk Through
Est. Average Square
Footage $/Sq. Ft.Avg #/Yr
Minor Review
New Construction - Based on Square Fottage of Affected Area - 100 to 10,000 square feet
Review Fee is 65% of Permit Fee 5,000 $0.98 13 $63,375
Administrative services--line locates, work orders; Plans Review; ECU
count sheet(s) and transmittal; Multiple site visits by Engineering staff
and Distribution Staff
Permit Fee = 100% of Per Square Feet Calculation 5,000 $1.50 11 $82,500
Field Inspections; Construction Meetings; Project Change Orders; Final
Walk Through and Acceptance; GIS Updates based on As-Builts
Est. Average Square
Footage $/Sq. Ft.Avg #/Yr
Major Review
New Construction - Based on Square Fottage of Affected Area - 10,001 square feet and above
Review Fee is 65% of Permit Fee 43,560 $0.49 2 $42,471
Administrative services--line locates, work orders; Plans Review; ECU
count sheet(s) and transmittal; Multiple site visits by Engineering staff
and Distribution Staff; Final Walk Through
Permit Fee = 100% of Per Square Feet Calculation 43,560 $0.75 2 $65,340
Field Inspections; Construction Meetings; Project Change Orders; Final
Walk Through and Acceptance; GIS Updates based on As-Builts
less $100K, as % of $5M
TOTAL REVENUE $324,598 4.5%
$107,811 existing to contract
$216,787 new fees
$78,999 new civil engineer
$70,789 overhead
$20,000 supplies
$50,000 legal
$219,788 total trying to recoup
P
1
0
1
V
I
I
.
a
ORDINANCE NO. 5
Series of 2015
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING TITLE 2 OF
THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN TO AMEND SECTION 2.12.100, BUILDING AND PLANNING.
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a policy setting forth utility review fees for the City Utilities
Department that shall be applied to applications submitted on or after January 1, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that 2015 rate for remodels larger than 0.05 Equivalent Capacity
Units (ECUs) should reflect a type correction and be billed at a rate of $59.09/0.05 ECU rather than the currently adopted
rate of $59.09/ECU; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined the Utilities fund should no longer have general customer base
subsidize reviews and development within the utility service area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1.
That Section 2.12.100 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth u tility
review fees for the City Utilities Department, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 2.12.100. Utilities Development Fees
Utilities Development Fees
Basic Project - Remodel
Small - Addition of 0.01 to 0.05 ECUs (Flat Rate) $50.00
Large - Addition of 0.051 ECUS and Above (Per 0.05 ECU) $59.09
Minor Review - New Construction
Projects with 100 - 10,000 Square Feet of Affected Area
Permit Fee $1.50/sqft
Review Fee 65% of Permit Fee
Major Review -New Construction
Projects with 10,001 square feet of Affected Area and Above
Permit Fee $0.75/sqft
Review Fee 65% of Permit Fee
P102
VII.a
Section 2.
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 ordinance repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall
be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 3.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or
unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent
provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 4.
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the day of , 2015, at a meeting of the Aspen City
Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
FIRST READING OF THIS ORDINANCE WAS INTRODUCED, READ, ORDERED AND PUBLISHED
as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 23 rd day of February, 2015.
Attest:
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this th day of , 2015.
Attest:
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
Approved as to form:
James R. True, City Attorney
P103
VII.a
Limitations on Variations to Land Use Requirements – 1st reading
Page 1 of 5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
RE: Ordinance 9, Series of 2015 - Limitations on Variations Code Amendment
MEETING DATE: February 23, 2015
(PH 3.9.2015)
SUMMARY :
The attached Ordinance amends the Land Use Code to establish limitations on what variations may
be requested by a Land Use Applicant, establishes thresholds for when dimensional and other
variations trigger a public vote (referendum), and establishes the Planning & Zoning Commission as
the City’s Board of Adjustment. In addition, minor grammar and spelling edits in Planned
Development are included in the proposed amendment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION :
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Ordinance on first reading.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES :
This meeting is to review potential changes to the Land Use Code that would establish limits for
variation requests as well as thresholds for when a public vote is required. Pursuant to Land Use
Code Section 26.310, City Council is the final review authority for all code amendments.
All code amendments are subject to a three-step process. This is the third step in the process:
1. Public Outreach
2. Policy Resolution by City Council indicating if an amendment should the pursued
3. Public Hearings on Ordinance outlining specific code amendments.
BACKGROUND :
This code amendment focuses on creating additional clarity and predictability in the land use
review process. Currently, properties over 27,000 sq ft (and smaller properties after receiving
authorization from the Community Development Director) may request a Planned Development
to establish dimensions that exceed those of the underlying zone district. An Applicant may
request any dimension through this process. In addition, some Applicants have requested
reductions in affordable housing requirements through Growth Management or through a
Planned Development.
Over the past few months, there have been a number of community members who have
expressed concern regarding the magnitude of variations that are being requested. They have
argued that dimensional variations, in particular, should be subject to a public vote (referendum)
or simply not allowed. City Council has expressed a desire to examine the issue, and find code
P104
VII.b
Limitations on Variations to Land Use Requirements – 1st reading
Page 2 of 5
language that would continue to allow some flexibility for properties, while allowing a greater
public say in projects that have more significant variations.
OVERVIEW:
The proposed code amendment addresses variations to height, floor area, and housing mitigation.
While parking has recently received some attention, staff is not recommending an amendment to
parking requirements. The proposed code amendment also establishes the Planning & Zoning
Commission as the City’s Board of Adjustment.
Height: Currently an Applicant can request any height through a Planned Development. This
code amendment proposes to limit the request to two (2) feet above a property’s zoning
allowance. Staff believes this allowance provides some design flexibility, and would address
issues that arise from site specific constraints such as steep slopes. City Council would continue
to be the final review authority for Planned Developments and would need to find that the
additional height meets the existing review criteria, including neighborhood compatibility and
that a significant community goal is achieved. In addition, staff proposes that if an Applicant
requests and City Council approves a height variation beyond the two (2) foot limit, it would
trigger an automatic public vote at the next regularly scheduled election.
Staff has provided alternative language that would require any height increase to go to a public
vote. Staff believes that some ability to vary dimensions due to site specific constraints should
remain in the code and would not recommend entirely eliminating that option at this time. For
instance, staff believes City Council should have the discretion to approve a re-roof that requires
additional height due to new insulation and roofing materials. Similarly, staff believes City
Council should have the discretion to approve a slight increase in height to accommodate steep
slopes, a tree, or other site specific constraint.
Floor Area: Like height, currently the Planned Development regulations allow any floor area to
be requested by an Applicant. This code amendment proposes to limit that request to ten-percent
(10%) above the allowed overall floor area. City Council would continue to be the final review
authority for Planned Developments and would need to find that the additional floor area meets
the existing review criteria, including neighborhood compatibility and that a significant
community goal is achieved.
Staff has provided alternative language that would require any increase to the overall floor area
to go to a public vote. Staff believes that some ability to vary dimensions due to site specific
constraints should remain in the code and would not recommend entirely eliminating that option
at this time. As an example, there are properties that have requested to expand their light wells
to accommodate basement living space. Even though the building mass is unchanged, expanding
light wells increases the floor area that is counted. Staff believes these types of expansions
should be allowed.
Affordable Housing: Required affordable housing mitigation is based on the existing and
proposed uses in a building. In the past, some Land Use Applicants have requested reductions in
affordable housing mitigation requirements as part of their land use application. City Council is
charged with establishing the affordable housing mitigation requirements for Essential Public
P105
VII.b
Limitations on Variations to Land Use Requirements – 1st reading
Page 3 of 5
Facilities, and currently has the discretion to establish that mitigation between zero and one-
hundred percent (0-100%). In addition, AspenModern properties have requested reductions in
their housing requirements as part of their negotiation with Council to designate the property as
historic.
