HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20180108
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
January 08, 2018
5:00 PM
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Scheduled Public Appearances
IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues
NOT scheduled for a public hearing. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes)
V. Special Orders of the Day
a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments
b) Agenda Deletions and Additions
c) City Manager's Comments
d) Board Reports
VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion)
a) Resolution #7, Series of 2018 - Authorizing Easement Agreements between the
City of Aspen and Pitkin County
b) Resolution #10, Series of 2018 - Contract Extension with Gordon Feller for
Mobility Lab
c) Resolution #4, Series of 2018 - Growth Management Annual Rollover
d) Resolution #1, Series of 2018 - Designating the Public Place for the Posting of
Notices of Public Meetings
e) Minutes - December 18, 2017
VII. Notice of Call-Up
VIII. First Reading of Ordinances
a) Ordinance #1, Series of 2018 - Aspen Meadows (845 Meadows Road) FTE Audit
Provisions, Amendment to Ordinance 17 Series of 2016
IX. Public Hearings
a) Resolution 179, Series of 2017 - Appeal of an Interpretation of the Land Use
Code - regarding the removal of an Accessory Dwelling Unit at 910 E. Cooper
Ave. Continued from December 18, 2017. TO BE CONTINUED TO February 12,
2018.
b) Resolution #8, Series of 2018 - 101 W. Main Street (Molly Gibson Lodge),
Extension of Vested Rights
X. Action Items
a) Resolution #5, Series of 2018 - Changes Orders for the Civic Space Relocation
Project - Police Department
XI. Executive Session
P1
a) C.R.S. 24-6-402(a) the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real,
personal, or other property; (b) conferences with an attorney for the local public
body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions; (e)
Determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations;
developing strategy for negotiations; and instructing negotiators - Relative to
pending litigation.
XII. Adjournment
Next Regular Meeting January 22, 2018
COUNCIL’S ADOPTED GUIDELINES
· Make Decisions Based on 30 Year Vision
· Tone and Tenor Matter
· Remember Where We’re Living and Why We’re Here
COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M.
P2
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jeff Pendarvis, Capital Asset Project Manager
THROUGH: Jack Wheeler, Capital Asset Manager
DATE OF MEMO: December 21, 2017
MEETING DATE: January 8, 2018
RE: Resolution #7, Series of 2018 - Easements for APD with Pitkin
County
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests Approval of Resolution #7 for easement agreements
between the City of Aspen and Pitkin County to serve as an operating agreement and facilitate
cost sharing for items related to the construction of the new Aspen Police Department and Pitkin
County Sherriff’s Office Facilities.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council approved the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)
for the Aspen Police Department (APD) with the Pitkin County, resolution 131, series 2016.
BACKGROUND: As part of the construction of the Aspen Police Department, the City of
Aspen entered into an IGA with Pitkin County to share in construction costs, minimize logistical
concerns and address multiple proposed easements. The City and County project teams,
including Staff have worked to negotiate two easements between the City & County. The Board
of County Commissioners (BOCC) unanimously approved the easements on both first and
second reading; December 6, 2017 and December 20, 2017, respectively.
The first easement is an access agreement; the City is granting to the County. The easement
grants the Sheriff’s Office the ability to pass through the APD garage if the primary access point
is blocked or unavailable, Exhibit I.
The second easement is a utility easement the County is granting to the APD, Exhibit II.
These easements were drafted in cooperation with the County Attorney’s Office whose
cooperative efforts in completing these documents were very helpful.
DISCUSSION: Staff requests the Council approve the attached easements.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The responsibility for cost and maintenance of easements
will be set forth in the easement agreements.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends City Council adopt the ordinance.
P3
VI.a
Page 2 of 2
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit I Access Easements
Exhibit II Utility Easements
P4
VI.a
RESOLUTION #007
(Series of 2018)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING EASEMENTS BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND COUNTY OF PITKIN
REGARDING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE PITKIN COUNTY SHERIFF AND
ADMINISTRATION FACILITY AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
SAID EASEMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council Easements for APD with
Pitkin County between the City of Aspen and Pitkin County, a true and accurate copy of which
is attached hereto as “Exhibit I” & “Exhibit II”.
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 Easements between
the City of Aspen and Pitkin County 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 8th day of January, 2018.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a
true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, at a meeting held on the 8th day of January, 2018.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P5
VI.a
P6
VI.a
P7
VI.a
P8
VI.a
P9
VI.a
P10
VI.a
P11
VI.a
P12
VI.a
P13
VI.a
P14
VI.a
P15
VI.a
P16
VI.a
P17
VI.a
P18
VI.a
P19
VI.a
P20
VI.a
P21
VI.a
P22
VI.a
P23
VI.a
P24
VI.a
P25
VI.a
P26
VI.a
P27
VI.a
P28
VI.a
P29
VI.a
P30
VI.a
P31
VI.a
P32
VI.a
P33
VI.a
P34
VI.a
P35
VI.a
P36
VI.a
P37
VI.a
P38
VI.a
P39
VI.a
P40
VI.a
P41
VI.a
P42
VI.a
P43
VI.a
P44
VI.a
P45
VI.a
P46
VI.a
P47
VI.a
P48
VI.a
P49
VI.a
P50
VI.a
P51
VI.a
P52
VI.a
P53
VI.a
P54
VI.a
P55
VI.a
P56
VI.a
P57
VI.a
P58
VI.a
P59
VI.a
P60
VI.a
P61
VI.a
P62
VI.a
P63
VI.a
P64
VI.a
P65
VI.a
P66
VI.a
P67
VI.a
P68
VI.a
P69
VI.a
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Ashley Perl, Climate Action Manager
THROUGH: Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager
DATE OF MEMO: January 2, 2018
MEETING DATE: January 8, 2018
RE: Resolution #10, Series of 2018 - Contract Extension for Fundraising
Assistance for the Mobility Lab
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests that City Council approve Resolution #010 and the
contract extension with Gordon Feller to provide continued fundraising expertise and
coordination to support the Aspen Mobility Lab.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council approved staff time and budget for Phase 1 of
the Aspen Mobility Lab at a work session on June 26, 2017, and approved additional budget
authority as part of the Supplemental Budget Ordinance (#29, Series 2017). This contract is
within allotted budget.
BACKGROUND:
This past summer, Mayor Skadron introduced the idea that the City of Aspen should conduct a
large-scale, bold experiment that would increase mobility options while decreasing the reliance
on the personal automobile in the Aspen community. After further consideration, City Council
directed staff to create a project plan and scope. Since then, City of Aspen staff have partnered
with consultants and regional groups to create a plan for the Aspen Mobility Lab. The project
team has created a comprehensive plan for the Lab that will deliver transportation options that
are competitive with the ease and speed of personal vehicles to all members of the Aspen
community, revolutionizing the way people move within the boundary of the Intercept Lot to east
of Aspen in June, July and August 2018. The Lab will be a community-wide initiative to increase
convenient mobility options, environmental sustainability, safety and quality of life in the upper
Roaring Fork Valley without a focus on adding lanes or parking spaces.
DISCUSSION:
The Aspen Mobility Lab is a complex project that requires a wide-range of expertise and a large
team of dedicated staff. The feasibility and success of the Mobility Lab is dependent on Aspen’s
ability to secure funding and support from national partners, philanthropist and mobility
providers.
P70
VI.b
Page 2 of 3
During the summer of 2017, City of Aspen staff began work with consultants, partners and
experts to plan and scope the Mobility Lab. Initial contracts were signed with consultants for
smaller amounts and for limited time periods, due to the unknown nature of the Lab. At this time,
the City of Aspen plans to continue aggressively pursuing the Lab at the full scope until January
23rd. At that time, staff will ask City Council for direction on final scope and timing of the Lab,
based on the success of fundraising efforts. In the meantime, it is necessary to keep the full
fundraising team intact and operating at full capacity to put the best efforts towards making the
Lab a reality. This requires that the City of Aspen extend existing contracts with consultants to
allow for continued work until the end of January.
Gordon Feller has been instrumental in identifying potential funders of the Lab, and has arranged
and attended fundraising meetings with City of Aspen representatives. Gordon Feller will
continue to support the Lab through coordinating fundraising efforts and arranging second and
third fundraising meetings with potential partners across the county. The City of Aspen has
benefitted greatly from working with Gordon, as his knowledge of the mobility landscape and his
connections with the major players has proven critical to fundraising efforts. This combination of
personal connections and knowledge is unique and difficult to find, especially on such a short
timeline. The City of Aspen currently has a contract with Gordon Feller for $24,700. This is a
request to increase the contract authority to allow Gordon to work additional hours as needed,
while not exceeding the overall contract amount.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
Bringing a truly innovative and comprehensive lab to Aspen will require funding most likely
between $5 and $7 million. The City of Aspen cannot provide this level of funding and must
create new partnerships and build upon existing ones to make the Mobility Lab a reality. It is
expected that the City of Aspen will need to fund a percentage of the overall project, but the goal
is to minimize the City’s contribution.
City Council has approved $350,000 for use in 2017 and for the first part of 2018. The contract
extension for an additional $11,400 (total contract amount is $36,136) is within this budgeted
amount and is a ‘not to exceed’ number.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
The Aspen Mobility Lab positively impacts numerous measures from City Council’s
Sustainability Dashboard including: Air Quality (PM levels, ozone levels); Greenhouse Gas
Emissions; Castle Creek Bridge Counts; Acres of Trails; Mass Transit Use; and Walkability and
Bike-ability Rating.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
City Council approve the contract extension and resolution #010.
ALTERNATIVES: City Council could elect to retain the status quo and not conduct a Mobility
Lab. City Council could direct staff to limit work to within the tasks that staff can accomplish
and forgo the tasks that require fundraising assistance.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Resolution #010
P71
VI.b
Page 3 of 3
Attachment B: Contract Extension
Attachment C: Scope of Work
P72
VI.b
RESOLUTION #010
(Series of 2018)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO AND GORDON FELLER, SETTING FORTH THE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE ASPEN MOBILITY LAB
FUNDRAISING ASSISTANCE.
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen is committed to maintaining a high quality of life
for residents and providing a superior visitor experience, and
WHEREAS, quality of life and experience is greatly influenced by the way
community members and visitors move into, out of, and around Aspen, and
WHEREAS, Aspen’s current mobility options are not competitive with the
personal automobile, which encourages the use of single-occupancy vehicles, and
WHEREAS, single occupancy vehicles lead to traffic, air quality and safety
concerns, and an overall reduced experience, and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen aims to experiment with new mobility services
with the hope that new mobility options can compete with the personal automobile
and provide better options for community members to move, and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen supports residents and visitors in choosing low
carbon transportation options, and
WHEREAS the City of Aspen seeks to test new modes of transportation during a
lab in the summer of 2018, and
WHEREAS to accommodate new modes of transit, the flow of traffic and parking
in downtown Aspen must be altered, and
WHEREAS these alterations to the downtown area will increase opportunities for
businesses and community vitality, and
WHEREAS project management and fundraising expertise is needed to plan the
Mobility Lab and support City of Aspen staff in making the project a success,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
P73
VI.b
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves the Contract
between the City of Aspen, Colorado and Gordon Feller that sets forth the terms
and conditions of the fundraising assistance for the Aspen Mobility Lab, a copy of
which is incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager of the
City of Aspen to execute said Contract on behalf of the City of Aspen.
Dated: January 8, 2018
______________________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held January 8, 2018.
______________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P74
VI.b
Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement
between the City of Aspen and Gordon Feller amending the original contract with an additional
statement of work and the compensation associated with the additional work through Resolution
#010, approved by City Council on January 8, 2018.
Statement of Work –
Assistance in identifying and securing sponsors and partners for the summer 2018 Aspen Mobility Lab
through the following deliverables:
- Attend meetings with City staff and hired consultants to create a fundraising strategy
- Contact possible funders and partners and arrange meetings
- Attend meetings with possible partners and funders and ‘pitch’ the lab
- Follow-up with contacts after meetings and arrange additional meetings
- Act as a liaison between the City of Aspen and possible funders
- Coach City of Aspen staff and City Council members on how to best ‘pitch’ the Lab
Compensation –
Not to exceed $36,136
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Gordon Feller:
________________________________ _________________________________
[Signature] [Signature]
By: _____________________________ By: _____________________________
[Name] [Name]
Title: ____________________________ Title: ____________________________
Date: ___________________ Date: ___________________
City Council Approval:
Date: January 8, 2018
Resolution No:010 Series 2018
P75
VI.b
Scope of Services
To City of Aspen, Aspen Mobility Lab
From Gordon Feller
1723 41st Ave
SF, CA 94122
1. Biographical info:
http://meetingoftheminds.org/speaker/gordon-feller
2. Deliverables:
Assistance in identifying and securing sponsors and partners for the summer 2018 Aspen Mobility Lab.
Gordon will support the Lab through the following deliverables:
- Attend meetings with City staff and hired consultants to create a fundraising strategy
- Contact possible funders and partners and arrange meetings
- Attend meetings with possible partners and funders and ‘pitch’ the lab
- Follow-up with contacts after meetings and arrange additional meetings
- Act as a liaison between the City of Aspen and possible funders
- Coach City of Aspen staff and City Council members on how to best ‘pitch’ the Lab
3. Expected time:
Minimum of 10 days, maximum of 19, leading up to March 1, 2018
4. Rate:
$1900/day or $237.50/hour
5. Cost: Not to exceed $36,136
P76
VI.b
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council
FROM: Phillip Supino, Principal Long-Range Planner
THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
RE: Resolution #4, Series of 2018 - Growth Management Allotment Carry-
Forward Review
DATE: January 8, 2017
___________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY:
The purpose of this memo and consent item is a review of the “unused” growth allotments
from 2017 and a decision on the amount to “carry-forward” to the 2018 development year.
The Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) outlined in LUC Section 26.470 provides
specific annual allotments for various development types in the City. The annual available
allotment for each development type is a combination of the standard annual allotment
provided in GMQS and any carry-forward allotment from the previous year.
The City’s Land Use Code specifies the annual allotments in various land use categories as
follows:
Development Type Annual Allotment
Residential — Free-Market 18 units
Commercial 33,300 net leasable square feet
Residential — Affordable Housing No annual limit
Lodging 112 pillows
Essential public facility No annual limit
Growth allotments granted in 2017 are summarized in Exhibit A. The 2017 growth
allotments include no carry-forward from 2016. The allotments received or applied for in
2017 included 60 affordable housing allotments, 231 square feet of commercial net leasable
space, 96 lodge pillows, and 9,195 square feet of Essential Public Facility space.
According to the Land Use Code, “the City Council shall determine the amount of unused
and unclaimed allotments, for each type of development, and may assign the unused
allotment to become part of the available development allotment for future projects. There is
2018 annual allotment +
discretionary
2017 carry-
forward allotment
= 2018 total development
allotments
P77
VI.c
2
no limit, other than that implemented by the City Council, on the amount of potential growth
that may be carried forward to the next year.”
In 2018, City Council may carry-forward from 2017 up to 18 free-market residential
allotments, 33,069 square feet of commercial space, and 16 lodging pillows. The Land Use
Code provides criteria for Council to consider in determining whether to carry forward
GMQS allotments. The City Council may carry forward any portion of the previous year's
unused allotment in any category, including all or none. The Land Use Code states: “The
City Council shall consider the following criteria in determining the allotments to be carried
forward:
1. The community's growth rate over the preceding five-year period.
2. The ability of the community to absorb the growth that could result from a proposed
development utilizing accumulated allotments, including issues of scale,
infrastructure capacity, construction impacts and community character.
3. The expected impact from approved developments that have obtained allotments, but
that have not yet been built.”
The specific code language, including the above criteria, can be found in Exhibit B.
Considering the above criteria, staff recommends that none of the remaining 2017 GMQS
allotments be carried forward to 2018.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends City Council approve Resolution No. 4, Series of 2018, carrying-forward
none of the unused 2017 growth management allotments.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: _________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
“I move to approve Resolution No. 4, Series of 2018.”
ATTACHMENTS:
Proposed Resolution No. 4, Series 2018
Exhibit A – Summary of 2017 growth management allotments
Exhibit B – GMQS Carry Forward Code Language and Review Criteria
P78
VI.c
1
RESOLUTION N0. 4
SERIES OF 2018
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING THE “CARRY-
FORWARD” GROWTH MANAGEMENT ALLOTMENT FROM 2017 TO 2018.
WHEREAS, pursuant to City of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.470.120, the City Council
shall review the prior year's growth summary, consider a recommendation from the Community
Development Director, and shall, via adoption of a resolution, establish the number of unused and
unclaimed allotments to be carried forward and added to the annual allotment; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to said sections and considering the following criteria, the Community
Development Director has provided a recommendation to carry-forward none of the unused growth
management allotments from 2017:
1. The community's growth rate over the preceding five-year period.
2. The ability of the community to absorb the growth that could result from a proposed
development utilizing accumulated allotments, including issues of scale, infrastructure capacity,
construction impacts and community character.
3. The expected impact from approved developments that have obtained allotments, but that have
not yet been built.
WHEREAS, on January 8, 2018 the City Council considered the recommendation by the
Community Development Director, and the above criteria and approved Resolution No. 4, Series of 2018,
by a __ to __ vote; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the decision to carry forward none of the unused growth
allotments from 2017 meets or exceeds all applicable standards and is consistent with the goals and
elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion
of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO: That the City Council carries forward none of the unused growth management
allotments from 2017 to be available in 2018.
RESOLVED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED FINALLY this 8th day of January, 2018.
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
_______________________________ _______________________________
James R. True, City Attorney Steven Skadron, Mayor
Attest:
_________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P79
VI.c
City of Aspen
Growth Management Quota System - Annual Allotments
2017
Jan. 2017 thru Dec. 2017
Annual Allotment 18 33,300 112 N/A N/A
Carry-Forward from previous year 0 0 0 N/A N/A
Total Available for Year 18 33,300 112 N/A N/A
300/312 E. Hyman Ave (approved)40
Gorsuch Haus (multi-year allotment -
112 from 2016, and 50 from 2017)50
500 W. Main Ave 0 0 0 0 0
201 E. Main St 231
834 W. Hallam St 7
533 E. Main St 9,194
122 W. Main St 6
517 Park Circle 11
802 W. Main St 10
488 Castle Creek Dr 24
210 W. Main St 8
Remaining Allotments 18 33,069 16 N/A N/A
Source: City of Aspen Community Development Department
* Note: Affordable Housing Units and Essential Public Facilities are tracked, but are not subject to code prescribed allotment caps.
NOTE: Gorsuch House is first in line to receive all 2016 allotments and 50 2017 allotments.
Free-Market Residential
Allotments
Commercial (square
feet net leasable)
Lodge
(pillows)
Affordable
Housing
Units*
Essential Public
Facilities (square
feet)*P80VI.c
P81VI.c
Exhibit B
Growth Management Carry-Forward Review
26.470.120.B, Yearly Allotment Carry-Forward Procedure:
“The City Council may carry forward any portion of the previous year's unused allotment,
including all or none. The City Council shall consider the following criteria in determining the
allotments to be carried forward:”
1. The community's growth rate over the preceding five-year period.
Staff Response: The community’s growth rate has remained fairly consistent over the
past few years. With the 2015-2016 land use moratorium, there was a slight decrease in
the number of applications for commercial project, compared to previous years. In
2017, there were a number of affordable housing and essential public facility projects
applied for and approved. With the exception of lodging pillows there have been
allotments available in all other categories when assessing the year in review. City
Council chose to not roll over the leftover allotments into 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017.
There has been no need to request multi-year allotments for free-market residential or
commercial projects for these years. Staff finds the number of yearly allotments
available to be more than sufficient for the current rate of requests and approvals.
2. The ability of the community to absorb the growth that could result from a proposed
development utilizing accumulated allotments, including issues of scale, infrastructure
capacity, construction impacts and community character.
Staff Response: Prior to the approval of growth management allotments by P&Z or
HPC, Staff is required to review the availability of public infrastructure and scale of the
development proposed. A construction management plan is created and implemented
for each project that is approved. Based on current data, staff believes there is adequate
infrastructure to accommodate new development within the code-prescribed limits.
Additionally, with the land use moratorium code amendments, the growth that can now
be applied for is more in line with the existing community character.
3. The expected impact from approved developments that have obtained allotments, but that
have not yet been built.
Staff Response: Many of the projects listed on the GMQS Annual Allotments table
(Exhibit A) are affordable housing projects that are not yet under construction. Past
years’ projects that are currently working towards a building permit, or are under
construction include: Crystal Palace, Base 1, 305/307 N Mill (Popcorn Wagon), 404
Park (affordable housing), 331-338 Midland Ave (affordable housing) Sky Hotel, Hotel
Jerome, Molly Gibson Lodge, and Hotel Aspen. At this time, Staff does not recommend
rolling over any unused 2016 Growth Management allotments.
P82
VI.c
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Linda Manning, City Clerk
DATE OF MEMO: January 2, 2018
MEETING DATE: January 8, 2018
RE: Resolution #1, 2018 – Designating the Public Place for the Posting of
Notices of Public Meetings
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Each year City Council, by resolution, must designate the public place for
posting notices for public meetings.
DISCUSSION: The Colorado Open Meeting Law Section 26-4-6-402(2)(c) states City Council is to
annually designate for each calendar year a public place for the posting of notices for meetings. By
properly designating a place for posting meeting notices, a public entity will be deemed to have given full
and timely notice of any meetings so long as the notice was posted in the designated place at least twenty-
four hours in advance of the meeting, unless otherwise provided by Statute. Notices for City Council
meetings and any other board, committee, commission, authority, or other advisory, policy-making or
rule-making board shall be posted in the designated location.
Resolution #1, Series of 2018 designates the first floor front vestibule of City Hall as the designated place
for posting meeting notices.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff is recommending approval of Resolution #1, Series of 2018
Approval of the consent calendar will adopt this resolution
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution #1, Series of 2018 – Designating the Public Place for the Posting of Notices of Public
Meetings
P83
VI.d
RESOLUTION NO. 1
(SERIES OF 2018)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
DESIGNATING THE PUBLIC PLACE FOR POSTING NOTICES OF PUBLIC MEETINGS.
WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, deems it in the public interest to
provide full and timely notices of all its meetings; and
WHEREAS, the Colorado state legislature amended the Colorado Open Meetings Laws, Section
24-6-401, et seq., C.R.S. to require “all public bodies” subject to the requirements of the law to annually
designate the place for posting notices of public hearings no less than twenty-four hours prior to the
holding of the meeting; and
WHEREAS, “local public body” is defined by Section 24-6-401(1)(a) to include “any board,
committee, commission, authority, or other advisory, policy-making, rule-making, or formally constituted
body of any political subdivision of the state and any public or private entity to which a political
subdivision, or an official thereof, has delegated a governmental decision-making function but does not
include persons on the administrative staff of local public body”.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1
A public notice of each meeting held by the City Council of the City of Aspen and each meeting
of any other board, committee, commission, authority, or other advisory, policy-making, rule-making, or
formally constituted body of the City of Aspen, shall be posted by the City Clerk at least twenty-four
hours prior to the holding of the meeting in the front vestibule of City Hall, 130 South Galena Street,
Aspen, Colorado, unless otherwise provided by Statute.
Section 2
The City Clerk shall notify each board, committee, commission, authority or other advisory,
policy-making, rule-making, or formally constituted body of the City of Aspen of the contents of this
resolution and the other general requirements of the Colorado Open Meeting Law, C.R.S., Section 24-6-
401 et seq.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 8th day of
January, 2018.
_________________________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate
copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, at a meeting held January 8, 2018.
_________________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P84
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 18, 2017
1
SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES .................................................................................................. 2
CITIZEN COMMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 2
COUNCIL COMMENTS ............................................................................................................................. 3
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ................................................................................................................ 3
REPORTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 3
CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................. 3
Resolution #174, Series of 2017 – Interpretive and wayfinding design services for the Rio Grande
Park and John Denver Sanctuary. ................................................................................................................. 4
Resolution #176 Series of 2017 – Contract Extension with Next Chapters for Mobility Lab .............. 4
Resolution #177, Series of 2017 – Wheeler and Belly Up Memo of Understanding ........................... 4
Resolution #183, Series of 2017 – Approving a Land Use Restriction Agreement with Colorado
Housing and Finance Authority to establish Income Qualification Limits for Aspen Country Inn ............. 4
Resolution #175, Series of 2017 – Contract Extension with Design Workshop for Mobility Lab ....... 4
Resolution #180 Series of 2017 – CACRA Destination Marketing Agreement ................................... 4
Resolution #181, Series of 2017 – CIGA between Pitkin County, Aspen Valley Hospital, Aspen
School District and City of Aspen for Mental Health and Substance Use Services ..................................... 4
Minutes – December 11, 2017 .............................................................................................................. 4
ORDINANCE #21, SERIES OF 2017 .......................................................................................................... 4
RESOLUTION #173, SERIES OF 2017 – 330 E Main St – Hotel Jerome – Temporary and Seasonal Use
Review .......................................................................................................................................................... 5
RESOLUTION #179, SERIES OF 2017 – Appeal of an Interpretation of the Land Use Code – regarding
the removal of an Accessory Dwelling Unit at 910 E Cooper Avenue......................................................... 5
RESOLUTION #178, SERIES OF 2017 – 834 W Hallam St – Fee Waiver Request .................................. 9
P85
VI.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 18, 2017
2
At 5:00 p.m. Mayor Skadron called the regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Myrin, Frisch and
Hauenstein present.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES
Mayor Skadron said we have a very special scheduled public appearance. Jeff Woods and Annie Denver.
Mr. Woods said he has been here 21 years and has known Annie for 20. We’ve worked on the sanctuary
for 19 years and raised over a quarter million dollars for this project. Annie said this is the conclusion to
a long term project. John died in 1997. A year later Jeff called me and said the City wanted to do
something in his name. After much thought I came up with the idea of a sanctuary inspired through
words and music. Earth, water, mountain, sky, pause, reflect and joy. It has been fantastic it has taken as
long as it has. I feel very privileged to have been part of it and worked with the parks department. I’m
here to say thank you and excited to share the next phase.
Mr. Woods said the last phase is to tell the story. 60 percent of downtowns water goes through the
sanctuary. We don’t want to pollute it with signs. We will use modern technology, apps and web base to
tell the story. Celebrating John and the environmental legacy.
Kevin Dunnett, parks, gave a shout out to staff. All the work is done in house. He is proud of all the
collaborative efforts.
Mayor Skadron said we can’t thank you enough for your generosity.
Councilman Hauenstein said he loves the sanctuary. Every time I go down there I feel that spirit.
Councilman Frisch thanked Annie for her trust and making sure we can continue to honor his spirit.
Annie said this lives in all of us, John just put words to it.
Councilman Myrin said it is a beautiful space.
Mayor Skadron questions that it is not too digital. The organic is what makes it special. Mr. Woods said
we used all native material that is pretty much all recycled. Mr. Dunnett said the digital element is one of
the challenges. We are looking at the innovative ways people are using smart technology. You will be
able to dive deeper to museum quality information.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
1. Peter Greeney said he thinks the John Denver is wonderful but wondering about the wayfinding
from the core to the park and how it relates to the civic center masterplan. Mr. Dunnett replied it
is coming. That is on the very near horizon. There will be an RFP to specifically address
wayfinding in the downtown core.
2. Mike Maple, thanked Bert for bringing up the food tax refund. He is very disappointed about the
5 dollar increase. It is offensive to the spirit of the 1970’s ordinance. He thinks council is badly
off base and the analysis and input from staff was way off base. He encouraged council last week
to truly look at the cost of affordable housing development. He continues to believe it is a critical
item. Waiver of fees from affordable housing may be appropriate but it does not make the cost
go away. It should still be a part of the project development.
Councilman Frisch said is it your opinion in 1970 the spirit and intention was to cover all the cost of
the food for a family. Mr. Maple said it seems to me it was a pretty clear deal. The city wanted the
citizens to pass a 1 percent parks and open space tax. Traditionally that did not apply to groceries. If
you agree to the other stuff the city would refund the tax on groceries. The logic has clearly been
broken for 20 years. Councilman Frisch said if there is further study to be done, I’m up for that
discussion.
3. Toni Kronberg said for resolution 181 – IGA for substance use services, she totally supports the
resolution. Resolution 174 – wayfinding within the park. The park is one of two specially
designated areas. She supports the work. Resolutions 176 and 175 for the mobility lab, she is not
sure what the 5 million will be used for.
P86
VI.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 18, 2017
3
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilman Hauenstein wished everyone a joyous holiday season. Ski Co has done a fantastic job of
making snow.
Councilman Myrin said the downtowner is now free. The City is now paying tips. If there is a way to get
a sign posted. It has a whole different feel than RFTA. He was out of town for one of the tent mitigation
items. In general, I think the city is shorting itself and the community on mitigation. I would allow the
space to mitigate for all the things it should, school, housing, then they would be fully mitigated and can
put up a tent when they want. The partial mitigation is short sighted. He would like to talk about policy
for partial mitigation. There was a suggestion from Toni to disclose what the 5 million is being spent on,
it is a valid request. He understands the hesitancy until the money is in hand. On Mike’s comments, I
think it is something to look at when it comes to council for the food tax refund.
Councilman Frisch said there are all sorts of inflation calculators. Using 7 dollars in 1970 it could be 60
to 70 dollars. The other path is how much are people really spending. If the intent was to zero out the tax
paid we can look at that too. We need to reaffirm if we want that discussion to happen in January. We
need to discuss if we want to delay for a year and come back to it. There is some type of indexing that
can be done. We are roughly in the ball park. On affordable housing, people need to realize it hits home
more than any other issue. Nothing sets our community apart from anywhere else than our affordable
housing program. When I heard there was going to be discussion about workforce and retirement I tried
to keep my head down. It was very disheartening to watch the conversation that took place. I don’t think
the discussion over the past month has been positive. He wants to reassure everyone that as long as I sit
up here I have no interest to change the program. There are a lot of great and needed discussions about
this but I think it spun out a little of control. He will continue to work on the program in front and behind
the scenes so our community remains vital for everybody.
Mayor Skadron said the city is looking for feedback on conceptual designs for the pedestrian mall. Go to
aspenpedestrianmall.com. He wished everyone a healthy, happy and safe holiday season.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
Barry Crook invited Ben Carlson from parks to speak about the Ute trail mitigation work. Mr. Carlson
said we received word from the County that they will start Ute mitigation work tomorrow morning. A
helicopter will be flying equipment and materials up there. Work will begin approx. 8:30 am on Tuesday.
Traffic will be stopped briefly on 82 to facilitate. The County anticipates the work will take 10 days.
John Peacock, county manager, said this did take more time than the county was hoping to address issues
with risk and safety. He is excited to see work beginning and get the trail back open.
BOARD REPORTS
Councilman Hauenstein said Sister Cities had a bunch of kids come in from Bariloche. Most discussed
the food. All really enjoyed the trip.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Skadron said there is a reason why things go on the consent. The reality is a huge amount of work
has been done behind the scenes. We have got in the habit of pulling every item. The point is to not do
that. Any time prior to public meetings council and the public have the opportunity to reach out to staff.
Councilman Frisch said Resolution 181 is such an important aspect to the community. He is good with
everything.
P87
VI.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 18, 2017
4
Councilman Myrin asked for Resolution 174 Rio Grande should he recuse himself. Jim True, city
attorney, replied it is not a land use approval. The restriction is only associated with land use.
Councilman Myrin asked for no nighttime wayfinding. Keep it dark at night.
Reso 181 – health and human services.