Staff proposes the code amendment prohibit reductions in required affordable housing
mitigation, with the exception of Essential Public Facilities and historic designations. Staff
believes City Council should continue to have the ability to establish the housing mitigation for
Essential Public Facilities, as these are unique uses. Examples of Essential Public Facilities
include religious institutions, non-profits, and governmental entities.
Additionally, staff strongly supports allowing City Council the ability to negotiate with property
owners interested in designating their property through AspenModern. Limits on the ability to
provide individualized preservation incentives for AspenModern related properties would greatly
undermine a program that has received national and state level awards for the City’s commitment
and success in an area that many communities with significantly less development pressure have
not been able to achieve. Special incentives for preservation have been a fundamental part of
Aspen’s preservation ordinance dating back to 1987. Only about 15% of all the properties in the
City are landmarked. The City has been dedicated to working with the property owners who are
responsible for the preservation of Aspen’s heritage since the whole community benefits from
their efforts.
Parking: While parking has been raised by some members of the community as a dimension
that should not be varied, staff disagrees. Parking needs are fundamentally a function of a
building’s land use, and staff believes City Council should have the discretion to establish
parking requirements, as is currently allowed in the code. For instance, the Jewish Community
Center was approved a few years ago with a parking requirement established by City Council.
Many of the JCC’s main events occur on Saturday, a day when their religious teachings prohibit
the use of cars. This means the attendees to the main events will not be driving, greatly reducing
the need for parking. City Council heard this argument and established a parking requirement in
line with the actual use of the building. Staff believes this level of flexibility is important to
maintain.
Board of Adjustment: Staff proposes to consolidate the boards that hear different variance
requests. Currently, the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) and Historic Preservation
Commission (HPC) review requests for Planned Development, Growth Management Allotments,
Subdivision, Timeshare, Residential and Commercial Design, and Special Review applications.
They each meet every other week and are well equipped to review all manner of land use
requests, including dimensional variation requests. Hardship Variances (those variance requests
due to a specific physical constraint or other hardship that uniquely impacts a property) are
currently reviewed by the Board of Adjustment (BOA), which meets infrequently, sometimes as
few as once or twice a year. While the BOA carries out their responsibilities well, staff proposes
that hardship Variances be reviewed by the P&Z and HPC, and that the P&Z be designated as the
City’s Board of Adjustment.
P106
VII.b
Limitations on Variations to Land Use Requirements – 1st reading
Page 4 of 5
Applicability: As written, the proposed code amendment applies to all properties that current
have a Planned Development Overlay, as well as any property seeking an overlay in the future.
It does not impact non-conforming structures, properties requesting a hardship variance, or
properties seeking AspenModern designation.
PUBLIC OUTREACH :
Staff has reviewed this code amendment with Planning & Zoning Commission and the Historic
Preservation Commission. The P&Z supports the general direction of the code amendment, and
supports limiting height and floor area to what is allowed in the underlying zone districts. The
P&Z also recommended a broader examination of zoning to determine if the current regulations
need to be amended to accommodate building technologies. One member suggested an approach
that would allow some flexibility in Planned Development Review for height and floor area. The
idea would be to have an average height limit on the property – as long as the average height met
the zone district requirements it would be permitted through a PD process. For instance, if the
height limit in the zone district is 30 (thirty) feet, and an applicant requested 40 (forty) feet on
half of the building, the other half would need to be 20 (twenty) feet.
The HPC recommended that affordable housing mitigation continue to be available for
applicants agreeing to historically designate their property through AspenModern. The
AspenModern program is voluntary, so it is critical that all tools be available to City Council to
balance the trade-offs between designation and code requirements. HPC was not in favor of
subjecting land use decisions to a popular vote.
Staff also sent a summary of the proposed code amendment out through the Community
Development Newsletter, and received some comments back. The comments expressed concern
about existing older properties and their ability to remodel, update, etc. An example given was
of non-conforming buildings needing to upgrade an access stair to meet current ADA
requirements, but not being able to without a public vote because it further increases the non-
conformity. Staff agrees with this concern, and the code amendment has been written such that
non-conforming buildings are not impacted. Other comments indicated support for the P&Z idea
of an average height calculation, as well as allowing increases in floor area only if other
community benefits, such as preserved open space, are provided.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION :
Staff recommends adoption of the attached Ordinance on first reading.
STAFF REQUEST :
Staff requests City Council provide some general direction at first reading regarding the different
options for height and floor area.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (A LL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE ):
“I move to approve Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2015, on first reading.”
P107
VII.b
Limitations on Variations to Land Use Requirements – 1st reading
Page 5 of 5
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS : _____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS :
Exhibit A – Staff Findings
Exhibit B – Proposed code changes
P108
VII.b
Code Amendment – Limits on Variations
Ordinance 9, Series 2015
Page 1 of 5
ORDINANCE No. 9
(Series of 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO
THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE LIMITING DIMENSIONAL AND OTHER
VARIATIONS, AND ESTABLISHING THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AS
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.208 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen
Land Use Code, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the Community Development
Department to prepare amendments to the Land Use Code to limit the ability to ask for certain
dimensional and other variations, and to establish the Planning & Zoning Commission as the
Board of Adjustment; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the
Municipal Code shall begin with Public Outreach, a Policy Resolution reviewed and acted on by
City Council, and then final action by City Council after reviewing and considering the
recommendation from the Community Development; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development
Department conducted Public Outreach regarding the code amendment; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing
on January 26, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution No.13, Series of 2015, requesting code
amendments to the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the
proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendments and
finds that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310.050;
and,
WHEREAS, clarifying the land use review process is identified in the 2012 Aspen Area
Community Plan as an important city policy and goal; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution implements the City’s goals as
articulated in the 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1: Chapter 26.470.110(A) – Growth management review procedures, General , shall be
P109
VII.b
Code Amendment – Limits on Variations
Ordinance 9, Series 2015
Page 2 of 5
amended as follows:
[Subsections 1 – 10 shall be unchanged ]
11. No reduction in mitigation requirements . Notwithstanding Section 26.470.090(4), Essential
Public Facilities , an applicant may not request a reduction in the mitigation requirements of this
Chapter. Properties requesting historic designation pursuant to Chapter 26.415, Historic
Preservation, shall be exempt from this provision, provided, however, that any reduction is
reviewed and approved by City Council.
Section 2: All references within Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System, to
Subsection 26.470.080.2 shall be renumbered to Subsection 26.470.070.7. Similarly, references
to 26.470.080(6-10) shall be renumbered to 26.470.070(6-10).
Section 3: Chapter 26.445.030(B) – Planned Development, Scope and Limitations of Project
Review , shall be amended as follows:
B. Scope and Limitations of Project Review. Project Review shall set forth the overall concept
and general parameters of a project. The allowed land uses, layout, mass and scale, and
dimensions of the project, including all deviations from zone district allowances and limitations,
shall be established during Project Review. Variations that increase the allowed height by more
than two (2) feet or the total maximum floor area by more than ten-percent (10%) above what is
permitted in the underlying zone district shall be subject to voter approval, pursuant to Section
26.445.040, Procedures for Review.
Section 4: Chapter 26.445.030(B)(1)(e) – Planned Development, Planned Development Review,
Step One Project Review before the Planning and Zoning Commission (or Historic Preservation
Commission, as applicable), Notice requirements , shall be amended as follows:
e. Notice requirements: Publication, mailing and posting pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3.a, b
and c. If use variations are proposed as part of the project, Neighborhood Outreach, pursuant to
Section 26.304.035, shall be required and all public notices shall indicate what land uses are
proposed that are not otherwise allowed in the underlying zone district by including the
following language: “The applicant proposes the development include the following land uses
not otherwise allowed in the zone district: [list and description of land uses].”