Sara Ott – Laurie Maloy, John Peackcok, Nan Sundeen,
Ms. Ott said we have been working diligently to find a way to address mental health services. This is an
exciting opportunity to provide a strong continuum of care and a great step further.
Mr. Peacock stated this has been a deliberate and considered process over the last year with a great
collection of community partners to identify opportunities to improve the continuum of mental health
services offered. Excited to be a partner.
Councilman Frisch asked how do we know / define success. Ms. Ott said we can bring back a detailed
work strategy. It is still a work in progress today but we are confident there will be strong outcome
indicators.
Councilman Hauenstein said he is fully supportive of everything in the resolution. We need to extend the
mill levy in November to extend the funding. Some of the services are going to Basalt and he would like
to see Basalt and Eagle county contribute.
· Resolution #174, Series of 2017 – Interpretive and wayfinding design services for the Rio Grande
Park and John Denver Sanctuary.
· Resolution #176 Series of 2017 – Contract Extension with Next Chapters for Mobility Lab
· Resolution #177, Series of 2017 – Wheeler and Belly Up Memo of Understanding
· Resolution #183, Series of 2017 – Approving a Land Use Restriction Agreement with Colorado
Housing and Finance Authority to establish Income Qualification Limits for Aspen Country Inn
· Resolution #175, Series of 2017 – Contract Extension with Design Workshop for Mobility Lab
· Resolution #180 Series of 2017 – CACRA Destination Marketing Agreement
· Resolution #181, Series of 2017 – CIGA between Pitkin County, Aspen Valley Hospital, Aspen
School District and City of Aspen for Mental Health and Substance Use Services
· Minutes – December 11, 2017
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. All in
favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #21, SERIES OF 2017 – 500 W. Hopkins Ave. (Boomerang Lodge), PD Amendment –
To Be Continued to January 22, 2015
Jessica Garrow, community development, said this is the continued public hearing for Boomerang and a
request to further continue. The applicant is working on changes including reducing the overall height.
The work is quite schematic and they request additional time. Staff supports this continuation with no
more.
Councilman Myrin asked what is the distinction between supporting this and not a future continuance.
Ms. Garrow said they believe they are not quite ready to produce this solution. A month should be
adequate time. She recommends they make that deadline and present it.
Councilman Hauenstein moved to continue Ordinance #21, Series of 2017 to January 22, 2018; seconded
by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried.
P88
VI.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 18, 2017
5
RESOLUTION #173, SERIES OF 2017 – 330 E Main St – Hotel Jerome – Temporary and Seasonal
Use Review
Councilman Myrin stated he received public notice via mailing so he will recuse himself.
Garrett Larimar, community development, stated this is temporary and seasonal use review for Hotel
Jerome. They are represented by Sunny Vann. The property is located in the CC zone with a PD overlay.
The proposal is separated into two items. First is for the ice lounge. It will be placed in the Mill Street
terrace. It is approximately a 12 x 12 structure, 7 foot tall and made of ice block walls. They are
requesting use through April 1, 2018. The space will be used for beverage tastings and guest services.
The second request is for more traditional special event tents. They are anticipating 37 events for 74 days
in the Main St. courtyard and the Mill St. terrace. They are requesting 5 annual recurrences. Staff has
reviewed the application and find it consistent with what you would see in a lodge, minimal impacts as
seen from the street. The materials are relatively consistent. We did have a last minute request from the
Aspen fire department. The resolution includes the updated language. They are concerned egress be
maintained for the structure on Mill St. Both the applicant and fire have agreed the language is adequate.
There was an error in the mitigation calculation. The mitigation for ice lounge should be 800 and change.
Mr. Vann said the request from the fire marshal was last minute. After looking at the terrace we are
comfortable we can preserve the required pathways. The permits are referred to fire and they will look at
it. The revised language is acceptable.
Councilman Hauenstein said he will be consistent with his other temporary use comments. He wants to
get away from using propane as a source of heat. One of our goals is to get away from fossil fuels. He
wants to move us away from propane as a source of heat. Mayor Skadron said he chatted with the St.
Regis team this weekend about this. The technology is coming. Councilman Hauenstein asked if the
mitigation is consistent with Grey Lady and Regis. Ms. Garrow replied it is.
Councilman Frisch said he is with Ward. This works for him. He is not sure if we are having more tent
chatter of late. He would like to find some time to check in with staff. If there is anything we can do at
an administrative level that would be great. Ms. Garrow said it is a worth wile check in.
Mayor Skadron agreed.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public
comment.
Tony Deluca, Hotel Jerome, said the space was built with ice and cut outs for bottles of vodka.
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Resolution #173, Series of 2017; seconded by Councilman
Hauenstein. All in favor, motion carried.
RESOLUTION #179, SERIES OF 2017 – Appeal of an Interpretation of the Land Use Code –
regarding the removal of an Accessory Dwelling Unit at 910 E Cooper Avenue
Ms. Garrow told the council this is an appeal of interpretation that was rendered in October for the
removal of an ADU. An appeal is a public hearing. In 2015 there was a code amendment for procedures
to remove ADUs. They were not used as anticipated when the program was created. Removal requires a
.38 FTE mitigation through cash in lieu or housing credit extinguishment. The code amendment did not
address when an ADU was mitigated for two units rather than a single family home. Regarding
mitigation, there was and currently are a menu of options for mitigation. When this was approved the
code allowed a larger ADU to mitigate. Typical it would have been two 300 square foot or one 600.
They chose the one 600 square foot ADU. The interpretation found since it was approved to mitigate two
units, double the FTEs were required to remove it. We acknowledge the land use code does not provide
P89
VI.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 18, 2017
6
specific direction for this scenario. There are about 10 ADUs like this. When the code does not
specifically address something it allows the Community Development director to interpret it. We looked
for guidance in the growth management code, current requirements related to removal of ADUs and
approvals for this property. There are three criteria to evaluate if an interpretation should be upheld. 1 –
due process. We do not believe due process was violated. All timelines were met. 2 – related to abuse of
discretion. We do not believe there was abuse of discretion. The land use code cannot predict every
circumstance. When the code was silent on this issue because the mitigation was physically there for two
units that extinguishment of double mitigation was required. There are two resolutions attached, one
upholds the interpretation and the other reverses it.
Applicant – Jeff Conklin and Roy Martayan
Mr. Conklin said Roy is a 17 year part time resident. He owns the property at 910 E Cooper. He filed an
application requesting an interpretation. What is the mitigation fee to remove an ADU. We read the
section of code related to ADU mitigation. Shall provide mitigation for .38 at category 2 rate prior to
removal of the unit. This can be done by a certificate of affordable housing credit or fee in lieu payment.
That is what the primary section of the code focused on. The code does not distinguish between type of
affordable housing unit. ADU and carriage house are treated similar. It does not distinguish size of ADU
or type of home mitigated for or address of property. This is a voluntary ADU created prior to ordinance
35 of 2015 that shows .38 FTE payment of category 2 rate. Looking at the code, there is nothing in there
that is ambiguous. The ADU in my clients property is voluntary created. At .38 the fee is 121,670
dollars. At the time of development, the developer had four options if developing a duplex. One was if
there was a duplex one be free market one be RO, or and ADU of 600 square feet, 2 RO units or a fee in
lieu payment. If providing an ADU you had to build one bigger than normal. We don’t disagree with the
development documents. They don’t say anything to the employee mitigation fee that must be paid. My
client was looking at purchasing the unit and part of the due diligence process he had contact with city
staff. Part of the plan was to remove the ADU. The attorney representing Mr. Martayan came to this
conclusion. There were calls to city hall and they were given this sections of the code. The interpretation
that staff has offered has no precedent. If the city had intended for double the mitigation to apply then the
site specific development options and prior code would have made some reference to that. If there is a
deficiency in the code the city has an opportunity to correct it and they have not done so. In this case it
feels like the payment required is unreasonable. We argue that the interpretation is unreasonable
therefore staff has abused its discretion.
Mayor Skadron said this wouldn’t show up in the code but was part of the purchase agreement way back.
The developer had the choice to provide 2 - 300 or 1 - 600 square foot ADUs. What is clear is there was
mitigation of 600 square feet. Ms. Garrow said the site specific approval is related to the ADU. Page 169
outlines the language from the subdivision exemption for the developer to choose one of the options. In
the history of ADUs this has been an option, to provide a larger ADU for double the mitigation. In the
regular operation of the department we often get questions as to what it takes to remove an ADU. We
recite the code language. It does not specifically site size. The minimum is 300 and maximum is 800. In
terms of this section for removing an ADU it does not talk about size. That is why we had to do an
interpretation.
Councilman Hauenstein said on page 194 of the packet, section C2 of 1990 ordinance, I see the intent for
two free market duplexes that 1 ADU be supplied. Mr. True replied correct. What you have to look at
are the approvals that occurred together with the entire ordinance. When the approval was done in 1990
there were options about free market, duplex, residential and occupied. I do recognize the current
language but looking at the ordinance and approval, page 225, the options including paying the affordable
housing impact fee. My understanding is that would have resulted in a payment of 1.2 FTEs at that time.
The 600 square foot was really intended to provide more than just what the .38 FTEs calculate to now.
To evaluate and recognize the language that exists now you have to look back at the original ordinance
and the approval and realize we were looking at the mitigation beyond .38. Had they paid the applicable
affordable housing impact fee that was set forth in the approval ordinance they would have paid for 1.2.
P90
VI.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 18, 2017
7
You have to look at all this together. Councilman Hauenstein said he thinks the intent was the ADUs
would get rented and become part of the housing inventory but there was never that stipulation. 2015
rewrite revisited the ADUs. Mr. Conklin said the code does not say subject to any site specific
development approvals. There is nothing in the code to jump from the word an to tying it in to the
manner staff has. The mitigation requirement was imposed prior to development related to a duplex lot.
It encumbers now one unit. To try to come to a different conclusion is unreasonable for someone
reviewing the code to use the word an to a link to the legislative intent from 1990. Mr. True said one
disagreement I have, recognizing his arguments, that is subject to disagreement is how many FTEs a 600
square foot unit mitigates for versus a 300 one. Mr. Conklin said the code is clear at .38. Mr. True
replied now if you used the cash in lieu number of 1.2 FTEs. Mr. Conklin said this is a unique
circumstance with no precedent that applies to very few instances.
Councilman Hauenstein said a duplex was built and the ordinance required to mitigate for the duplex. It
got assigned to one side not the other. Ms. Garrow said with an ADU it has to land somewhere and
absent any condo decs or agreement between the units it can fall to one unit down the road. Councilman
Hauenstein said it is attached to your duplex and mitigates to both sides. Ms. Garrow replied correct. Mr.
True stated removal of it means that this duplex enjoys the 600 square feet. Mr. Conklin added upon
payment of the mitigation fee.
Councilman Frisch said we’re limited under the review. What are you arguing. Mr. Conklin replied
abuse of discretion. Mr. True said it includes improper interpretation of the law. Councilman Frisch said
there was a 600 square foot ADU built not a 300. Silence is a purposeful comment. Are you saying
anything not written verbatim should be used. Either a loophole or mistake when we did this and we need
to honor it. Are you arguing an ADU is an ADU no matter how big it is. Mr. Conklin said he is not sure
if there was a mistake made. The 2015 ordinance and minutes don’t reflect if an ADU was for single
family or duplex. I think the intent was the plane language as written. Councilman Frisch said he thinks
Jessica said as it comes to duplexes it wasn’t a point the city was focusing on at the time. Ms. Garrow
said there are approximately 10 of these and I don’t think they came up as part of the review.
Councilman Frisch said looking at this through the lens that the ADU there was to mitigate for two.
There was the option to do one. We cannot come up with every situation and I don’t think silence is
intentional. Mr. Martayan said the burden has changed after I purchased the property. I was given one
number by the planner of the day and now it has changed. Councilman Frisch said you agree with that.
Ms. Garrow said she is not sure what those conversations were. We do keep track of the calls we get.
We don’t have any documentation that shows what the conversation was for this property. Often we get
calls saying I have an ADU what does it take to get rid of it. The last time there was a red flag raised.
Councilman Frisch said if it happened as the applicant says would it change your interpretation. Ms.
Garrow replied no, we have a disclaimer that we may lack information or miss something. We strive for
this not to happen. Mr. True said the concept of detrimental reliance is significantly different than this.
We have taken the position that a call to the planner of the day is not adequate to provide information that
someone can rely upon. We try to have it be as best as we can. The detrimental reliance is not in front of
you but is this an abuse of discretion because staff has incorrectly interpreted the code. Mr. Conklin said
the plain language of the code says an ADU or carriage house. Councilman Frisch asked if someone
sends an email and specifically say I have an ADU at 910 Sesame Lane can you confirm it and someone
replies back its .38. Does that change the question. Mr. True said we try very hard to provide disclaimers
if someone is seeking opinions in an email without going through proper process. There is a circumstance
we recognize someone can properly rely on those brief opinions. Without going through a formal process
we are clear about not relying on it.
Councilman Myrin said it is always a challenge when duplexes are condominimized to figure out what
goes with what unit. It is something that may be questioned when there is an ADU attached to one side. I
think staff’s conclusion was reasonable. It is one step looking further than just one piece of the duplex
but the whole property. As Jim pointed out paying the impact fee at the time would represent more. He
is leaning towards staff that they did not abuse discretion.
P91
VI.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 18, 2017
8
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public
comment.
Mayor Skadron said Roy, I feel for you. Mr. Martayan said there is a problem with the code and it does
not address this situation. Mayor Skadron said when you use the word capricious do you mean obsolete.
Mr. Conklin said it is the legal standard phrase. Mr. True added it is a common phrase used in the legal
world. If you conclude that staffs interpretation of the code is incorrect than the court would view that as
an abuse of process. Mayor Skadron said in issues like this I consider intent and fairness to the program.
We are here to protect the principals of the community plan. The intention is clearly to deliver 600 square
feet of mitigation. That is a serious deal to us. I think that staff using ordinance 1 of 1990 as the basis of
the interpretation was not arbitrary but rightly considered. They did approach this correctly. At this point
I think that staff acted reasonably and don’t agree the interpretation was an abuse of discretion.
Mr. Conklin said say this was a 1980 approval and hypothetically if one of the options was to construct a
600 square foot ADU amongst a four plex. Mr. True said he is not comfortable asking hypothetical
question. Councilman Frisch said his thought is 2 - 600 square foot units would have been built. There
was an option at the time to do one big unit with the assumption that would be twice the many workers
living there. It makes me uncomfortable when we have to go to the small print and say we have this
disclaimer. If we use it too much it questions our credibility. I also don’t want to discourage staff from
giving advice. We have to balance this. The concern I have is regardless of what happens tomorrow we
are going to update this wording to capture the duplex stuff. The fact we will clarify that ASAP and there
is some version of .38 it gives me pause to stand behind the program and staff but worry we kind of made
a boo boo. Not that silence is purposeful but we try really hard to capture everything. I’m sympathetic to
the discussion it was an ADU.
Mr. Conklin said the plain language of the code says an ADU. If the city had wanted to include or
distinguish between different types of ADU based on size there was an opportunity to include that in the
code and it is not there.
Councilman Hauenstein said he does not think there was anything arbitrary. I think your logic was good.
The way I’m reading the 1990 ordinance is that .38 would have been what the mitigation should be and
that’s what fair. You are getting the benefit of the 600 square feet. I think that .38 was the intent of the
1990 ordinance. I’m in favor of overturning Ms. Garrow.
Councilman Myrin said he completely disagree. Option are for a duplex dwelling unit. It is reasonable to
assume these options are for both sides. It was speaking about a duplex. Each option is focused on half
of the duplex. If the agreement between the owners is not clear it is not the city’s responsibility to figure
it out. All we care about is the total for the housing units provided. The argument Jim made earlier
resonated with me. Payment would have been for a higher amount at 1.2. It seems reasonable the
affordable housing is for a duplex not for one side of the duplex. Mr. Conklin said the way I look at it is
the approval says single family or duplex, if you build a duplex the ADU just needs to be bigger.
Councilman Myrin said it comes down to interpretation.
Councilman Frisch said he firmly believe this ADU was built to honor both sides and two units of an
ADU. My issue is not a lack of clarity of the mitigation. It is not an accident it is twice the size to
mitigate for. I think we made some mistakes in the wording of the ordinance and some type of advice
was offered. I think we need to own up to that. Regardless of how this plays out do you see clarifying
this. Ms. Garrow said there is a work session in January and staff can include this if council wishes.
Councilman Myrin moved to adopt Resolution #179, Series of 2017 to affirm the interpretation; seconded
by Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, no; Myrin, yes; Hauenstein, no; Mayor
Skadron, yes.
P92
VI.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 18, 2017
9
Two to two vote. Mr. True said unless someone wants to change position you have to continue this.
Mayor Skadron said he thinks we should continue this. If you want to work on a third option in the
meantime. Mayor Skadron moved to continue Resolution #178, Series of 2017 to January 8, 2018;
seconded by Councilman Myrin. All in favor, motion carried.
RESOLUTION #178, SERIES OF 2017 – 834 W Hallam St – Fee Waiver Request
Justin Barker, community development, said this is a request for several fee waivers for a project that has
already been approved. They are close to submitting for a building permit. The project is 100 percent
affordable housing. There is a historic structure on site. The proposal includes restoration of that and two
new structures. Fees requested waived include impact, TDM and air quality and parks. They total just
around 24,000 dollars. There are no review criteria for waivers of these fees. Staff provided a number of
examples of waivers in the past. For the most part they have not been granted. Other fees include
planning review fee of $1,300 and building permit fees. The estimation is based on project valuation and
are right around 120,000 of fees asked to be waived. Staff recommends if council is interested in
reducing fees to follow the non-profit waiver. Waiving planning application fees and permit fees top out
at 15,000 dollars.
Patrick Rawley, Stan Clauson associates, with Matt Brown. Under the code the only criteria is, is it a 100
percent affordable housing project. This has been a very lengthy approval process stretching back to
March 2015. There have been a number of limitations. We started out with 25 beds and are now down to
18. They are rental units per APCHA request. Remodeling the historic cabin is a unique expense. The
waiver is in the code and an opportunity for council to show their value of affordable housing. Matt is a
local guy here developing. Mr. Brown said as a developer I understand the expenses and risks of
development. I am approaching my fourth year of ownership of the property. It was always intended for
it to be affordable housing. I was not expecting the amount of time it took to get here. We are now ready
to submit for a building permit. Permit fees have grown exponentially since we started. A large part of
the incentive for this type of project is fee in lieu but it has not keep up with other costs of the project.
Another major cost has been the ongoing cost of carrying the property.
Councilman Myrin said you said the fees increased significantly. Do you know what the fees would have
been. Ms. Garrow said the fees haven’t changed on the permit side. They are based off of valuation. She
is not sure what they might have been.
Councilman Frisch asked what is the comment about non-profit. Mr. Barker said last year a fee structure
was created for the non-profit applications. For permits it is a tiered structure. There is a template in
place we could follow. Ms. Garrow said as far as we can tell other affordable housing projects have not
had a fee reduction on the permit side. Last year we had a request for the Historical Society which
prompted the non-profit structure.
Councilman Hauenstein said he is appreciative of your efforts in building affordable housing. He thinks
that AH/work force hosing has impacts on society, school district, fire and water. As one of the members
of the public we have to look at the whole cost of development. Work force housing, the fees should be
charged. He is not in support of waiving them. We demonstrated it on 455, 502 and Main St. I think it
should be the policy of council that we don’t waive the fees even though I’m supportive of your effort.
Mr. Rawley said they would be happy with any waiver and a waiver of the application fee would be
helpful. He would like council to consider some portion of the waiver.
Councilman Frisch said if someone shows up to start the process to build something is there a different
path for free market or affordable housing. Mr. Barker said in terms of review process and fees it is the
same. Councilman Frisch said his pitch with the historic society was there should be a set fee so we don’t
have to pick how valuable a non-profit is. It is a little funny if two applications show up, one with the
P93
VI.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 18, 2017
10
community being desperate for, it seems crazy we are not trying to do something to help the process.
There is a policy discussion and I am definitely for some kind of path whether it be financial or not.
Would I be willing to start that now. My hope is council and staff can come up with a policy for
affordable housing. We had the discussion about 517 and 802 and if we do something for Matt we held
ourselves to a higher power. The view up here was we were shifting funds between ourselves. Are you
thinking the 50 percent could be a possible outcome. Mr. Barker said it is an existing model that is not
unreasonable. The permit fees cap out at 15,000. In terms of impact fees there is no model on reducing
those fees other that what has been requested in the past. Ms. Garrow said there is also the permit review.
There is no policy looking at the fee schedule. There is no ability for the Community Development
director or city manager to reduce those fees. We can provide an expedited path for permit review.
Caution that if you decide to move forward with a reduction you will see other affordable housing
developers in here asking for the same treatment. Councilman Frisch said his direction would be to hold
off on the waiver until a broader policy discussion but if there is a reduction we apply it to this
application. Ms. Garrow said we would ask that for any application in the process. Councilman Frisch
said there should be a fee brake but he wants a broader discussion. He would like them to be
grandfathered.
Mayor Skadron said what component of the overall development is the historic cabin. Mr. Rawley
replied 1,100 square feet out of 5,400 square feet of FAR. Mayor Skadron said generally I don’t
subscribe to fee waivers. I think Wards position is the right one. I find the inclusion of the historic cabin
compelling. Through AspenModern we are regularly in the discussion of fee waivers. Should we
consider the inclusion of the historic structure. Ms. Garrow said this is a designated structure through the
Victorian program. One of the benefits is a waiver of certain impact fees. That calculation is for the non-
historic portion. Mayor Skadron said that was going to be my proposal. He is not hearing support for the
fee waivers. Mr. Brown said I understand that and knew it was a possibility coming in. It is a tough
situation in terms of how much you incentivize to build these and that is for you to determine. From our
standpoint we don’t pay anything less for development. It is the same as if building commercial or any
entity.
Councilman Myrin said he thinks there are some policy discussions that council should have going
forward. We need to make the code and fees align with our policies.
Councilman Frisch said either we wing this or save it for a policy discussion and grandfather them in. I
think that is the best thing to do.
Mr. Rawley asked for the 1,300 dollar fee waived. Councilman Myrin said he would support that.
Councilman Hauenstein said he is not sure how we deny the resolution but approve the waiver. Ms.
Garrow said we would have to amend the resolution to include the waiver of 1,300 and no other.
Councilman Myrin moved to adopt Resolution #178, Series of 2017 with the 1,300 dollar waiver only;
seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Hauenstein, yes; Myrin, yes;
Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried
At 8:40 p.m.; Councilman Hauenstein moved to adjourn; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor,
motion carried.
Linda Manning,
City Clerk
P94
VI.e
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council
THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 845 Meadows Road, Aspen Meadows Reception Building
First Reading of Ordinance #1, Series of 2018, amending Ordinance #17, Series of
2016
DATE: January 8, 2018
____________________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT: Aspen Institute
REPRESENTATIVE:
Jim Curtis
LOCATION:
845 Meadows Road
CURRENT ZONING:
Academic, PD
SUMMARY:
The Applicant recently received approval for a
one story addition to the Aspen Meadows
Reception Building. The addition is currently
under construction.
The Applicant requests Council amend a
condition of the land use approval having to do
with the number of employees serving the
building prior to the addition. This number
will be the baseline against which employees
serving the building after the remodel will be
compared. Any increase could result in a
requirement for affordable housing mitigation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals:
• Amendment to Ordinance #17, Series of 2016 to change the pre-development FTEs (Full-Time
Equivalent employees) stated from 16.58 to 17.80.
BACKGROUND:
During the 2015/2016 review process for the expansion to the Aspen Meadows Reception Center, the
Aspen Institute, an Essential Public Facility, received Growth Management approval from City Council.
The approval allowed deferral of any affordable housing mitigation unless an audit, to be conducted three
years after Certificate of Occupancy indicates that mitigation is appropriate. Ordinance #17, Series of 2016
P95
VIII.a
2
Sec. 26.470.090.4. Essential public facilities. The development of an essential public facility, upon a
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the
City Council based on the following criteria:
a. The Community Development Director has determined the primary use and/or structure to be an essential public
facility (see definition). Accessory uses may also be part of an essential public facility project.
b. Upon a recommendation from the Community Development Director, the City Council may assess, waive or
partially waive affordable housing mitigation requirements as is deemed appropriate and warranted for the purpose of
promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals. The employee generation rates may be used as a
guideline, but each operation shall be analyzed for its unique employee needs, pursuant to Section 26.470.100, Calculations.
c. The applicant has made a reasonable good-faith effort in pursuit of providing the required affordable housing
through the purchase and extinguishment of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit.
d. The proposal furthers affordable housing goals, and the fee-in-lieu payment will result in the near-term production
of affordable housing units.
The City Council may accept any percentage of a project's total affordable housing mitigation to be provided through a fee-
in-lieu payment, including all or none. Unless otherwise required by this Title, the provision of affordable housing mitigation
via a fee-in-lieu payment for 0.25 FTEs or less shall not require City Council approval.
Staff Response: Staff and HPC recommend Council adopt APCHA’s conditions for a three year audit, with mitigation for
any new employees to be provided at a rate proportionate to the new square footage above and beyond the 1991 approval.
stated the number of Full Time Equivalent Employees associated with the structure prior to remodel was
16.58 FTE’s. That figure was based on the Institute’s documentation of the time of land use application
submittal in December 2015. The applicant would like to amend the Ordinance to reflect the FTE’s staffing
the Reception Center at permit issuance in August 2017. This requires a review by City Council, including
First and Second Reading of the amended Ordinance.
STAFF EVALUATION:
The Aspen Meadows was deemed an Essential Public Facility in the 1991 Specially Planned Area
approval granted by City Council. The SPA included a vision for anticipated expansions to the facility
which would unfold over approximately 20 years. The approval exempted all of that development from
Growth Management competition and scoring and from any affordable housing mitigation.
The Reception Center project was determined to exceed the 1991 approval by 781 to 1,250 square feet
depending on the final size of a basement being constructed below the entire Reception Center. The
applicant represented that the project was not an expansion of operations, but rather relocating their
guests from multiple informal dining areas into one venue. APCHA recommended an audit three years
after Certificate of Occupancy as the best ways to evaluate employee increases.
During land use review, the Institute provided documentation of employee hours logged for food service
and translated that into FTEs by dividing the total hours by 2,080 hours, the standard for full-time
employment. Additional hours and therefore additional employees were recorded in 2016, leading up to
the start of construction.
The GMQS criteria and staff response provided in the Council memo on July 25, 2017 was as follows:
P96
VIII.a
3
Staff finds that the applicant’s request to accurately reflect employment just before construction
commenced is acceptable, meets the review criteria for evaluation of an essential public facility, and is
consistent with the initial staff recommendation. The applicant’s proposed wording change to the 2016
condition to state, “17.80 FTEs for food service employees based on the 2016 Calendar year operations
shall be the FTE baseline for the Employee Audit to be conducted three (3) years after a Certificate of
Occupancy is issued fir the projects. The three (3) year audit shall be based on the first full calendar
year of operation after a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the project. The 17.80 FTEs shall be
approved by APCHA.”
Staff believes this introduces language that might change the original intent, and therefore recommends
alternative wording to simply clarify the condition to read:
6.2 Prior to building permit issuance, backup documentation shall be provided to APCHA relating to
the current 16.58 FTE level for the food service. 17.80 FTEs for food service employees based on the
2016 Calendar Year operations shall be the FTE baseline for the Employee Audit.
Ordinance Amendments are at the sole discretion of Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request to amend Ordinance #17, Series of 2016, increasing the FTE’s
prior to construction of the approved project from 16.58 to 17.08.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
“I move to approve Ordinance #1, Series of 2018 on First Reading and set a public hearing date for
February 12, 2018.”
EXHIBITS:
A. Ordinance #17, Series of 2016
B. Council minutes from July 25, 2016
C. Application
P97
VIII.a
Ordinance #1, Series 2018
Page 1 of 3
ORDINANCE #1
(SERIES OF 2018)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE #17, SERIES OF 2016, RELATED
TO 845 MEADOWS ROAD, ASPEN MEADOWS RECEPTION CENTER, LOT 1-A,
ASPEN MEADOWS SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
PARCEL ID: 2735-121-29-008
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from The Aspen
Institute, represented by Curtis and Associates, requesting approval of an amendment to
Ordinance #17, Series of 2016; and,
WHEREAS, the application relates to the Aspen Meadows Reception Center, which is zoned
Academic/PD and which is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and
Structures; and,
WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the
Community Development Department recommended in favor of the proposed amendment; and,
WHEREAS, City Council may, at its sole discretion, amend an ordinance during a duly noticed
public hearing after considering comments from the general public, and a recommendation from
the Community Development Director; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under
the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered
the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public
comment at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, on January 8, 2018, the Aspen City Council passed this Ordinance on First Reading
by a __ to __ (__ to __) vote; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February 12, 2018, the City Council
approved this Ordinance, by a ____ to ____ (_ – _) vote, adopting an amendment to Ordinance #17,
Series of 2016; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable
development standards; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion
of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN AS FOLLOWS:
P98
VIII.a
Ordinance #1, Series 2018
Page 2 of 3
Section 1: Ordinance Amendment (Ordinance #17, Series of 2016)
Section 6.2 of Ordinance #17, Series of 2016 is hereby amended and shall read as follows. Section
6.1 is restated, but it unchanged.
Section 6: Growth Management, Essential Public Facility
Growth Management approval for expansion of this Essential Public Facility is
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Three years after Certificate of Occupancy, an employee audit shall be
conducted showing the current FTE food service employee count at that time. The
auditor and audit will be reviewed and approved by APCHA. Any costs associated
with the audit will be at the expense of the applicant.
If additional FTE food service employees are shown at that time, related only to the
floor area square footage of the expansion that exceeds the floor area permitted in
the Aspen Meadows SPA as described in Section 4 above, then mitigation may be
required. If additional FTE food service employees are generated and mitigation is
required, the mitigation shall be calculated at 60% of the additional FTE food
service employees and then the pro rata share based on the square footage floor area
of the expansion that exceeds the floor area permitted in the SPA divided by the total
square footage of the floor area of the expansion as described in Section 4 above.
Said square footage floor areas shall be determined at the time of Building Permit
submittal and depicted on the approved Building Permit plans as required in Section
4 above.
Only those employees that are a result of the improvements shall be subject to
future mitigation. The Housing Authority shall request the audit from the Aspen
Institute. Failure to request the audit shall not render any of the approvals invalid.
The Institute shall provide the Housing Authority and the Community
Development Department with the audit report. The Housing Authority and
Community Development shall forward the audit to the Housing Board, P&Z
and/or City Council for review, as applicable.
2. 17.80 FTEs for food service employees based on the 2016 Calendar Year
operations shall be the FTE baseline for the Employee Audit.
Section 2: Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 3: Existing Litigation
P99
VIII.a
Ordinance #1, Series 2018
Page 3 of 3
This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4: Approvals
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before
City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be
complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 5: Public Hearing
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 12th day of February, 2018, at a meeting of
the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall,
Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall
be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the 8th day of January, 2018.
Attest:
__________________________ ____________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of _____________, 2018.
Attest:
__________________________ ___________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
Approved as to form:
___________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
P100
VIII.a
P101
VIII.a
P102
VIII.a
P103
VIII.a
P104
VIII.a
P105
VIII.a
P106
VIII.a
P107
VIII.a
P108
VIII.a
P109
VIII.a
P110
VIII.a
P111
VIII.a
P112
VIII.a
P113
VIII.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 25, 2016
6
Councilwoman Mullins moved to read Ordinance #19, Series of 2016; seconded by Councilman Frisch.