Section 5: Chapter 26.445.030(B)(2)(d) – Planned Development, Planned Development Review,
Step Two Project Review before City Council, Form of decision , shall be amended as follows:
d. Form of decision: City Council action shall be by ordinance approving, approving with
conditions or denying Project Review. Projects approved or approved with conditions by City
Council that increase the allowed height by more than two (2) feet or the total maximum floor
area by more than ten-percent (10%) above what is allowed in the underlying zone district shall
not be effective unless subsequently approved by a majority of all City electors voting thereon
(“public vote”). The public vote shall occur at the earliest of either the next previously
P110
VII.b
Code Amendment – Limits on Variations
Ordinance 9, Series 2015
Page 3 of 5
scheduled state or county election, the next general municipal election, or a special election set
by the City Council.
Section 6: Chapter 26.445.030(B)(2)(e) – Planned Development, Planned Development Review,
Step Two Project Review before City Council, Notice requirements, shall be amended as follows:
d. Notice requirements: Requisite notice requirements for adoption of an ordinance by City
Council and publication, posting and mailing pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3.a, b and c. In
addition, all notices shall include the following language: “City Council’s Project Review
addresses land uses, mass, scale, height, floor area, site planning and other major aspects of the
proposal. City Council’s action is by ordinance and is binding.”
If use variations are proposed as part of the project, Neighborhood Outreach, pursuant to Section
26.304.035, shall be required and all public notices shall indicate what land uses are proposed
that are not otherwise allowed in the underlying zone district by including the following
language: “The applicant proposes the development include the following land uses not
otherwise allowed in the zone district: [list and description of land uses].”
If use variations are proposed as part of the project, City Council may, at its discretion,
temporarily halt the review and require an applicant repeat Neighborhood Outreach, pursuant to
Section 26.304.035. After one additional Neighborhood Outreach, City Council shall resume and
complete its review.
Section 7: Chapter 26.445.080(A)(5) – Planned Development, Application contents, shall be
amended as follows:
5. For Planned Development applications involving the addition of 10 or more residential units,
20 or more lodging units, or 20,000 square feet or more of commercial space (or any
equivalent combination thereof), “ability-to-serve” letters from public and private utility
providers that will service the proposed project with potable water, natural gas, electricity,
sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and roads stating they can service the proposed planned
development. Ability-to-Serve letters shall be substantially in the following format:
The [utility provider] has reviewed the proposed [planned development name and date of
application] and has adequate capacity to serve proposed development, subject to
compliance with the following adopted design standards [reference] and subject to the
following adopted tap fee or impact mitigation requirements [reference].
For Planned Development applications proposing the addition of 50 or more residences, or
that proposes new water use in an amount equal to or exceeding that used by 50 residences,
the application must demonstrate compliance with the State Adequate Water Supply Act.
(Colo. Revised Statutes 29-20-301, et seq.).
P111
VII.b
Code Amendment – Limits on Variations
Ordinance 9, Series 2015
Page 4 of 5
Section 8: Chapter 26.445.110(E) – Planned Development, Amendments, Minor Amendment to a
Detailed Review approval, shall be amended as follows:
E. Minor Amendment to a Detailed Review approval. An amendment found by the
Community Development Director consistent with a Project Review approval and to be generally
consistent with the allowances and limitations of a Detailed Review approval, or which
otherwise represents an insubstantial change, but which does not meet the established thresholds
for an insubstantial amendment, may be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the
Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission as applicable,
pursuant to 26.445.040.B.3 – Step Three.
Section 9: Chapter 26.445.110(G) – Planned Development, Amendments, Amendment
Conditions, shall be amended as follows:
G. Amendment Conditions. During the review of a proposed amendment, the Community
Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Historic Preservation
Commission, and the City Council may require such conditions of approval as are necessary to
insure that the development will be compatible with current community circumstances.
Conditions may be applied to portions or aspects of the project which are the subject of the
amendment request or other portions or aspects of the project. Conditions may include
adherence to any new community policies or regulations which have been implemented since the
original approval or that reflect changed or changing community circumstances as they affect the
project's entitled allowances and limitations including material representations and
commitments. The applicant may withdraw the proposed amendment at any time during the
review process.
Section 10: Chapter 26.212.010 – Planning and Zoning Commission, Powers and duties , shall
be amended as follows:
26.212.010. Powers and duties.
In addition to any authority granted the Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter
"Commission") by state law or the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, the
Commission shall have the following powers and duties. The Planning and Zoning Commission
shall also function as the City’s Board of Adjustment, and shall have all authorities grated to a
Board of Adjustment by state law or this Code.
[Subsections A – M shall be unchanged ]
N. To hear, review, and approve variances, not including variances to allowable FAR or height,
from the provisions of this Title, pursuant to Chapter 26.314;
P112
VII.b
Code Amendment – Limits on Variations
Ordinance 9, Series 2015
Page 5 of 5
[Subsections O – Q shall be unchanged ]
Section 11: Chapter 26.216 – Board of Adjustment , shall be deleted.
Section 12: Effect Upon Existing Litigation.
This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 13: Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 14: Effective Date.
In accordance with Section 4.9 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter, this ordinance shall
become effective thirty (30) days following final passage.
Section 15:
A public hearing on this ordinance was held on the ___ day of ______________, at a meeting of the
Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall,
Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same 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 ___ day of ________, 2015.
Attest:
__________________________ ____________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___day of _________, 2015.
Attest:
__________________________ ___________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
Approved as to form:
___________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
P113
VII.b
Limitations on Variations to Land Use Requirements – 1st reading
Exhibit A
Page 1 of 1
Exhibit A: Staff Findings
26.310.050 Amendments to the Land Use Code Standards of review - Adoption.
In reviewing an application to amend the text of this Title, per Section 26.310.020(B)(3), Step
Three – Public Hearing before City Council , the City Council shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this
Title.
Staff Findings:
The proposed amendment established new limits on variance requests. There are no known
conflicts with existing provisions. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
B. Whether the proposed amendment achieves the policy, community goal, or objective
cited as reasons for the code amendment or achieves other public policy objectives.
Staff Findings:
Staff believes there is a community interest in updating the code to provide some limitations on
what variations may be requested by an applicant. Providing some limitations on what may be
requested creates additional predictability for neighbors and the community regarding what can
be built on a given property. This code amendment also proposes to require an automatic public
vote (referendum) for any variation that exceeds the established limits, enabling the community
to have a direct voice in projects that may have greater community impacts. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
The 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan includes a policy to “create certainty in zoning and the
land use process.” Updating the Code to provide limitations on what variations may be
requested is in concert with this policy.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
C. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment are compatible with the
community character of the City and in harmony with the public interest and the
purpose and intent of this Title.
Staff Findings:
The intent of the proposed amendment is to ensure a more predictable and clear land use review
process. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P114
VII.b
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Changes PD – Variations Allowed
Chapter 26.445
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
26.445.030. Scope and Limitations.
B. Scope and Limitations of Project Review. Project Review shall set forth the overall concept
and general parameters of a project. The allowed land uses, layout, mass and scale, and
dimensions of the project, including all deviations from zone district allowances and limitations,
shall be established during Project Review. Variations that increase the allowed height by more
than two (2) feet or the total maximum floor area by more than ten-percent (10%) above what is
permitted in the underlying zone district shall be subject to voter approval, pursuant to Section
26.445.040, Procedures for Review.
Sec. 26.445.040. Procedures for Review.
B. Planned Development Review. All development proposed within a Planned
Development shall be subject to a three-step review consisting of the following steps: Public
hearings are required at each step.