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 19
SERIES OF 2016)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT – PROJECT REVIEW ALLOWING FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE 300
BUILDING OF THE ASPEN ALPS SUBDIVISION FOR THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED
IN EXHIBIT A TO THIS ORDINANCE, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 700 UTE AVENUE, BUILDING
300 OF THE ASPEN ALPS, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #19, Series of 2016 on first reading; seconded by
Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Myrin, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor
Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #18, SERIES OF 2016 – Amending Chapter 26.222 Administrative Hearing Officer
Section of the Land Use Code
Councilwoman Mullins moved to read Ordinance #18, Series of 2016; seconded by Councilman Frisch.
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 18
SERIES OF 2016)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER
26.222 – ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER, OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #18, Series of 2016 on first reading; seconded by
Councilman Myrin. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Myrin, yes; Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor
Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #17, SERIES OF 2016 – 845 Meadows Road, Aspen Meadows Reception Center
Planned Development Project Review and Growth Management Essential Public Facility Review, and
Call Up of HPC Conceptual Design Review
Amy Simon, community development, said this is for planned development review and growth
management review for an essential public facility. The main goal is to expand the dining and reception
areas. Currently there is one seat for each lodge room and they would like to double that. When fully
booked they need to use a number of facilities on the campus. The 1991 SPA approval allowed the
expansion for the institute and music associates. Since 1991 most of the ideas in the plan have been
realized. Looking back on the property records it was determined they were 780 square feet short for this
proposal. Is that appropriate and what mitigation is required. The amended ordinance Section 4 –
dimensional requirements includes revised language. The architects are worried the basement expansion
is too expensive and would reduce it but due to the calculations it would actually increase the floor area.
The proposed revision in the ordinance change the approved expansion from 781 to 1,250 square feet.
The range is only for the basement. The ordinance also talks about parking. The garage was required for
approval and currently there are more spaces than required. Section 5 architectural design. Most of the
addition is on top of the existing patio. HPC was in favor of the patio. They had some concerns of how it
would be connected and the mechanical but those were worked out. They are concerned with the
pedestrian bridge. They want it reviewed at final. The applicant wants Council to make that decision.
Staff recommends Council let HPC make that decision. For growth management the entire 83,140 square
feet of development rights were approved exempt from growth management mitigation for affordable
housing in 1991. This goes a little above those rights. APCHA recommends an audit. They said they
have never required mitigation as a result of an audit. Section 7- engineering, needs to be sensitively
designed as it encroaches into very steep slopes on the back of the project. The applicant has worked with
parks and engineering on traffic calming and trails. They are also looking at the overflow parking for
P114
VIII.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 25, 2016
7
Meadows Road. Section 10 – environmental health. The applicant is going to start to voluntarily do
compositing. Staff recommendation is that Council approves and lets HPC make the final decision on
the pedestrian bridge.
Councilwoman Mullins said she is out at the institute every other week giving tours of the grounds but it
will not influence her decision.
Jim Curtis, representing the institute along with Jeff Berkus, Cindy Buniski, Becky Ward and Judd Hawk.
Mr. Curtis said they are fine with the ordinance as written and are not seeking Council to grant an
approval on the bridge. They don’t want to create a tug of war with HPC. They are fine with the
employee audit and the mitigation language.
When the reception center was built in 1958 there were 48 lodging units with a capacity of about 100
people. There was a dining facility that could handle around 100 people. Lodging and dining was in
balance. Since then the lodging has increased to 98 units. At two people per room, the need to feed has
increased from 100 to 200 people. The need to keep the dining and lodging in balance is still the same.
On the pedestrian bridge, at the May 11th HPC meeting I don’t think I did a very good job explaining why
it is important to the institute. We do have a modified design we are comfortable with that maintains the
integrity of the concrete “Ts”.
Councilwoman Mullins asked if the 781 square feet will all be in the basement. Mr. Curtis said no.
Including the basement it is what is over the 1991 approvals. They would prefer to do a full basement to
maximize the subgrade storage space. It is very expensive space. If they only excavate under the new
pavilion and make a connecting tunnel it would change the subgrade FAR. Depending where budget
comes we are trying to figure out what we can afford subgrade.
Jeff Berkus stated this needs to be a subordinate element to the historic asset. It is light, airy and of
concrete construction. He showed illustrations of the proposed addition. The bridge will allow the
removal of the stair. He showed images of the original bridge proposed to HPC and the modified design
they will propose back to HPC.
Councilwoman Mullins asked what are we weighing in on. Ms. Simon replied the planned development,
growth management and the call up question.
Councilman Daily said he very much likes the design. It makes sense for HPC to make the final call on
the bridge. He is supportive of the application.
Councilman Frisch said he agrees with Councilman Daily. It is a thoughtful design. He is happy to let
the bridge be worked out at HPC. It will be a great addition to the institute and the community.
Councilman Myrin thanked them for the model. He asked if there is a math problem on the parking. Ms.
Simon said there is one space per 1,000 square feet of new commercial are. They are not generating a
round number. They should round up to a whole number. Councilman Myrin asked is there space in the
garage for it. Ms. Simon said they have converted some of the spaces to storage over the years but have
undone it. Now they have more parking then they need. Councilman Myrin asked if there is a math
problem on the housing if they were not a public facility. Ms. Simon said it will be complicated.
Normally we will figure out how many employees will be generated for the new square footage and take
60 percent of that. In this case we need to isolate any mitigation that is caused only by the new addition.
It is only for food service employment.
Councilwoman Mullins said she supports what you are doing on the parking and the design is great. They
are setting a precedent with the audit. It is appropriate with this building. She would support the 44 inch
wide bridge but would leave that up to HPC to decide.
P115
VIII.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 25, 2016
8
Mayor Skadron said there is concurrence to let HPC approve the bridge. For essential public facility, the
781 square feet is in excess of the 1991 approvals. Ms. Simon replied yes. Mayor Skadron asked do the
1991 approvals take into account sub grade space. Ms. Simon stated they do not. Mayor Skadron asked
when the red line ordinance was worked out. Ms. Simon said mid-week last week. Mayor Skadron asked
what is the Staff recommendation. Ms. Simon stated to adopt the ordinance.
Councilman Myrin said the red line happened mid-week, why. Ms. Simon said there was concern over
the increased construction costs and the audit. Councilman Myrin asked how does this provide less costs.
Ms. Simon said in Section 4 the 781 square foot could expand up to 1,250. This allows the basement to
be smaller.
Mayor Skadron opened public comment.
1. Cindy Buniski said on the lower level storage they would like to proceed if at all possible. The
goal is to keep the storage. They appreciate consideration on this. It is an important building that
has not had a major revamp.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
Councilman Myrin said it seems odd we have a code with a math problem for parking. We have a
housing system in place that eliminates the need for it. Labeling it an essential public facility or by doing
an audit we have multiple mechanisms to do away with it. We treat parking so highly. He said it bothers
him and he would like to see for the 781 the typical applied for housing. He is not sure there is anything
important enough to not have housing at the 60 percent.
Councilwoman Mullins said the housing is targeting the employer and the parking is requiring the user.
The number of employees is staying the same. I don’t see there is something actually wrong with the
code.
Councilman Frisch said the whole reason we have the number is so we don’t get in to the value
judgement. Councilman’s Myrin point is we put a hierarchy needs over a category of buildings of
essential public facilities of measuring a different way. Those have superseded some community values.
What benefit does an essential public facility get.
Councilwoman Mullins said she understands the need for affordable housing. She does not think we are
way off the track by approving this. Councilman Myrin said we may not be way off the track by
approving this but we are by approving one after another after another. All I’m asking is just because it is
labeled an essential public facility doesn’t mean the employees go away.
Councilman Frisch said he is supportive of the ordinance staying as written. Under the moratorium we
are looking at double counting and maybe we can look at this.
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt the redlined version of Ordinance #17, Series of 2016; seconded by
Councilman Daily.
Councilman Myrin said he will vote against this because of his concern of the housing.
Roll call vote. Councilmembers Daily, yes; Mullins, yes; Myrin, no; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes.
Motion carried.
RESOLUTION #91, SERIES OF 2016 – 108 Maple Lane, Variance
Justin Barker, community development, told the Council this is a variance request submitted by Leslie
Curly for her property at 108 Maple Lane. It is a 450 square foot lot part of the Smuggler subdivision and
zoned R3 with a PD overlay. There is an existing residence on the lot and the proposal is to replace it
with a new development. The request is for a set back variance. Light wells are only permitted if two
P116
VIII.a
P117
VIII.a
P118
VIII.a
P119
VIII.a
P120
VIII.a
P121
VIII.a
P122
VIII.a
P123
VIII.a
P124
VIII.a
P125
VIII.a
P126
VIII.a
P127
VIII.a
P128
VIII.a
P129
VIII.a
P130
VIII.a
P131
VIII.a
P132
VIII.a
P133
VIII.a
P134
VIII.a
P135
VIII.a
P136
VIII.a
P137
VIII.a
P138
VIII.a
P139
VIII.a
P140
VIII.a
P141
VIII.a
P142
VIII.a
P143
VIII.a
P144
VIII.a
P145
VIII.a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council
FROM: Ben Anderson, Planner
THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
RE: A Continued Public Hearing from December 18, 2017 for the Appeal of an
Interpretation related to mitigation required for the removal of an ADU
established to mitigate for both units of a duplex.
MEETING
DATE: January 8, 2018
At the regular meeting of City Council on December 18, 2017, a motion to affirm the Community
Development Director’s Interpretation in response to an Appeal, through Resolution No. 179, Series of
2017, resulted in a two to two (2 - 2) vote (Council Member Mullins was not present at the meeting on
December 18th). A second motion was made to continue the hearing to January 8th (motion carried by
a four to zero (4 - 0) vote). The applicant is not available to be present at the January 8th meeting and
has requested a further continuation to the regular meeting on February 12th.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Council continue the application to February 12,
2018 to allow the applicant to be present for the continued hearing.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
“I move to continue Resolution No. 179, Series of 2017 to February 12, 2018.”
CITY MANAGER
COMMENTS:_______________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
P146
IX.a
101 E. Main St. / Extension of Vested Property Rights
City Council Hearing – January 8, 2018
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council
FROM: Garrett Larimer, Planner Technician
THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
RE: Extension of Vested Rights Request – Molly Gibson Lodge, 101 W.
Main St., Resolution No. 008, Series of 2018
MEETING DATE: January 8, 2018
APPLICANT: Haymax Lodging, LLC,
605 W Main St., Suite 2, Aspen, CO
81611
REPRESENTATIVE: Stan Clausen
Associates, Inc., 412 N Mill Street,
Aspen, CO 81611
LOCATION: 101 W. Main Street
CURRENT ZONING: Mixed Use (MU)
and Residential R-6 with a Lodge
Preservation and Planned Development
Overlay
SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking an
extension of vested rights as approved
by Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2015,
which allows for the redevelopment of
the hotel, the development of two single
family residences, and the replacement
of one on-site affordable housing unit.
The applicant is requesting a twenty-
four (24) month extension, extending the
vesting from June 24, 2018 until June 24, 2020. The
applicant is requesting the extension to allow for the
sequencing of construction with the Hotel Aspen.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending
the City Council approve the applicant’s request for
a twenty-four (24) month extension of vested rights
originally approved by Ordinance 3, Series of 2015.
The extension would allow the Molly Gibson Lodge
to sequence construction with the Hotel Aspen,
which would reduce the impact of construction
along Main Street and help maintain the lodging
base in the community.
Proposed Image of the Molly Gibson Lodge
REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL: The applicant is requesting a twenty-four (24) month extensions of
vested rights as approved by Ordinance 3, Series of 2015 in accordance with Chapter
26.308.010.C, Extension or Reinstatement of Vested Property Rights, of the Land Use Code.
City Council is the final review authority.
P147
IX.b
101 E. Main St. / Extension of Vested Property Rights
City Council Hearing – January 8, 2018
Page 2 of 3
LOCATION/BACKGROUND:
The Molly Gibson Lodge Planned Development and Subdivision includes two lots. The land use
review for the redevelopment of both lots was finalized in 2015. Lot 1 is approved to be
redeveloped to contain a sixty-eight (68) unit lodge, one free-market residential unit, and one
affordable housing unit. Lot 2 is approved to contain two free market single-family residences.
The Historic Preservation Commission reviewed and approved Resolution No. 35, Series of 2014
which granted Major Development Conceptual Approval, Growth Management, Conceptual
Commercial Design Approval and provided a recommendation to City Council to grant Project
Review Approval and Subdivision Approval. City Council approved the project via Ordinance
No. 3 (Series of 2015).The HPC also approved Resolution No. 18, Series of 2015 which granted
Major Development Final Approval, Final Commercial Design Approval and Planned
Development, Detailed Review Approval for a site-specific development plan for the Molly
Gibson Lodge. The Final Plat of the Molly Gibson Lodge Planned Development and Subdivision
was recorded at Book 115, Page 1, on July 21, 2016.
The ownership group also owns the Hotel Aspen, which received redevelopment approval in
2014. The applicant indicated the Hotel Aspen is the priority project and they anticipate
submitting a building permit in May 2018, and construction to begin April 2019. They hope to
re-open the Hotel Aspen in October 2020.
CURRENT REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting an extension of the vested rights associated with the property, which
are set to expire on June 24, 2018, for an additional twenty-four (24) months.
STAFF FINDINGS: Staff has reviewed the applicant’s request against the relevant review criteria
and finds the following:
Since approval was granted, the applicant has recorded the Final Plat documents. The applicant
has also indicated they have pursued financing for the project and continue to work with
consultants. The Hotel Aspen is the priority project for the ownership group, and received
redevelopment approval prior to the Molly Gibson Lodge. It stands to reason they begin
construction on that project first.
Staff believes it is in the best interest of the community to stagger construction so both properties
aren’t under construction at the same time. The current construction schedule calls for an
eighteen (18) month construction period for the Hotel Aspen. If both projects were happening at
the same time, the disruption to traffic along Main Street, at a busy intersection, would be
disruptive to the community for up to eighteen (18) months. An extension of vested rights would
help to minimize the disruption to traffic and the community at this location.
Staff also believes it is important to maintain the lodging base in town during the redevelopment
of these properties, especially in this lodging category. Extending the current vested rights would
allow the Molly Gibson to remain open during much of the Hotel Aspen construction, and
P148
IX.b
101 E. Main St. / Extension of Vested Property Rights
City Council Hearing – January 8, 2018
Page 3 of 3
conversely, the Hotel Aspen will have re-opened during the construction period for the Molly
Gibson Lodge.
The applicant previously requested an extension of vested rights associated with the Hotel Aspen
and was granted a twenty-four (24) month extension. Based on this previous approval, and the
benefit to the community by extending the vested rights for the Molly Gibson Lodge, staff
recommends granting the twenty-four (24) month extension.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request to extend the
vested property rights, finding that the request meets the review criteria. Staff recommends
extending the current vested rights associated with Ordinance No.3, Series of 2015 twenty-four
(24) months.
PROPOSED MOTION (WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): “I move to approve Resolution #008
Series of 2018 to grant a twenty-four (24) month extension of vested property rights for the
Molly Gibson Lodge.”