1. Step One — Project Review before the Planning and Zoning Commission (or Historic
Preservation Commission, as applicable).
a) Purpose: To determine if the application meets standards for Project Review
Approval. Project Review shall focus on the overall concept and general parameters
of a project. The allowed land uses, layout, mass and scale, and dimensions of the
project, including all deviations from zone district allowances and limitations, shall
be established during Project Review.
b) Process: The Community Development Director shall provide the Planning and
Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, with a
recommendation to approve, approve with conditions, or deny and applicant’s Project
Review, based on the standards of review. The Planning and Zoning Commission or
Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, shall forward a recommendation of
approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of an applicant’s Project Review to
City Council after considering the recommendation of the Community Development
Director, and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public
hearing.
c) Standards of review: The proposed development shall comply with Section
26.445.050, Project Review Standards. If use variations are proposed, the proposed
development shall also comply with Section 26.445.060, Use Variation Standards.
d) Form of decision: The recommendation shall be by resolution.
e) Notice requirements: Publication, mailing and posting pursuant to Section
26.304.060.E.3.a, b and c. If use variations are proposed as part of the project,
Neighborhood Outreach, pursuant to Section 26.304.035, shall be required and all
public notices shall indicate what land uses are proposed to be addedthat are not
otherwise allowed in the underlying zone district by including the following
P115
VII.b
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Changes PD – Variations Allowed
language: “The applicant proposes the development include the following land uses
not otherwise allowed in the zone district: [list and description of land uses].”
Step Two — Project Review before the City Council.
a) Purpose: To determine if the application meets standards for Project Review
Approval. Project Review shall focus on the overall concept and general parameters
of a project. The allowed land uses, layout, mass and scale, and dimensions of the
project, including all deviations from zone district allowances and limitations, shall
be established during Project Review.
b) Process: The Community Development Director shall provide City Council with a
recommendation to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Project Approval
Review, based on the standards of review. City Council shall approve, approve with
conditions, or deny the application after considering the recommendation of the
Community Development Director, the recommendation from the Planning and
Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, and
comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public hearing.
c) Standards of review: The proposed development shall comply with Section
26.445.050 for Project Approval Review. If variations in land uses are proposed, the
proposed development shall also comply with Section 26.445.060, Use Variation
Standards.
d) Form of decision: City Council action shall be by ordinance approving, approving
with conditions or denying Project Review. Projects approved or approved with
conditions by City Council that increase the allowed height by more than two (2) feet
or the total maximum floor area by more than ten-percent (10%) above what is
allowed in the underlying zone district shall not be effective unless subsequently
approved by a majority of all City electors voting thereon (“public vote”). The public
vote shall occur at the earliest of either the next previously scheduled state or county
election, the next general municipal election, or a special election set by the City
Council.
e) Notice requirements: Requisite notice requirements for adoption of an ordinance by
City Council and publication, posting and mailing pursuant to Section
26.304.060.E.3.a, b and c. In addition, all notices shall include the following
language: “City Council’s Project Review addresses land uses, mass, scale, height,
floor area, site planning and other major aspects of the proposal. City Council’s
action is by ordinance and is binding.”
If use variations are proposed as part of the project, Neighborhood Outreach, pursuant
to Section 26.304.035, shall be required and all public notices shall indicate what land
uses are proposed that are not otherwise allowed in the underlying zone district to be
added by including the following language: “The applicant proposes the development
include the following land uses not otherwise allowed in the zone district: [list and
description of land uses].”
P116
VII.b
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Changes PD – Variations Allowed
If use variations are proposed as part of the project, City Council may, at its
discretion, temporarily halt the review and require an applicant repeat Neighborhood
Outreach, pursuant to Section 26.304.035. After one additional Neighborhood
Outreach, City Council shall resume and complete its review.
26.445.080. Application Contents.
A. Project Review Application Contents. The contents of a development application for a
Project Review shall include the following:
5. For Planned Development applications involving the addition of 10 or more residential
units, 20 or more lodging units, or 20,000 square feet or more of commercial space (or
any equivalent combination thereof), “ability-to-serve” letters from public and private
utility providers that will service the proposed project with potable water, natural gas,
electricity, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and roads stating they can service the proposed
subdivisionplanned development. Ability-to-Serve letters shall be substantially in the
following format:
The [utility provider] has reviewed the proposed [planned development name and
date of application] and has adequate capacity to serve proposed development,
subject to compliance with the following adopted design standards [reference] and
subject to the following adopted tap fee or impact mitigation requirements
[reference].
For Planned Development applications proposing the addition of 50 or more residences,
or that proposes new water use in an amount equal to or exceeding that used by 50
residences, the application must demonstrate compliance with the State Adequate Water
Supply Act. (Colo. Revised Statutes 29-20-301, et seq.).
26.445.110. Amendments. Amendments to an approved Project Review or to an approved
Detailed Review shall be reviewed according to the standards and procedures outline below.
Amendments to Planned Unit Development and Specially Planned Area approvals (pre-
Ordinance 36, 2013, approvals) shall also proceed according to the standards and procedures
outline below and the Community Development Director shall determine the type of procedure
most-applicable to the requested amendment.
E. Minor Amendment to a Detailed Review approval. An amendment found by the
Community Development Director consistent with a Project Rreview approval and to be
generally consistent with the allowances and limitations of a Detailed Review approval, or which
otherwise represents an insubstantial change, but which does not meet the established thresholds
for an insubstantial amendment, may be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the
Planning and Zoning Commission orf the Historic Preservation Commission as applicable,
pursuant to 26.445.040.B.3 – Step Three.
G. Amendment Conditions. During the review of a proposed amendment, the Community
Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Historic Preservation
P117
VII.b
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Changes PD – Variations Allowed
Commission, and the City Council may require such conditions of approval as are necessary to
insure that the development will be compatible with current community circumstances.
Conditions may be applied to portions or aspects of the project which are the subject of the
amendment request or other portions or aspects of the project. Conditions may include
adherence to any new community policies or regulations which have been implemented since the
original approval or that reflect changed or changing community circumstances as they affect the
project's entitled allowances and limitations including material representations and
commitments. The applicant may withdraw the proposed amendment at any time during the
review process.
P118
VII.b
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Changes PD - No Variations Allowed
Chapter 26.445
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
26.445.030. Scope and Limitations.
B. Scope and Limitations of Project Review. Project Review shall set forth the overall concept
and general parameters of a project. The allowed land uses, layout, mass and scale, and
dimensions of the project, including all deviations from zone district allowances and limitations,
shall be established during Project Review. Variations that increase the allowed height or total
maximum floor area above what is permitted in the underlying zone district shall be subject to
voter approval, pursuant to Section 26.445.040, Procedures for Review.
Sec. 26.445.040. Procedures for Review.
B. Planned Development Review. All development proposed within a Planned
Development shall be subject to a three-step review consisting of the following steps: Public
hearings are required at each step.
1. Step One — Project Review before the Planning and Zoning Commission (or Historic
Preservation Commission, as applicable).
a) Purpose: To determine if the application meets standards for Project Review
Approval. Project Review shall focus on the overall concept and general parameters
of a project. The allowed land uses, layout, mass and scale, and dimensions of the
project, including all deviations from zone district allowances and limitations, shall
be established during Project Review.
b) Process: The Community Development Director shall provide the Planning and
Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, with a
recommendation to approve, approve with conditions, or deny and applicant’s Project
Review, based on the standards of review. The Planning and Zoning Commission or
Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, shall forward a recommendation of
approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of an applicant’s Project Review to
City Council after considering the recommendation of the Community Development
Director, and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public
hearing.
c) Standards of review: The proposed development shall comply with Section
26.445.050, Project Review Standards. If use variations are proposed, the proposed
development shall also comply with Section 26.445.060, Use Variation Standards.
d) Form of decision: The recommendation shall be by resolution.
e) Notice requirements: Publication, mailing and posting pursuant to Section
26.304.060.E.3.a, b and c. If use variations are proposed as part of the project,
Neighborhood Outreach, pursuant to Section 26.304.035, shall be required and all
public notices shall indicate what land uses are proposed to be addedthat are not
otherwise allowed in the underlying zone district by including the following
P119
VII.b
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Changes PD - No Variations Allowed
language: “The applicant proposes the development include the following land uses
not otherwise allowed in the zone district: [list and description of land uses].”