Attachments:
Exhibit A – Staff Findings
Exhibit B - Ordinance No. 3 (Series of 2015)
Exhibit C – Application
P149
IX.b
1
RESOLUTION NO. 008
(SERIES OF 2018)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AN
EXTENSION OF VESTED RIGHTS AT 101 W. MAIN STREET, LEGALLY
DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1 AND 2, MOLLY GIBSON LODGE PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT AND SUBDIVISION ACCORDING TO THE FINAL PLAT
THEREOF RECORDED JULY 21, 2016 IN PLAT BOOK 115 AT PAGE 1 AS
RECEPTION NO. 630849, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel ID: 273512455067, 273512455005
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
Stan Clausen Associates, Inc., on behalf of Haymax Lodging LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, requesting a twenty-four (24) month extension of vested rights as approved
by Ordinance No. 3, Series 2015 that are set to expire June 24, 2018; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.308.010 of the Land Use Code, City Council may
approve an extension of vested rights; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the application and considered the Extension of
Vested Rights proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified
herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development
Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council approve the request for a twenty-four (24) month extension
of vested rights associated with Ordinance No. 3, series 2015; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the
promotion of public health, safety and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, the City Council hereby approves a twenty-four (24) month Extension of Vested Rights
as approved by Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2015, through June 24, 2020 with the following
condition:
a) That the establishment herein of a vested property right shall not preclude the
applications or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property
subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building,
fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, and all adopted impact fees. The
P150
IX.b
2
developer shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and
mechanical codes, and impact fees that are in effect at the time of building permit, unless
an exemption therefrom is granted in writing.
Section 2:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
temporary use proposal as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented
before the City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the
same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 3:
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior
ordinances.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be
deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
APPROVED BY the City Council of the City of Aspen on this 8th day of January 2018.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
Attest:
Linda Manning, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
James R. True, City Attorney
P151
IX.b
Exhibit A
Staff Findings
Section 26.308.010. Extension or reinstatement of vested rights.
The City Council may, by resolution at a public hearing noticed by publication, mailing and
posting (See Subparagraphs 26.304.060[E][3][a][b] and [c]) approve an extension or
reinstatement of expired vested rights or a revoked development order in accordance with this
Section.
1. In reviewing a request for the extension or reinstatement of vested rights the City Council
shall consider, but not be limited to, the following criteria:
a. The applicant's compliance with any conditions requiring performance prior to
the date of application for extension or reinstatement;
Staff Response: The Subdivision Planned Development Agreement, including the final plat,
for the Molly Gibson Lodge Planned Development and Subdivision was recorded at Book 115,
Page 1, dated July 21, 2016 – reception number 630851. Staff has determined there are no
other conditions to be met prior to the application for an extension. Staff finds this criterion to
be met.
b. The progress made in pursuing the project to date including the effort to obtain
any other permits, including a building permit and the expenditures made by the
applicant in pursuing the project;
Staff Response: A building permit application has not been submitted. The applicant has
indicated progress has been made in pursuing financing for the project, and have spent just
under $500,000 on the project to date. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
c. The nature and extent of any benefits already received by the City as a result of
the project approval such as impact fees or land dedications;
Staff Response: Review fees for the Land Use application and review have been collected,
since no building permit has been submitted or reviewed no impact fees have been collected.
The City has not received any benefits at this point as a result of the project approval. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
d. The needs of the City and the applicant that would be served by the approval of
the extension or reinstatement request.
Staff Response: Approval of the requested extension would benefit the City by reducing
construction impacts along Main Street during construction of the Hotel Aspen which is
anticipated to begin April 2019. An extension would also help preserve the lodging base by
P152
IX.b
allowing the Molly Gibson to remain in operation during the construction of the Hotel Aspen,
and in turn, the renovated Hotel Aspen would be operational when the Molly Gibson began
construction. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. An extension or reinstatement may be in the form of a written agreement duly authorized
and executed by the applicant and the City. Reasonable conditions may be imposed by
the City Council including, but not limited to, compliance with any amendments to this
Title adopted subsequent to the effective date of the development order and associated
vested rights.
Staff Response: Staff proposes no additional conditions at this time. Staff finds this criterion
to be met.
3. If the request is for reinstatement of a revoked development order, the City Council shall
determine the financial impacts of the investigation and may require the applicant to pay
the reasonable costs of investigation, enforcement and reporting by City staff.
Staff Response: The request is for an extension, not a reinstatement. Staff finds this to be not
applicable.
P153
IX.b
RECEPTION#: 617290, 02/10/2015 at
10:52:33 AM,
1 OF 25, R $131.00 Doc Code
ORDINANCE
Janice K.Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
ORDINANCE NO. 3
SERIES OF 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING GROWTH
MANAGEMENT APPROVAL, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT—PROJECT REVIEW
APPROVAL AND SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR A SITE SPECIFIC
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE MOLLY GIBSON LODGE PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 101 W MAIN
STREET,LOTS 1 AND 2 OF THE MOLLY GIBSON PUD, AND FOR LOT 2 OF THE 125
WEST MAIN STREET HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel ID: 2735-124-55-800
2735-124-55-005, 2735-124-55-066
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application for the
Molly Gibson PD (the Application) from Aspen Galena, LLC (Applicant), represented by Stan
Clauson Associates and CCY Architects for the following land use review approvals:
Planned Development—Project Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.445.
Subdivision Review - pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.480.
Growth Management Review — Replacement of Existing Commercial and Lodge
Development, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470.
Growth Management Review—Lodge Development, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter
26.470.
Growth Management Review — New Free Market Residential Units, pursuant to Land
Use Code Chapter 26.470.
Growth Management Review— Affordable Housing, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter
26.470.
Growth Management Review — Demolition or redevelopment of multi-family housing,
pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470.
Commercial Design Review - Conceptual, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412.
Major Development - Conceptual for properties within the Historic District, pursuant to
Land Use Code Section 26.415.
Demolition of properties located within the Historic District, pursuant to Section 26.415;
and,
WHEREAS, all code citation references are to the City of Aspen Land Use Code in
effect on the day of initial application—August 11, 2014, as applicable to this Project; and,
WHEREAS, the.-Application for the Molly Gibson PD proposes:
68 hotel units with 68 bedrooms in 20,575 square feet of net livable area located
on Parcel 1
Molly Gibson Lodge
101 W. Main Street
Ordinance No. 3, Series 2015
Page 1 of 12
P154
IX.b
1 affordable housing unit in 607 square feet of net livable area located on Parcel
1.
2 free market residential single family homes located on Parcel 2 in 8,000 square
feet of floor area.
12 parking spaces at-grade spaces on Parcel 1.
4 garage parking spaces, 2 spaces per single family home, on Parcel 2; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from
the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire
Protection District, Environmental Health Department, Parks Department, Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority, Public Works Department, and the Transportation Department as a result of
the Development Review Committee meeting; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.7, Affordable Housing, of the Land Use
Code, a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority is required and a
recommendation for approval by the board was provided at their November 5, 2014, regular
meeting; and,
WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department
reviewed the proposed Application and recommended continuation; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.445 of the Land Use Code, Planned Development -
Project Review approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing
after considering recommendations by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Community
Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.480 of the Land Use Code, Subdivision approval
may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering
recommendations by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Community Development
Director, and relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on December 3, 2014, the Historic
Preservation Commission approved Resolution 35, Series of 2014, by a 5 -1 vote granting
Conceptual Major Development approval, Conceptual Commercial Design approval, Demolition
approval, Residential Design Standard variances, and Growth Management approval, and
recommending City Council approve the Molly Gibson Application and all necessary land use
reviews, as identified herein, with the recommended conditions of approval; and,
WHEREAS, all required public noticing was provided as evidenced by an affidavit of
public notice submitted to the record, a public open house was provided by the applicant to meet
the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.304.035, and the public was provided a thorough
and full review of the proposed development; and,
WHEREAS, on January 12, 2015 the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. 3,
Series 2015, on First Reading by a five to zero (5-0) vote; and,
WHEREAS, during a public hearing on January 26, 2015, the Aspen City Council
approved Ordinance No. 3, Series 2015, by a five to zero (5-0) vote, approving with conditions the
Molly Gibson Lodge Subdivision/PD and all necessary land use reviews; and,
Molly Gibson Lodge
101 W. Main Street
Ordinance No. 3, Series 2015
Page 2 of 12
P155
IX.b
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development
proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed
and considered the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission, the Community
Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public
comment at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all
applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with
conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the
promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Approvals
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
City Council hereby grants the Molly Gibson Lodge Planned Development — Project Review
approval, Subdivision approval, and Growth Management approvals, for a Site Specific
Development Plan for the Molly Gibson Lodge Subdivision/PD, subject to the conditions of
approval as listed herein. The approved dimensions are attached as Exhibit A.
Section 2: Subsequent Reviews
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Applicant is required to obtain Final Commercial Design Review, Major Development Review—
Final for properties located within the Historic District, and Planned Development — Detail
Review following approval of the reviews outlined herein. The applicant shall combine these
applications, and they shall be made no later than one (1) year following City Council approval
of the reviews outlined herein.
Section 3: Historic Preservation Reviews
Major Development- Conceptual approval for properties located within a Historic District,
Conceptual Commercial Design Standard approval, and Demolition for properties located within
a Historic District are granted for Parcel 1 of the Molly Gibson PUD and Parcel 2 of the 125
West Main Street Historic Landmark Lot Split pursuant to HPC Resolution No. 35, Series of
2014.
Section 4: Growth Management Allotments
The following Growth Management allotments and credits amend those approved via HPC
Resolution No. 35, Series of 2014.
4.1 Reconstruction Credits. Based on the existing Molly Gibson Lodge development, the
Applicant represents the following reconstruction credits, pursuant to Land Use Chapter
26.470
Molly Gibson Lodge
101 W. Main Street
Ordinance No. 3, Series 2015
Page 3 of 12
P156
IX.b
a. A total of 53 lodging bedrooms, equating to 106 lodge pillows, is credited toward the
Project's lodge GMQS allotment request.
b. 1 unit of affordable housing.
4.2 Growth Management Allotments. The following growth management allotments are granted
to the Molly Gibson Lodge:
a. 15 lodging bedrooms = 30 lodging pillows. Added to the reconstruction credits, the
entire project represents 68 lodging.bedrooms or 136 pillows.
b. 2 free market residential allotments.
Section 5: Affordable Housing
5.1 Mitigation Requirements. The mitigation for the project is as follows:
Affordable Housing replacement:
Replace existing one-bedroom affordable housing unit which houses 1.75 FTEs with an
onsite one-bedroom affordable housing unit which houses 1.75 FTEs.
Lodge:
Mitigate for the additional 15 lodge bedrooms
15 lodge bedrooms * 0.3 FTEs = 4.5 FTEs generated
4.5 FTEs @ 10% mitigation = 0.45 FTEs required mitigation for lodge
Free-Market Residential:
Provide 10% of free-market residential square feet as affordable housing
11,121 sq ft * 10% = 1,112 square feet net livable area required as affordable housing
To convert to FTEs- 1,112/400 sf net livable per FTE =2.78 FTEs
Affordable Housing Credits equal to 3.23 FTEs at a Category 4 or lower to mitigate the
Lodge and Free Market Residential requirements are approved. A one bedroom unit that is
Category 2 and is provided onsite to mitigate the demolition of the existing onsite one
bedroom unit is approved.
5.2 Affordable Housing Conditions. The affordable housing rental unit shall be deed restricted at
Category 2, and shall meet the following conditions:
a. The unit shall be deed restricted at Category 2.
b. All tenants shall be approved by APCHA prior to occupancy.
c. The hotel has the right-of-first refusal to place a qualified tenant in the unit upon approval
from APCHA.
Molly Gibson Lodge
101 W. Main Street
Ordinance No. 3, Series 2015
Page 4 of 12
P157
IX.b
d. Employees of the hotel will be exempt from maximum assets and maximum income for the
on-site unit; however, the tenants cannot own any other property within the ownership
exclusion zone and must work full time as defined in the APCHA Guidelines.
e. Minimum occupancy shall be obtained for each unit (one qualified employee per
bedroom).
f. The unit cannot be vacant for longer than 45 days, unless APCHA is notified as to why the
unit has been left vacant. If an employee of the lodge is not interested in renting the unit, a
qualified tenant based on the APCHA Guidelines shall be allowed to rent the unit.
g. The deed restriction shall be recorded for the affordable housing unit prior to Certificate of
Occupancy (CO) of the free-market component. The CO for the affordable housing unit
shall be issued at the same time or prior to the CO for the lodge, free-market residential
units, and commercial space.
h. The Condominium Declaration shall include language, to be reviewed and approved by
APCHA, that should the affordable housing unit become an ownership unit:
a. The unit will be sold through the lottery system.
b. The dues will be based on the assessed value of the deed-restricted unit vs. the free-
market unit as well as the square footage of the units;
c. No common expenses will be charged to the deed-restricted owners, unless
approved by APCHA, especially the common expenses associated with the lodge.
Section 6: Planned Development— Detail Review
In addition to the general documents required as part of a Planned Development— Detail Review,
the following items shall be required as part of the Application's Planned Development — Detail
Review:
a. An Outdoor Lighting Plan, pursuant to section 26.575.150.
b. An existing and proposed Landscaping Plan, identifying trees with diameters and values.
c. A draft Construction Management Plan.
d. A snow storage and snow shedding plan. Snow is not permitted to shed off roofs onto
neighboring properties. Demonstrate that any snow which sheds off roofs will remain
on-site.
e. Preservation of the historic fence.
f. A completed Transportation Impact Analysis.
g. Confirmation from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District that the 0' rear yard
setback is constructible without damage to the sanitation sewer lines in the alley.
Section 7: Subdivision/PD Plat and Agreement
Lot 1 of the Molly Gibson PUD and Lot 2 of 125 West Main Street Historic Landmark Lot Split
are hereby merged into one lot: Lot 1 of the Molly Gibson Planned Development. Upon filing of
the Subdivision Plat Lot 2 of 125 West Main Street Historic Landmark Lot Split is hereby
removed from the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures.
Molly Gibson Lodge
101 W. Main Street
Ordinance No. 3, Series 2015
Page 5 of 12
P158
IX.b
The Applicant shall submit a Subdivision/PD agreement (hereinafter "Agreement") that meets
the requirements of the Land Use Code within 180 days of final approval. The 180 days shall
commence upon the granting of Final Commercial Design, Final Major Development and Planned
Development — Detail Review approvals by the Historic Preservation Commission. The
recordation documents shall be submitted in accordance with the requirements of Section 26.490
Approval Documents of the Land Use Code.
a. In accordance in Section 26.490.040, Approval Documents Content and Form, the
following plans are required in the Approved Plan Set:
1. Final Commercial and Historic. Design Review/ Architectural Character
Plan.
2. Planned Development Project and Detail_Review Plans.
3. Public Infrastructure Plan.
4. Final Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA).
b. In accordance with Section 26.490.050, Development Agreements, a Development
Agreement shall be entered into with the City.
c. In accordance with Section 26.490.060, Financial and Site Protection Requirements, the
applicant shall provide a site protection guarantee and a site enhancement guarantee.
d. In accordance with Section 26.490.070, Performance Guarantees, the following
guarantees are required in an amount equal to 150% of the current estimated cost of the
improvement:
1. Landscape Guarantee.
2. Public Facilities and Public Infrastructure Guarantee.
3. Storm Water and Drainage Improvements Guarantee.
Section 8: Engineering Department
The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal
Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering
Department.
8.1 Drainage: The project shall meet the Urban'Runoff Management Plan Requirements and
Engineering Design Standards.
8.2 Sidewalk/Curb/Gutter: All sidewalk curb and gutter shall meet the Engineering Standards of
City of Aspen Municipal Code Title 21.
a.The minimum sidewalk width on Main and Garmisch Streets is 8 ft, detached. The
minimum width of the planting strip is 5 ft. It is understood that potential conflicts may
limit the sidewalk width and or planting strip width. While the applicant should attempt
to achieve the code width, the sidewalk width can be reduced to 6 ft where conflicts exist,
subject to approval by the Parks and Engineering Departments.
a) The Hopkins sidewalk is in a residential area and therefore, the minimum sidewalk width
is 5 ft, detached. The minimum width of the planting strip is 5 ft.
Molly Gibson Lodge
101 W. Main Street
Ordinance No. 3, Series 2015
Page 6 of 12
P159
IX.b
b) Curb and gutter likely needs to be replaced except for the new curb and gutter on
Hopkins Ave. The turning radius may need to be address at the intersection of Main and
Garmisch Streets.