Step Two — Project Review before the City Council.
a) Purpose: To determine if the application meets standards for Project Review
Approval. Project Review shall focus on the overall concept and general parameters
of a project. The allowed land uses, layout, mass and scale, and dimensions of the
project, including all deviations from zone district allowances and limitations, shall
be established during Project Review.
b) Process: The Community Development Director shall provide City Council with a
recommendation to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Project Approval
Review, based on the standards of review. City Council shall approve, approve with
conditions, or deny the application after considering the recommendation of the
Community Development Director, the recommendation from the Planning and
Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, and
comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public hearing.
c) Standards of review: The proposed development shall comply with Section
26.445.050 for Project Approval Review. If variations in land uses are proposed, the
proposed development shall also comply with Section 26.445.060, Use Variation
Standards.
d) Form of decision: City Council action shall be by ordinance approving, approving
with conditions or denying Project Review. Projects approved or approved with
conditions by City Council that increase the allowed height or total maximum floor
area above what is allowed in the underlying zone district, shall not be effective
unless subsequently approved by a majority of all City electors voting thereon
(“public vote”). The public vote shall occur at the earliest of either the next
previously scheduled state or county election, the next general municipal election, or
a special election set by the City Council.
e) Notice requirements: Requisite notice requirements for adoption of an ordinance by
City Council and publication, posting and mailing pursuant to Section
26.304.060.E.3.a, b and c. In addition, all notices shall include the following
language: “City Council’s Project Review addresses land uses, mass, scale, height,
floor area, site planning and other major aspects of the proposal. City Council’s
action is by ordinance and is binding.”
If use variations are proposed as part of the project, Neighborhood Outreach, pursuant
to Section 26.304.035, shall be required and all public notices shall indicate what land
uses are proposed that are not otherwise allowed in the underlying zone district to be
added by including the following language: “The applicant proposes the development
include the following land uses not otherwise allowed in the zone district: [list and
description of land uses].”
If use variations are proposed as part of the project, City Council may, at its
discretion, temporarily halt the review and require an applicant repeat Neighborhood
P120
VII.b
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Changes PD - No Variations Allowed
Outreach, pursuant to Section 26.304.035. After one additional Neighborhood
Outreach, City Council shall resume and complete its review.
26.445.080. Application Contents.
A. Project Review Application Contents. The contents of a development application for a
Project Review shall include the following:
5. For Planned Development applications involving the addition of 10 or more residential
units, 20 or more lodging units, or 20,000 square feet or more of commercial space (or
any equivalent combination thereof), “ability-to-serve” letters from public and private
utility providers that will service the proposed project with potable water, natural gas,
electricity, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and roads stating they can service the proposed
subdivisionplanned development. Ability-to-Serve letters shall be substantially in the
following format:
The [utility provider] has reviewed the proposed [planned development name and
date of application] and has adequate capacity to serve proposed development,
subject to compliance with the following adopted design standards [reference] and
subject to the following adopted tap fee or impact mitigation requirements
[reference].
For Planned Development applications proposing the addition of 50 or more residences,
or that proposes new water use in an amount equal to or exceeding that used by 50
residences, the application must demonstrate compliance with the State Adequate Water
Supply Act. (Colo. Revised Statutes 29-20-301, et seq.).
26.445.110. Amendments. Amendments to an approved Project Review or to an approved
Detailed Review shall be reviewed according to the standards and procedures outline below.
Amendments to Planned Unit Development and Specially Planned Area approvals (pre-
Ordinance 36, 2013, approvals) shall also proceed according to the standards and procedures
outline below and the Community Development Director shall determine the type of procedure
most-applicable to the requested amendment.
E. Minor Amendment to a Detailed Review approval. An amendment found by the
Community Development Director consistent with a Project Rreview approval and to be
generally consistent with the allowances and limitations of a Detailed Review approval, or which
otherwise represents an insubstantial change, but which does not meet the established thresholds
for an insubstantial amendment, may be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the
Planning and Zoning Commission orf the Historic Preservation Commission as applicable,
pursuant to 26.445.040.B.3 – Step Three.
G. Amendment Conditions. During the review of a proposed amendment, the Community
Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Historic Preservation
Commission, and the City Council may require such conditions of approval as are necessary to
insure that the development will be compatible with current community circumstances.
P121
VII.b
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Changes PD - No Variations Allowed
Conditions may be applied to portions or aspects of the project which are the subject of the
amendment request or other portions or aspects of the project. Conditions may include
adherence to any new community policies or regulations which have been implemented since the
original approval or that reflect changed or changing community circumstances as they affect the
project's entitled allowances and limitations including material representations and
commitments. The applicant may withdraw the proposed amendment at any time during the
review process.
P122
VII.b
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Changes
Chapter 26.470
GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMQS)
26.470.110. Growth management review procedures.
A. General.
11. No reduction in mitigation requirements. An applicant may not request a reduction in the
mitigation requirements of this Chapter. Applications for essential public facilities
pursuant to Section 26.470.090(4), Essential Public Facilities, or historic designation
pursuant to Chapter 26.415.030(C), Historic Preservation - AspenModern, shall be
exempt from this provision, provided, however, that any reduction is reviewed and
approved by City Council.
Sec. 26.470.060 Administrative applications.
3. Change in use of historic landmark sites and structures. The change of use between the
development categories identified in Section 26.470.020, of a property, structure or portion of a
structure designated as an historic landmark shall be approved, approved with conditions or
denied by the Community Development Director if no more than one (1) free-market residence is
created. No employee mitigation shall be required. If more than one (1) free-market residence is
created, the additional units shall be reviewed pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.080.2070.7. The
change in amount of development and number of units shall be added and deducted from the
respective development ceiling levels established pursuant to Section 26.470.030 but shall not be
added or deducted from the respective annual development allotments.
26.470.070 Planning and Zoning Commission applications.
The following types of development shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by
the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Section 26.470.110, Procedures for review,
and the criteria for each type of development described below. Except as noted, all growth
management applications shall comply with the general requirements of Section 26.470.050.
Except as noted, the following types of growth management approvals shall be deducted from
the respective development ceiling levels but shall not be deducted from the annual development
allotments. Approvals apply cumulatively. Growth Management approvals for Subsections
26.470.0780(6-10) shall be deducted from the respective annual development allotments.
1. Enlargement of an historic landmark for commercial, lodge or mixed-use development.
b. Up to one (1) free-market residence may be created pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.060.4,
Minor enlargement of an historic landmark for commercial, lodge or mixed-use
development. This shall be cumulative and shall include administrative GMQS approvals
granted prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2007. Additional free-market
units (beyond one [1]) shall be reviewed pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.080.2070.7, New free-
market residential units within a multi-family or mixed-use project.
5. Demolition or redevelopment of multi-family housing.
b. Fifty-percent replacement. In the event of the demolition of free-market multi-family
housing and replacement of less than one hundred percent (100%) of the number of previous
units, bedrooms or net livable area as described above, the applicant shall be required to
construct affordable housing consisting of no less than fifty percent (50%) of the number of
units, bedrooms and the net livable area demolished. The replacement units shall be deed-
P123
VII.b
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Changes
restricted as Category 4 housing, pursuant to the guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category
designation. Each replacement unit shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4,
Affordable housing.
When this fifty-percent standard is accomplished, the remaining development on the site may
be free-market residential development as long as additional affordable housing mitigation is
provided pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.3, Expansion of free-market residential units
within a multi-family or mixed-use project, and there is no increase in the number of free-
market residential units on the parcel. Free-market units in excess of the total number
originally on the parcel shall be reviewed pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.080.2070.7, New
free-market residential units within a multi-family or mixed-use project.
P124
VII.b
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Changes
Chapter 26.212
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
26.212.010. Powers and duties.
In addition to any authority granted the Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter
"Commission") by state law or the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, the
Commission shall have the following powers and duties.: The Planning and Zoning Commission
shall also function as the City’s Board of Adjustment, and shall have all authorities grated to a
Board of Adjustment by state law or this Code.
N. To hear, review, and approve grant variances, not including variances to allowable FAR or
height, from the provisions of this Title, when a consolidated application is presented to the
Commission for review and approval pursuant to Chapter 26.314;
Chapter 26.216, Board of Adjustment is deleted
P125
VII.b
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
From: Linda Manning, City Clerk
RE: Amendments to Chapter 26.212 and 26.220 adding a second alternate to the Planning &
Zoning and Historic Preservation Commissions
Date: February 18, 2015
Meeting Date: February 23, 2015
______________________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND : Last month City Council conducted interviews to fill vacancies for boards
and commissions. This was the second round of interviews to fill openings for the Historic
Preservation Commissions. Interviews were initially conducted in April where there were two
applicants for Historic Preservation. Council directed staff to re-advertise in an effort to get
more qualified applicants. After advertising for eight months we received applications from
multiple well qualified candidates.
The Planning & Zoning and Historic Preservation Commissions each have seven regular
members and one alternate. Both commissions have members in the planning and architecture
field and regularly someone has to recuse themselves because they or their firm worked on a
project up for review. Because of this and typically another member being absent from a
meeting, staff felt it would be in the best interest of the commissions and the applicants seeking
approval to have a second alternate. The second alternate would only vote in the absence of the
first alternate and one regular member or the absence of two regular members. The addition of a
second alternate will result in a fuller commission hearing and voting on applications.
This change results in an amendment to the land use code and requires a policy resolution with a
public hearing and an ordinance for the code amendment.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Ordinance #8, Series of 2015.
P126
VIII.a
Code Amendment – 2nd Alternate for P&Z HPC
First Reading Ordinance 8, Series 2015
ORDINANCE No. 8
(Series of 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER
26.212 – PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AND 26.220 HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMISSION, OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.208 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen Land Use
Code, the City council of the City of Aspen directed the Community Development Department to prepare
amendments to the Planning & Zoning Commission and Historic Preservation Commission Chapter of the
Land Use Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310 applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the
Municipal Code shall begin with a Policy Resolution reviewed and acted on by City Council, and then
final action by City Council after reviewing and considering the recommendation from the Community
Development Department; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 6.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing on
February 9, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution No. 15, Series of 2015, requesting code
amendments to the Planning & Zoning Commission and Historic Preservation Commission chapters of
the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the proposed
amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Chapters 26.212 – Planning & Zoning Commission and
26.220 – Historic Preservation Commission; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendments and finds that
the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310.050; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO THAT:
Section 1: Chapter 26.212.030 – Membership; appointment, removal, terms and vacancies, shall read as
follows:
A. The Commission shall be composed of seven (7) members and shall be appointed by the City
Council. The City Council shall also appoint two (2) alternate members to the Commission.
The first alternate member shall vote only in the absence of one (1) or more regular members.
The second alternate member shall vote only in the absence of two (2) or more regular
members or the absence of one (1) regular member and the first alternate. When a regular
member resigns, the first alternate member shall automatically be appointed as a regular
member in replacement and the second alternate shall become the first alternate.
Section 2: Chapter 26.220.030 – Membership; appointment, removal, terms and vacancies, shall read
as follows:
A. The Commission shall be composed of seven (7) members and shall be appointed by the City
Council. The City Council shall also appoint two (2) alternate members to the Commission.
The first alternate member shall vote only in the absence of one (1) or more regular members.
P127
VIII.a
Code Amendment – 2nd Alternate for P&Z HPC
First Reading Ordinance 8, Series 2015
The second alternate member shall vote only in the absence of two (2) or more regular
members or the absence of one (1) regular member and the first alternate. When a regular
member resigns, the first alternate member shall automatically be appointed as a regular
member in replacement and the second alternate shall become the first alternate.
Section 3: Effect Upon Existing Litigation.
This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4: Severability.
If any section subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held
invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
thereof.
Section 5: Effective Date.
In accordance with Section 4.9 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter, this ordinance shall become
effective thirty (30) days following final passage.
Section 6:
A public hearing on this ordinance was held on the ___th day of _________, at a meeting of the
Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen,
Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same 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 ___day of ___________, 2015.
Attest:
______________________________ _____________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of _______, 2015.
Attest:
_____________________________ _____________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
Approved as to form:
_____________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
P128
VIII.a
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR and COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: SCOTT MILLER and JAMES R. TRUE
DATE: February 12, 2015
RE: Resolution No. 23 – Regarding the Current FERC Preliminary Permit, the
Pursuit Of Micro Hydro Projects and Protection of Water Rights.
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: On January 27, 2015, Council held a work session to address
the City’s existing second preliminary permit issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) related to the Castle Creek Energy Center; positions of Council regarding pursuit of micro
hydro projects on Castle and Maroon Creeks; and, protecting City water rights associated with these
creeks. In the work session staff was directed to return to Council at a regular meeting with a
resolution that would formalize the adoption of the following positions of the City:
1. To allow the current FERC preliminary permit to expire;
2. To continue investigation of micro hydro options on Castle and Maroon Creeks; and,
3. To reaffirm the City’s long-standing intent and policy to develop, use and protect all of its
decreed water rights and to protect decreed instream flows.
Based on the direction given at that time, staff has attached a resolution addressing these issues for
consideration by Council.
BACKGROUND: In June of 2014, the City submitted a report to the FERC advising that the City
of Aspen did not intend to move forward with the Castle Creek Energy Center project at this time.
The report to FERC included Resolution No. 79 (Series of 2014) adopted by City Council which
acknowledged that decision and authorized settlement and dismissal of the water rights
abandonment litigation, T. Richard Butera, et al. v. City of Aspen , Case No. 11CW130, Water
Division 5, in which certain parties alleged that the City had abandoned the hydroelectric use of its
Maroon Ditch Priority 11 water right, its Castle Creek Flume water right and its Midland Flume
water right (“City’s Senior Water Rights”). At that time, the City advised FERC that it did not
intend to withdraw the preliminary permit and that the City intended to pursue micro hydro projects
on Castle and Maroon Creeks.
Following this action in June, staff investigated the type of micro hydro projects that could be
studied and evaluated as part of the second preliminary permit. Thus, the mandatory six month
report filed with the FERC in September 2014 outlined the City’s efforts in investigating the micro
P129
IX.a
2
hydro projects. Since that time City staff has continued to study the configuration, costs and
benefits of micro hydro projects on Castle Creek and Maroon Creek using the City's Senior Water
Rights and to evaluate the pursuit of such micro hydro projects on Castle and Maroon Creeks under
the current FERC preliminary permit or a new FERC authorization. The current preliminary permit
will expire on February 28, 2015.
DISCUSSION: As noted above, the resolution addresses three specific Council policy decisions or
statements. Each will be discussed separately below:
1. Current FERC Preliminary Permit
The current FERC Preliminary Permit is set to expire on February 28, 2015. The original emphasis
of the FERC Preliminary Permit was the study of the Castle Creek Energy Center. Since the City
does not intend to pursue the Castle Creek Energy Center at this time and micro hydro projects
using the City's Senior Water Rights can be pursued under separate FERC preliminary permits,
followed by other FERC processes, staff has proposed that the resolution include a formal
expression of the intent to let the current FERC preliminary permit expire.
2. Pursuit of Micro Hydro Projects on Castle and Maroon Creeks.
Based on previous direction by Council, staff has continued its efforts to study and pursue micro
hydro projects using the City's Senior Water Rights on Castle and Maroon Creeks at existing
facilities. Micro hydro projects allow water to be used both to generate electricity and to protect
instream flows, thus using the same water to meet two City objectives.