8.3 Excavation Stabilization: Due to the proximity of the neighboring property and the
excavation of the building, an excavation stabilization plan shall be submitted to the
Engineering Department prior to building permit submittal.
8.4 CMP: The Construction Management Plan shall describe mitigation for: parking,
staging/encroachments, and truck traffic.
8.5 Snow Storage: A minimum functional area equaling 30% of the paved area shall be
provided contiguous to the paved and designed to accommodate snow storage. For heated areas,
the functional area can be reduced to 10%.
8.6 Parking: parking must be located within the property boundary. Parallel parking is required
for Garmisch Street. At least one signed loading zone parking space is permitted for Garmisch
Street. Additional spaces are subject to approval by the Engineering and Parking Department,
Section 9: Fire Mitigation
All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met, subject to review and
approval by the Fire Marshall.
Section 10: Parks Department
Tree removal permits are required prior to issuance of a building permit for any demolition or
significant site work. Mitigation for removals must be met by paying cash in lieu, planting on
site, or a combination of both, pursuant to Chapter 13.20 of the City Municipal Code.
Significant mitigation is required due to the large amount of trees that are on both of the
properties that appears will need to be removed. We would like to see a detailed landscape plan
that shows all trees with the DBH (diameter at breast height) that they want to remove as well as
a proposed planting plan.
A tree protection plan indicating the drip lines of each individual tree or groupings of trees
remaining on site shall be included in the building permit application for any demolition or
significant site work. The plan shall indicate the location of protective zones for approval by the
City Forester and prohibit excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill,
storage of equipment, and access over or through the zone by foot or vehicle. The municipal
code requirements regarding tree protection fencing being required & the excavation, storage of
material, construction backfill, equipment, foot or vehicle traffic being prohibited is applicable.
Section 11• Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Requirements
Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications,
which are on file at the District office.
Molly Gibson Lodge
101 W. Main Street
Ordinance No. 3, Series 2015
Page 7 of 12
P160
IX.b
All clear water connections are prohibited (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains)
including trench drains for the entrances to underground parking garages.
On-site drainage and landscaping plans require approval by the district, must
accommodate ACSD service requirements and comply with rules, regulations and
specifications.
On-site sanitary sewer utility plans require approval by ACSD.
Oil and Grease interceptors are required for all new and remodeled food processing
establishments.
Plans for interceptors, separators and containment facilities require submittal by the
applicant and approval prior to a building permit application.
Plumbing plans for the pool and spa areas require approval of the drain size by the
district.
Glycol snowmelt and heating systems must have containment provisions and must
preclude discharge to the public sanitary sewer system.
When new service lines are required for existing development the old service lines (3)
must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific
ACSD requirements and prior to all soil stabilization activities.
Below grade development will require installation of a pumping system.
Generally one tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be
required where more than one unit is served by a single service line.
Permanent improvements are prohibited in areas covered by sewer easements or right of
ways to the lot line of each development.
All ACSD total connection fees must be paid prior to the issuance of any permits. Peg in
our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made
available to the district.
Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned
reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an
additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection
system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected
over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements
needed.
Due to the depth of the main sewer line in the alley and the need to replace this sewer line
in the future, the District would not support the applicants request for an exemption to
vacate the five foot setback requirement from the alley lot lines.
The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and requirements once
detailed building and utility plans are available.
Section 12: Environmental Health Department
The State of Colorado mandates specific mitigation requirements with regard to asbestos.
Additionally, code requirements to be aware of when filing a building permit include: a
prohibition on engine idling, regulation of fireplaces, fugitive dust requirements, noise abatement
and pool designs. The trash enclosures for Parcel 1 have received approval by the Environmental
Health Department for an enclosure that is 9' 8.5' x 20' for the trash and recycling receptacles.
This area is within the property line and is not encroaching on the alley
The trash and recycling for Parcel 2 (the single family residences) shall be located on Parcel 2.
Molly Gibson Lodge
101 W. Main Street
Ordinance No. 3, Series 2015
Page 8 of 12
P161
IX.b
Section 13: Transportation Department
The applicant shall update the Transportation Impact Analysis report for approval by the
Transportation Department prior to Detailed Review. Consideration for the BRT bus stop shall
be considered in the Construction Management Plan.
Section 14: Water/Utilities Department
The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and
with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of
the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. All Water
System Distribution standards in place at the time of building permit shall apply, and all tap fees
will be assess per applicable codes and standards. Utility placement and design shall meet
adopted City of Aspen standards.
Section 15: Outdoor Lighting and Sisnage
All outdoor lighting and all signage shall meet the requirements of the Aspen Municipal Code.
Section 16: Public Amenity Spaces
The Applicant has committed to providing ground floor public amenity spaces as shown on
Exhibit B. These spaces shall be permanently accessible by the public.
Section 17:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation
presented before the Community Development Department, the Historic Preservation
Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development
approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by
other specific conditions or an authorized authority.
Section 18:
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 19:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be
deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 12`" day of January, 2015.
Molly Gibson Lodge
101 W. Main Street
Ordinance No. 3, Series 2015
Page 9 of 12
P162
IX.b
teven a ion, M car
i
tSA
nda Manning, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 26`" day of January, 2015.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPRO AS TO CONTENT:
ZJ'aines R. True, City Attorney Ste e -Skadran, Mayor
TEST:
i b°j
Linda Manning, City Cie k
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Approved Dimensional Requirements
Exhibit B: Approved Elevations, Site Plan and Public Amenity Space
Molly Gibson Lodge
101 W. Main Street
Ordinance No. 3, Series 2015
Page 10 of 12
P163
IX.b
Exhibit A—Approved Dimensional Requirements
Parcel 1 of Molly Gibson PUD (Main Street) and 125 West Main Street Lot 2:
Approved Dimensions
minimum lot size 18,000'
minimum lot width 180'
front yard (Main St.) see site plan - up to 2.5'variance
side yard (Garmisch) see site plan- up to 0'variance
side yard (west) 3.5'
rear(alley) see site plan- up to 0' variance
maximum height 32'
public amenity 1,869 or 10%
trash access area 20w x 9' 8.5" d x open to sky
minimum off-street
12 (Current deficit maintained)
parking spaces
cumulative floor area 1.5:1) 26,959 sf
lodge floor area 1.46:1)26,314.8 sf
affordable housing floor 644 sf
area
average lodge unit size 303 sf
number of lodge units 68
total number of 136/68
pillows/bedrooms
lodge net livable area 20,575 sf
affordable housing net 607 sf
livable area
l
Molly Gibson Lodge
101 W. Main Street
Ordinance No. 3, Series 2015
Page 11 of 12
P164
IX.b
Parcel 2 of Molly Gibson PUD (Hopkins Ave.):
Approved Dimensions
minimum lot size 9,002 sf
minimum lot width 90'
front yard (Hopkins 10'
Ave.)
side yard (east) 7'
side yard (west) 7'
rear (alley) 10'
distance between 10'
buildings
maximum height 25'
maximum % site 51.3%
coverage
allowable floor area
total 8,000 sf or 4,000 sf per
single family residence
minimum off-street 4
parking spaces
Molly Gibson Lodge
101 W. Main Street
Ordinance No. 3, Series 2015
Page 12 of 12
P165
IX.b
i
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
F
v
L,
i
Ri(
1.
I
u
f -
gra..
rFPpVG•
i.. !
I
I -
I '':
r --
r -----'
r------
t
r-- ----
t ,
4 }
111 '
il
IOr
9
f3 (;:
b \
5
CICt ) (
i1
I--
G
I '
c'
v
SITE
PLAN
11"=
10.
4"
NORTH
A
l ,
H
FEC
IL .
0
MGL
DECEMBER
19,
2014
V ',
P166
IX.b
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r ...___
i ._...
All
L—
i -
et
E,---
Lr €
i
s
r' ,
I
i--'
1
I
I
u
e
j
I
I
1
f
II
I
l [
I
I '
I
C
E
I
i;
I
I,
I•
Ea
EE
1
I
it
A
y
I
I
i
I--------- ---, - - --- -----,
I
i
i
I
i
i
l
i i i
VARIANCE
SITE
PLAN MGL
I
DECEMBER
19,
2014
C
Y
R (
I—
I
I
ECT ;>
9AI-
2.
1
J
P167
IX.b
LOWER
LEVEL
FLOOR
PLAN
P168
IX.b
I
I
j
I
I
I
I
1
I
1j
I:
I
I
ds
z (. ..
r ; __'___-
m;---` ------ ------- ------- -- --- - -------- -----
t (
1 polls
r7a..
i,[ ]
P-
15',,
iei
v-
MIX .
4
1
TWA_1
C(
C
i
r
i
1
GD
4/
OUR—.
AEZIEA
IX,. ......--- .._..-.•_.._.-..._-._
m.__.-_..-.-.-._..
l-.
e_..__.
i._..-_.
1--,!.,._-__
1w'
l.
i.
l
Lw
u..
I
i
I1
1i i
MAIN
LEVEL
FLOOR
PLAN
1i8
MGL
I
DECEMBER
19,
2014
NORTH
C
C
Y
A
R
C
I
F
I_
C
I
SI
AL31
i
P169
IX.b
C{ .. .--
Y
l
I
I
I
i
I
1
1
1
1
I ------ ------ ------------------------
i----- --- ------- ----- ------
K<
I
N
I'
I
LYH}
ilf
4JEEY
U'.
UEkk
WEEN :
1GJ:
fE
WEEN
Fm
1
X.<
ai
1
1
Ik
E
1
1
I
i
EI ;
I
I
11
1
i
k:
N::
Pi1Ntf.
tS!
fET!
AX:
I:
Ic(
N
FV ,
19lE
OUEFN
WITIt
Ott
r!
M.
4E1EG
I
I
I
f
1
I
1
II
I
I
i
I
I----- -
L-------=------
i
I
I
I
I
i
SECOND
LEVEL
FLOOR
PLAN
1/
8"=
V-
0"
MGL
DECEMBER
19,
2014
NORTH
R ' (
1 '
AL3'
3
P170
IX.b
i
j
I
I
xl-
I
I
I
1 —
I
i
t
t '
1'
I
I
v;•...<
1
r--------- -----? ------- -------- —=-- ------
7
j
li
I
l -
Nil&
fp£:
1!
tO
RI£
OUEr
t%
z:
FIEGUF[
II
j
I
t
477
u;
i
I -
1
I
eif
quffrc
i
li I I
I I
II
I
K,
I
I
I
1.
I I
3
THIRD
LEVEL
FLOOR
PLAN MGL
DECEMBER
19,
2014
NORTH--
C
1
A
R
C
1-
1 -
E
C
T
S
AL3. •
I
I_
P171
IX.b
i
i
i
i
tr;
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
rar•
T
I
r
1
S
i-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ••
1`.._-.:
I
I
4;
i
14,
I
i
1
i
71
I -
r - , -----
7 ---- ---
4- ' —
I
ROOF
PLAN(
vs°—
r-
o"
MGL
DECEMBER
19,
2014
P
A
R
C
Fi
i
T
E
C
AL
3.
5
P172
IX.b
7t77
Jj
r
r
ME
I
t
I
FR
i-•
4r-=:
I
t
BL
t
Y
ALLEY-
ALLE
ESI.
Iwn
i
IR.YE:
i
REunc
METER
LCCATk]•!
r
MULTI
STORY;
j
FRAME
i
BUILDING
if
o
7
I
I
I ,•, !
j4
1 }'
EER-0
ECREss
EIGRAYa_
UGMI'
ML
BEECiv;
PCRGWE,
IOYI
CWF! .
5
SER
i,
oaE.
ROCFB
Y
J
s
J
I`\•!- ?
au.:
R
Roo:
6El0'.
v—
1
J .
ii
fes-
1
XI
I ... .._
tt
I
e
oj,
y`
I
HOPKINS-
HOPKINS
HOPKINS
STREET
I
RCR
STE
RAR-
Exrsnnn
MCN
CTE
P:
M!-
aROPosEB _
i•
lo
c-
I-
Iro•
I °_
10'-
0°
RES.
SITE
PLAN
C
Y
A
P
CH
I
T
E
C.,
T
S
AR2.
0
MGL
NOVEMBER
24,
2014
NOH
I
P173
IX.b
i– ----------------—
F
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I (
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
i
e
i
i
II
S
J
U
3
1L•
wLV
lelSi ,_,--_
1
lCN
LEVEL
I I
RES.
FLOOR
PLANS
tis"=
V-
0" --
z_
1--
MGL
I
NOVEMBER
24,
2014
NORTH
C
C
Y
A
R
C
H
I
T
I
C
I
S :
AR3.
0
P174
IX.b
T
1..
I
i
0
I
O
I
i
1
I
I
i
l
f
RES.
FLOOR
PLANS
va =
r
o :—'
MGL
NOVEMBER
24,
2014
NORTH
O
hl
C,
1-
1 - (
j
S
iQ '.
P175
IX.b
i
E7•`-,
s „
w»
4.e-
If
C\
ILL
1
r
i
E,
I
r
J
T.
FES'
FSE
Ta
PESJ-
NOPTN
ELEVaTiW
v
3
I
rEPlr:,.
cL,
S
i
q
PEs-
soma
ELEviT
ou ...__..
ESf
SVEST
ELf.
V.
1TIGf
r
I +
v „
T
f .'' (, .,. .'.
W'
CLPEASE
I15
E
VAPOa
S
EIB\
d(
V
All
i
RFVKIW.
S
T'
ANC
All
Pl]
CTIF
W[
SHOtVN
W
iLOM •,.-
SOLIN_
TP-
El
Elm-
MS
RES.
ELEVATIONS
MGL
NOVEMBER
24,
2014
C
A
R
C
1-
1
1
T
F
i- .
I..
ca
AR4.
0
P176
IX.b
I
L—......
yDE
yx'
y
f4
i... .......
vw5&
i. : - ..
UPPCR
trVEQ
v
S..
RIIY
5'`•
I
lDY/
fA..
cvFl
IVMRLLkE4. .
REe3?
atiT
Elf
T
f1E :
IDRTR
EIEVATIO.
v
i•a'.
e
y,
F[
a - .
mini
1'
x`,.`_..
s- _
i -
r
t
nocr
eccK
1
croceEc . n:F
a
JI
Hr
Y`
a
I
I
RE
I.
1':
ESI
f.:
EVATIU;
I
aC'
1-
FAUnI
EUVATIDfI
d
v
E
omowu
137HIR510.
Ek1'
ELE
bN .
t__l'__- ....._..... --.
RES.
ELEVATIONS
MGL
NOVEMBER
24,
2014
A '
I...{
I
E. ' )
S
AR-.
1
I
P177
IX.b
MAIN
STREET
x
PROPOSED
STREET
TREES
INTREELAWN EXISTING
CROSSWALK
PROPOSED
CONCRETE
SIDEWALK
GRANITE
PAVERS
AFFORDABLE
HOUSING
ACCESS—
PK"
I
3LIC
AMENITY
SPA
E
GRANITE
BENCH
TYP.
PERENNIAL
GARDEN
PROPOSED
TREES
D
ROP
OFF/
PICK
UP
p —
MAIN
ENTRANCESTAIR&
LOBBY
ACCESS
HOTEL
ROOM
ACCESS
99
z5
x'x
PRIVACY
FENCE
r,
m
xis '
n
s
r
q
3'
COVERED
OUTDOOR
DINING
I
1
ATt1x
OFFSITE
ENHANCED
C`
UESrT?,
A
7G3,+"'
x'
y
r
T
J
v'
I
Yr..
r
y.