It is important here to emphasize what the City is attempting to accomplish with these micro hydro
projects. In the near term, the City has adequate supplies for potable water needs even in a severe
drought year like 1977, 2002 or 2012. Protection of water rights and supplies for those needs is not
the focus of this discussion. Instead, there are three primary goals set forth in the proposal to pursue
micro hydro. While additional benefits may be realized, the primary goals are clear. Those three
goals are:
1. Generate power by developing renewable energy resources;
2. Maintain healthy stream flows in the two creeks; and
3. Protect City water rights and supplies.
The City must recognize that every year, other water users expand their efforts to use more and
more water, both under existing decreed water rights and new uses. In the very near future we may
see efforts from other areas in the state to use water from these creeks. Thus, the more we do to
protect our water rights now, the better we will be able to assure the City’s water supplies will meet
future needs, and to strongly address future efforts by others. Micro hydro projects using the City's
Senior Water Rights can be used to accomplish all three of these goals.
Staff wishes to make it clear to the Council and the public that as each step in development of micro
hydro facilities is taken, information regarding the step will be provided. For instance, assuming
expiration of current FERC Preliminary Permit, the next step in pursuit of micro hydro is to
determine the appropriate application to be submitted to FERC to study a micro hydro project on
P130
IX.a
3
Maroon Creek, Castle Creek, or both. At this time, staff proposes that our FERC attorney first
investigate the appropriate procedure for a micro hydro project on Maroon Creek and file the
appropriate application for a preliminary permit or other approval request with FERC. As the City
has a track record of successful hydroelectric operations on Maroon Creek, staff recommends
prioritizing at this time an evaluation of a micro hydro project using the City's Maroon Ditch
Priority No. 11 water right on Maroon Creek. Staff does not recommend and is not proposing that a
FERC process be initiated for a micro hydro project on Castle Creek at this time, although staff will
continue to study the possibility of a micro hydro project for Castle Creek, using the City’s Castle
Creek Senior Water Rights.
As further studies are completed for each step of the process of evaluating a micro hydro project on
Maroon Creek, more information will be submitted to the City Council.
3. Water Rights.
The City has a long-standing and well-established intention to protect its water rights. The
resolution reiterates and reaffirms the City’s determination to protect, develop and use all of its
water rights to their full decreed extent for all decreed uses and purposes.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: At this time it has been estimated that the costs of initiating a
FERC preliminary permit or other appropriate FERC authorization for a micro hydro project on
Maroon Creek would be approximately $5,000.
ALTERNATIVES: If City Council elects not to pursue a micro hydro facility on Maroon Creek or
Castle Creek, it will become increasingly difficult, if not impossible over a longer term, to meet the
City’s goals of protecting decreed instream flows while also meeting anticipated municipal water
needs, including potable and non-potable water demand and, with respect to Maroon Creek,
hydroelectric production goals from the existing Maroon Creek hydroelectric facility. Nevertheless,
some alternatives can be considered.
Colorado Water Conservation Board (“CWCB”) Donation: As an alternative to a micro
hydro project on Maroon Creek, the City could consider donating to CWCB a portion of the senior
Maroon Ditch water right or other senior Maroon Creek right, to be changed to instream flow
purposes. Since the CWCB is the only entity allowed to hold instream flow rights in Colorado, it
would have to agree to accept the donation and to participate actively in the water court change
case. The City would likely be expected to bear the cost of that case. As with all water court
litigation, the case would be costly and the outcome cannot be guaranteed. The water court change
application will likely be opposed by other water users, as Pitkin County experienced in its recent
successful change of a portion of the Stapleton Brothers Ditch water right to instream flow use on
Maroon Creek.
Furthermore, donation of a water right to CWCB for instream flow use gives the City less ability to
assure stream protection than a micro hydro project would provide, as the CWCB (rather than
Aspen) would have to place the call when the decreed instream flow is not being met. Unlike the
City, whose staff monitors local streamflows daily and can address changing stream conditions in
real time, the CWCB, a large state agency, is bound by internal procedures and is not able to
respond as quickly to changes in streamflows that may require a call to be placed. Thus staff
P131
IX.a
4
believes that stream flow protection can be better achieved with a micro hydro project operated by
the City than with a CWCB instream flow donation.
Modify Instream Flow Protection Policy . If City Council elects not to pursue the
recommended micro hydro project using its Maroon Ditch Priority 11 water right on Maroon Creek,
or authorize staff to further investigate a micro hydro project for Castle Creek, another alternative
would be for Council to revise its existing policy of operating its water rights to allow maintenance
of decreed instream flows. Staff does not support this direction as it risks the health of the creeks.
RECOMMENDED ACTION : Staff and the city’s water attorneys recommend that the Council
approve Resolution #23.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
P132
IX.a
RESOLUTION #23
(Series of 2015)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, REGARDING THE FERC PRELIMINARY PERMIT FOR
CASTLE CREEK ENERGY CENTER AND PURSUIT OF MICRO HYDRO
PROJECTS, AND REAFFIRMING THE CITY OF ASPEN’S COMMITMENT
TO PROTECTION AND USE OF ITS WATER RIGHTS.
WHEREAS, on November 25, 2008, Preliminary Permit P-13254-000 was
issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) for the Castle
Creek Hydroelectric Project, 125 FERC ¶ 62, 185, a successive Preliminary Permit
was issued March 7, 2012, 138 FERC ¶ 62, 209, and the successive Preliminary
Permit is set to expire on February 28, 2015; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has acknowledged that the City of Aspen will
not be pursuing or seeking to complete the Castle Creek Energy Center
hydroelectric project at this time, and instead will pursue other renewable energy
projects including micro hydroelectric installations at existing City-owned or
controlled facilities on Castle Creek and Maroon Creek, in order to develop
renewable energy; and,
WHEREAS, the City’s water resources should be managed comprehensively
rather than in isolation so as to promote a broad range of municipal policies and
goals; and,
WHEREAS, the City’s policies and planning have long contemplated
investigation and installation of environmentally sensitive hydroelectric projects,
including low head or micro hydro projects because such projects provide a clean-
energy source of electricity, and can be developed in conjunction with other water
uses in order to achieve a comprehensive utilization of the City’s water rights and
water resources; and,
WHEREAS, the City also has a longstanding policy and goal, reiterated in
Resolution No. 93-5, to protect decreed instream flows without abandoning its
water rights, and in furtherance of that policy, has made available senior water
rights on Hunter Creek for instream flow uses, has entered into an agreement by
which it has agreed to operate its senior water rights to protect the junior decreed
instream flow on Castle Creek, voluntarily operates its senior water rights on
Maroon Creek to protect the decreed instream flow on Maroon Creek, and is
engaged in a pilot project to assist instream flow protection on the Roaring Fork
River; and,
P133
IX.a
WHEREAS, the City’s goals of instream flow protection and
environmentally-sensitive hydroelectric projects can be furthered by micro
hydroelectric projects on Castle Creek and Maroon Creek, because use of the
City’s senior water rights on those creeks (the Castle Creek Flume and Midland
Flume on Castle Creek, and the Maroon Ditch Priority 11 on Maroon Creek) to
generate electricity in a micro hydro project will also result in instream flow
protection; and,
WHEREAS, preliminary investigation indicates that a micro hydro project
using the City’s Maroon Ditch Priority 11 water right (“Maroon Ditch”) may be
feasible on Maroon Creek, and will allow generation of power from streamflow
that is currently bypassed at the City’s Maroon Creek Intake pursuant to the City’s
FERC license for the Maroon Creek hydroelectric plant and its instream flow
protection policy; and
WHEREAS, City staff has recommended that a micro hydro project on
Maroon Creek using the Maroon Ditch water right be prioritized for further
evaluation at this time inasmuch as the City has operated a successful hydroelectric
plant on Maroon Creek for many years; and,
WHEREAS, City staff has recommended that in connection with evaluation
of such a micro hydro project on Maroon Creek, the City investigate and initiate
the appropriate FERC process for such a project; and
WHEREAS, City staff has recommended that a micro hydro project on
Castle Creek using the City’s senior Castle Creek water rights described above
continue to be investigated at the City staff level, and that staff develop and
provide further information to Council about such a project on Castle Creek; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen, by this resolution, intends to reaffirm its
commitment to develop, maintain and fully utilize for beneficial uses all of its
water rights, including but not limited to the Maroon Ditch Priority 11 water right,
the Castle Creek Flume water right and the Midland Flume water right, for all of
their decreed amounts, purposes and uses, and that the City has not abandoned or
intended to abandon any of its water rights or any decreed amount, purpose or use
thereof, and does not intend to abandon any of its water rights or any decreed
amounts, purposes or uses of its water rights.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
P134
IX.a
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby agrees that the successive
Preliminary Permit issued on March 7, 2012, for the Castle Creek hydroelectric
project, shall be allowed to expire in accordance with its terms;
That the City Council affirms its intent to pursue micro hydroelectric
installations at existing City-owned or controlled facilities on Castle Creek and
Maroon Creek, using the above-described City senior water rights, and hereby
directs staff to continue to study the costs and benefits of such facilities and to
proceed at this time to take action in the pursuit of a micro hydroelectric facility on
Maroon Creek using the City’s Maroon Ditch Priority 11 water right, including the
filing of an application for a preliminary permit or other appropriate request with
FERC;
That the City Council directs City staff to continue to investigate a micro
hydro project for Castle Creek and to provide regular reports to the City Council
regarding such investigation; and
That the City Council of the City of Aspen reaffirms its commitment to
develop, maintain, and beneficially use, to their full decreed extent, all of its water
rights, including but not limited to the Maroon Ditch Priority 11 water right, the
Castle Creek Flume water right and the Midland Flume water right, for all of their
decreed amounts, uses and purposes, and that the City has not abandoned or
intended to abandon any of its water rights or any decreed amounts, uses or
purposes of any of its water rights, and does not intend to abandon any of its water
rights or any decreed amounts, uses or purposes of its water rights.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 23rd day of February, 2015.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council
of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the 23rd day of February,
2015.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P135
IX.a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
From: Linda Manning, City Clerk
RE: Resolution #22 – setting the title of a charter amendment to Aspen home Rule Charter
submitted by petitioners
Date: February 18, 2015
Meeting Date: February 23, 2015
______________________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND: Last month Bert Myrin, Cavanaugh O’Leary, Michael Behrendt, Catalina
Cruz and Kallen Von Renkle, pursuant to C.R.S., Section 31-2-210(1)(a)(I) filed a statement of
intent to circulate a petition to amend the home rule charter to require voter authorization of land
use approvals that exceed the zoning limitations for allowable floor area, maximum height,
reductions in the amount of off-street parking or affordable housing. This would apply to the
Commercial Core (CC), Commercial (C-1), Service/Commercial/Industrial (S/C/I),
Neighborhood Commercial (NC), Mixed Use (MU), Lodge (L), Commercial Lodge (CL), Lodge
Overlay (LO) and Lodge Preservation (LP) zone districts. Single-family and duplex homes shall
be excluded.
In order for the petition to be deemed valid and sufficient five percent of the registered electors
of the City of Aspen on the date the statement of intent was filed needed to sign the petition. The
petitions were submitted on time and the City Clerk verified the petitions contained the required
304 signatures to be deemed valid and sufficient.
Following the certification by the City Clerk, the City Council shall set the ballot title for the
proposed amendment. Pursuant to C.R.S., Section 31-2-310(3), this includes the submission
question. In this case, staff recommends using the actual language that was part of the petition
packet.
In order for the required ballot information including voting instructions and the mayor and
council seat races as well as this question to appear on the front of the ballot, it would require
using a 14 inch long ballot.
ALTERNATIVES: City Council can change the language of the title as well as the question to
anything they so choose.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends setting the charter amendment title and question as
it is written in Resolution #22, Series of 2015.
P136
IX.b
RESOLUTION NO. 22
(Series of 2015)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, SETTING THE TITLE OF A CHARTER AMENDMENT TO ASPEN
HOME RULE CHARTER SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS.
WHEREAS, Article XX, Section 10 of the Colorado Constitution authorizes
home rule municipalities to amend their home rule charters through such procedures as
may be enacted by the state general assembly; and,
WHEREAS, the state legislature has enacted Section 31-2-210, C.R.S., which
section sets forth the procedures for amending a city’s home rule charter; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to C.R.S., Section 31-2-210(1)(a)((I), five registered
electors of the City of Aspen filed with the City Clerk a statement of intent to circulate a
petition for the amendment of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to C.R.S., Section 31-2-210(1)(a)(III) five percent of the
registered electors of the City of Aspen registered on the date of filing the statement of
intent signed the petition proposing the amendment to the Charter and such signed
petitions were timely submitted to the City Clerk and the City Clerk has certified to the
City Council the validity and sufficiency of such petitions; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to C.R.S., Section 31-2-210(3), following the certification
by the Clerk of the validity and sufficiency of the petitions, the Council shall set the
ballot title for the proposed amendment, which by definition includes the submission
question.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
P137
IX.b
The ballot title and submission question shall read as follows:
CITY OF ASPEN REFERENDUM NO. 1
AMENDMENT TO CITY CHARTER – REGARDING MUNICIPAL CODE
VARIATIONS FOR CERTAIN LAND USE APPLICATIONS.
Shall Article XIII of the Home Rule Charter of the City of Aspen be amended by
the addition of the following?
Section 13.14 – Voter authorization of certain land use approvals.
(a) Any land use approval granted by the City of Aspen, or an amendment to a
previous land use approval, including those granted as a result of litigation, on land
within the zone districts listed in paragraph (b), that exceeds the zoning limitations for
allowable floor area or maximum height (including height restricted by view planes), or
which reduces the requirements for the amount of off-street parking spaces or affordable
housing, shall not be effective unless subsequently approved by a majority of all City
electors voting thereon.
(b) Except as set forth herein below, the provisions of paragraph (a) shall apply to
all properties east of Castle Creek within the following zone districts on January 1, 2015:
Commercial Core (CC) zone district, Commercial (C-1) zone district,
Service/Commercial/Industrial (S/C/I) zone district, Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
zone district, Mixed Use (MU) zone district, Lodge (L) zone district, Commercial Lodge
(CL) zone district, Lodge Overlay (LO) zone district, Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP)
zone district.
(c) Although within the zone districts set forth in paragraph (b), the following
shall be exempt from the provisions of paragraph (a): single-family and duplex homes,
replacement of non-conforming structures, and variations necessary to meet the
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Federal Fair Housing
Act (FHA), the Federal Telecommunications Act (FTA), to implement energy efficiency
measures, to meet applicable building and fire codes, or an amendment to a previous land
use approval that reduces height or floor area or increases the amount of parking or
affordable housing.
(d) The approval of the electorate required by this Section shall take place at the
next available previously scheduled state or county election, the next general municipal
election or a special election set by the Council, whichever is earlier.
(e) The City of Aspen shall amend the Land Use Regulations to be consistent
with this Home Rule Charter Amendment.
Yes [ ]
No [ ]
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen
on the day of , 2015.
__________________________
P138
IX.b
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing
is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of
Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated.
__________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P139
IX.b
P140
IX.b
ASPEN HYDRO/ELECTRIC COSTS
2007 THRU 2014 INCLUDING DEBT SERVICE
Original costs(including
generator) ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. . ....$6,000,000
Additional appropriations .. . ... . . . ... .... 1,000,000
Legal fees ... ... ... .. . . .. . .. .. . . .. ... . . . ... . .. . . . ... 1,200,000
FERC over-run costs ... ... ... ... ... .gammas ago ....750,000
Penstock. . . ... . .. ... . . . ... ... . .. ... . .. ... .. . ... ... ...2,000,000
Debt Service(thru 2014) ..... .. . ... ... ....2,800,00
Total $ 13,800,000