T
PUBLIC
AMENITY
3
r
@
wy`*'`
Sr
3x
6s,•
g'
Sw
cx
3
S.
s
s
i
Y .
a
8 ' .
r +
k
7
5
k
s - ,
r``',
z
1gTs
TK
H,
h
Y
tth[
t
r,.
th
rsa'.,{ .
i
yu
1LfLE7ta?. .,
rirat
G
LODGE
LL
101
WEST
MAIN
STREET
ASPEN,
COLORADO
81611
STAN
CItaUSONASSOCIATES
irlc
Conceptual
Landscape
Plan
29
July
2014
rr:
rxm
Av
sv..;
W.
n
tx>
oeoaa
t•',
t
5]
eIWS
UrI
r
vnn.
o-,
mo
i+
foprmpa
r.
r;.
c«
r.
w*'.
iuW^^^
lF^'°
STgNCUVSON
ASS..^.
0
fTCL•."
INC
30;+
P178
IX.b
P179IX.b
P180IX.b
P181IX.b
P182IX.b
P183IX.b
P184IX.b
P185IX.b
P186IX.b
P187IX.b
P188IX.b
P189IX.b
P190IX.b
P191IX.b
P192IX.b
P193IX.b
P194IX.b
P195IX.b
P196IX.b
P197IX.b
P198IX.b
P199IX.b
P200IX.b
P201IX.b
P202IX.b
P203IX.b
P204IX.b
P205IX.b
P206IX.b
P207IX.b
P208IX.b
P209IX.b
P210IX.b
P211IX.b
P212IX.b
P213IX.b
P214IX.b
P215IX.b
P216IX.b
P217IX.b
P218IX.b
P219IX.b
P220IX.b
P221IX.b
P222IX.b
P223IX.b
P224IX.b
P225IX.b
P226IX.b
P227IX.b
P228IX.b
P229IX.b
P230IX.b
P231IX.b
P232IX.b
P233IX.b
P234IX.b
P235IX.b
P236IX.b
P237IX.b
P238IX.b
P239IX.b
P240IX.b
P241IX.b
P242IX.b
P243IX.b
P244IX.b
P245IX.b
P246IX.b
P247IX.b
P248IX.b
P249IX.b
P250IX.b
P251IX.b
P252IX.b
P253IX.b
P254IX.b
P255IX.b
P256IX.b
P257IX.b
P258IX.b
P259IX.b
P260IX.b
P261IX.b
P262IX.b
P263IX.b
P264IX.b
P265IX.b
P266IX.b
P267IX.b
P268IX.b
P269IX.b
P270IX.b
P271IX.b
P272IX.b
P273IX.b
P274IX.b
P275IX.b
P276IX.b
P277IX.b
P278IX.b
P279IX.b
P280IX.b
P281IX.b
P282IX.b
P283IX.b
P284IX.b
P285IX.b
P286IX.b
P287IX.b
P288IX.b
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jeff Pendarvis, Capital Asset Project Manager
THROUGH: Jack Wheeler, Capital Asset Manager
DATE OF MEMO: December 20, 2017
MEETING DATE: January 8, 2018
RE: Civic Space Relocation Project (CSRP) – Shaw Construction and
Charles Cunniffe Architects change orders for acceptance
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests City Council approval of change order/contract
modification for the Civic Space Relocation Project – Police Department (CSRP-PD) – Shaw
Construction (Shaw) and Charles Cunniffe Architects (CCA) Design Contract.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council approved the Contract for CCA on March 16, 2015
(resolution 26) and some prior change orders on February 22, 2016 (resolutions 19, 20 and 21).
Council approved the Contract for Shaw on February 22, 2016 (resolution 15) and subsequent
addendums in October of 2016 (resolution 151) and February of 2017 (resolution 13).
BACKGROUND: During the construction coordination meetings, the Aspen Police Department
(APD) requested an upgraded level of protection at the Main Street face of the building. The
design team recommended increasing the level of protection by providing bollards, large
diameter trees and a concrete bench. While typical bollards could provide this level of protection,
both the design team and staff feel the architectural solutions provide a visually appealing
presentation providing an increased level of safety. The requirement for bollards was initially
removed from the project scope, but due to recent events worldwide, the project team
recommends adding them back into the project. The design team issued the revised design in the
form of Architects Supplemental Instructions 23 (ASI-023). The City’s general contractor Shaw,
is in the process of providing pricing for the change. The construction impacts are estimated to
be valued at $200,000.
CCA and their subconsultants have provided a fee proposal. Shaw is in the process of preparing
a proposal. Below are descriptions of the associated change requests.
1. Exhibit III – CCA Change Order 52 provides architectural, landscape and structural
design for increased security.
2. Exhibit IV – CCA Change Order 58 provides civil design for increased security. The
initial sketches did not anticipate impacts to civil work, but further development realized
the impacts.
3. Shaw Change Order (CO) has not yet been submitted. It will be reviewed and vetted by
Staff and NV5. The scope of work will include grading changes, increased caliper trees,
bollards and cast in place concrete benches. All of which will require excavation beyond
what was originally accounted for.
P289
X.a
Page 2 of 3
Staff has included an owner’s contingency of 5% or $10,578. Therefore, Staff is requesting an
increase in the total budget authority not to exceed $222,128; see below for breakdown. Due to
the construction schedule, we need approval ahead of all final bids on this change.
This fee is NOT within the approved budget for the new Police building.
DISCUSSION: Our Owners Representative, NV5, have reviewed the detail of the attached fee
proposal for CCA and confirm the fees are reasonable for the scope proposed. NV5 will review
the proposal from Shaw to confirm the fees are reasonable for the scope proposed.
The Aspen Police Department has requested the changes and believe them to be a benefit to the
building, community and staff.
Resolution 14, series 2017 provided for the City Manager to authorize use of the project
contingency. Much of the project contingency has been utilized to round out the design and
provide for staff directed changes in scope. Some of the scope changes include providing a dry
fire protection system in the IT closet, providing spare conduit under the garage slab for future
use, providing a radon system, electrical changes to increase the flexibility of the building as
well as addressing unforeseen conditions not identified during the design phase.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Staff is requesting $222,128 of additional budget to the
project. These funds will come from the Asset Management Plan (AMP) unappropriated fund
balance. They will be part of the Spring 2018 Supplemental request and added to the overall
budget authority for the project.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff has approved the change order for CCA so the design
work can proceed. Staff recommends City Council approval of the budget authority so they can
work with Shaw to reconcile the change in scope for the work described above. It is staff’s
intention to have the Shaw change order executed administratively once reviewed for scope and
costing by the City’s Owner’s agent, NV5.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
P290
X.a
Page 3 of 3
Exhibit A: - NV5 recommendation for CCA & Shaw
Exhibit IV - CCA Change Order 52
Exhibit V - CCA Change Order 58
Exhibit VI - Sheet L8-01
P291
X.a
RESOLUTION #005
(Series of 2018)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING CHANGE ORDERS #52 AND #58 BETWEEN
THE CITY OF ASPEN AND CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CHANGE
ORDERS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council change orders for
the Civic Space Relocation Project – Police Department, between the City of
Aspen and Charles Cunniffe Architects, a true and accurate copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit “III and IV”;
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 those change
orders for the Civic Space Relocation Project – Police Department between the
City of Aspen and Charles Cunniffe Architects, a copy of which is annexed hereto
and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute
said change orders on behalf of the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 8th day of January, 2018.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held January 8, 2018.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P292
X.a
RESOLUTION #006
(Series of 2018)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CHANGE ORDER BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ASPEN AND SHAW CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CHANGE ORDER NOT TO EXCEED
$200,000 UPON APPROVAL BY THE CITY MANAGER ON BEHALF OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there will be submitted to the City Council a change order
between the City of Aspen and Shaw Construction not to exceed $200,000 that
will be executed upon approval of the City Manager.
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 change
orders for the Civic Space Relocation Project – Police Department between the
City of Aspen and Shaw Construction, and does hereby authorize the City
Manager to execute said change order not to exceed $200,000 upon approval by
the City Manager on behalf of the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 8th day of January, 2018.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held January 8, 2018.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P293
X.a
P294
X.a
P295X.a
P296X.a
P297X.a
P298X.a
36"
DESIGN WORKSHOP
CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC610 EAST HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611TEL: 970.925.5590FAX: 970.920.4557www.cunniffe.com
SHEET NO.
DRAWING:
JOB NO.5/4/2017 11:18:40 AM1506540 POLICE STATION ANDAFFORDABLE HOUSING540 EAST MAIN STREETASPEN, COLORADOISSUE:DATE:
PROP
E
R
T
Y
B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
MAIN
S
T
R
E
E
T
COURTHOUSE PLAZA BUILDING
CONCEPT 600 BUILDING
MATC
H
L
I
N
E
L
8
-
0
2
EASE
M
E
N
T
(
T
Y
P
.
)
1 Scope of work ends, existing conditions begin
TREE PLANTING REFERENCE NOTES
2 Existing shrubs to be preserved
3 Existing tree to remain
4 Existing C600 HVAC unit
5 Hand-digging only within drip line
6 Irrigation controller location
7 Backflow preventer, refer to interior MEP drawings
8 Water connection, refer to interior MEP drawings
9 All irrigation control box locations to be approved by the landscape architect. Box locations
shall not be located in turf grass areas.
NOTE: Irrigation design to be submitted to Landscape Architect for review prior to any
irrigation construction activity.
10 Irrigation to be installed at C600 to replace disturbed irrigation. New irrigation to be run off
APD as a separate zone.
11 Recommended locations for boulders.
ABBR.BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME QTY.SIZE
TREES
SHRUBS
PLANT LIST
Pt Populus tremuloides Quaking Aspen 25 2.5" CAL. AS SHOWN
No Mow Fescue 1,070 sq ft
Turf (Kentucky Blue Grass) 2,750 sq ft
SPACING
PERENNIALS & GROUND COVERS
GRASSES
Go Galium odoratum Sweet Woodruff 195 1 GAL 12" O.C.
Pq Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia Creeper 58 1 GAL. 12" O.C.
Cl Crataegus x lavalleei Hawthorne Hawthorne 6 2" CAL. 12' O.C.
Am Achillea 'Moonshine'Moonshine Yarrow 1 GAL. 12" O.C.
Pa Populus angustifolia Narrowleaf Cottonwood (cottonless) 4 3" CAL. AS SHOWN
Sj Spirea japonica 'Froebelii'Froebel Spirea 285 5 GAL. 2' O.C.
VINES
Ptm Populus tremuloides Quaking Aspen 4 3" CAL. AS SHOWN
Csi Cornus sericea 'Isanti'Red Twig Dogwood 107 5 GAL. 3.5' O.C.
Hse Hosta Sieboldiana 'Elegans' Blue Giant Plantain Lily 9 5 GAL. 2' O.C.
Tp Thymus praecox Mother of Thyme 275 1 GAL 12" O.C.
Db Delphinium 'Blue bird'Pacific Giant Delphinium 94 1 GAL 12" O.C.
Gj Geranium 'Johnson's Blue'Johnson's Blue Cranesbill 70 1 GAL 12" O.C.
Sa Sedum acre evergreen Golmoss-Utah Stonecrop 1 GAL 12" O.C.
Hs Helictotrichon sempervirens Blue Avena Grass 660 1 GAL 12" O.C.
Dc Deschampsia cespitosa Tufted Hairgrass 1 GAL 12" O.C.
Vs Veronic Spicata 'Tall Blue'Blue Spiked Speedwell 160 1 GAL 12" O.C.
Li Lonicera involucrata Twinberry Honeysuckle 17 5 GAL. 3.5' O.C.
Ra Ribes alpinum Alpine Currant 25 5 GAL. 3.5' O.C.
Ped Pinus edulis Pinon Pine 2 10' tall AS SHOWN
Pt-6 Populus tremuloides Quaking Aspen 8 6" CAL. AS SHOWN
Rag Rhus aromatica 'Gro-Low'Dwarf Fragrant Sumac 22 5 GAL. 3' O.C.
Sb Spiraea betulifolia 'Tor'Birchleaf Spirea 69 5 GAL. 2' O.C.
Pe Populus tremuloides 'Erecta'Swedish Columnar Aspen 3 2.5" CAL. 6' O.C.
Bg Bouteloua gracilis 'Blonde Ambition'Blonde Ambition Grama Grass 256 1 GAL 12" O.C.
PLANTING DETAIL KEYNOTES:DETAIL /
SHEET
9.0 PLANT AND LANDSCAPE
9.1 Plant Protection Fencing 1 / L10-01
SPEC.
SECTION
015639
9.2 Deciduous Tree Planting 2 / L10-01 000000
9.3 Deciduous Tree Planting on Slope 3 / L10-01 000000
9.4 Shrub Planting 4 / L10-01 000000
9.5 Perennial Planting 1 / L10-02 000000
9.6 Metal Edging 2 / L10-02 000000
9.7 Planting Soil Condition Type 1_Non roof 3 / L10-02 000000
9.8 Planting Soil Condition Type 2_Raised Planter 4 / L10-02 000000
9.9 Planting Soil Condition Type 3_Roof 5 / L10-02 000000
9.2 TYP.
9.4 TYP.
9.6
1
NORTH 0
ORIGINAL SCALE:
5 10 20
1"=10'-00"
(6) Cl-2
(3) Pa-3
(1) Ptm-3
1
4
Turf (135 SF)Turf (125 SF)
Turf (130 SF)Turf (200 SF)
Turf (435 SF)
Turf
(1735 SF)
NO MOW
FESCUE
(80 SF)
(11) Ra
(70) Go
(25) Db
NO MOW
FESCUE
(320 SF)
(80) Tp
(70) Gj
(47) Db
(127) Sj
(60) Am
(90) Go
(14) Ra
(35) Go
(29) Csi
(160) Am
(2) Ptm-3
(1) Ptm-3
(19) Csi
(2) Pt-2.5
(2) Ped
(9) Hse
(1) Pt-2.5
(58) Pq
(160) Vs
9.6
1
TYP.
3 TYP.
5
9.5 TYP.
(54) Sj
8
6
9 TYP.
10
8
8
8
8
8
19
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
877
8
15
15
15
17
L8-01
ASI #78 2/08/2017
4/03/201715ASI #14
17 ASI #16 5/19/2017
8
19 ASI #18 6/30/2017
19
19
19
11 TYP.
20 C600 Boulders 9/14/2017
20
(160) Tp
(8) Pt-6
(53) Bg
24
24 ASI #23 10/13/2017
(22) Rag
(203) Bg
(31) Sb
(38) Sb
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
Bollards
Large caliper
aspen trees
Concrete
benches
P299X.a
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPEI{TY:
JC) Il\f• 'WVaA,-, S1 �MD Ck, spen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
(name, please print)
being or repre enting an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
V Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof
materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six
(26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in
height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15)days prior to the public hearing
on the_ day of , 20 , to and including the date and time
of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted'notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailingof.notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the A speri Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
. •l:: F: i propertysubject to the development application. The names and addresses of
;;C ;'property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
.
°,` c• ^J'-�:.�.i$.appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
,,copy.:oftheFowners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach,
V summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as
required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the
neighborhood outreach summary, including the method ofpublic notification and
a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt
requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the
date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development.
The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current
tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAS or PUDs that
create more than,one lot, new PlannedUnit Developments, and, new Specially
Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement.
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any
way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this
Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be
made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or
otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal
description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of
real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the
proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning
agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
on such amendments.
Signatdfe
The foregoing"Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this 2/ day
of dee- 20f, by
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING I
RE:101 W Main SM ,Molly GiW n Lmige L
PYEIie IlrwMg:Montlay.January Bih.2018:500
PM WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
MaeUrq Lpealion:Cly Han,Council Chompers
'IMS.Galena St.,Aspen,CO 81611
Pfolai Lacidion: 101 W Main SI.,Maly GEson
Le�pauy Described D e `°n 1 arm 2,Moly My commission expires:
Gexon gfle Planned Development am Subdirr
Sion,according to the Final Plat thereof recordeel
Joy 21.2016 in Plat Boal,115 at Pere 1 as Recap
,lion No. 630849, Cary of Aspen Pitl,ie County,
Colorado.
Deacriptiom The Molly Gilson Lodge is request
egg a twenty-0our 124)month edersim pi the vesl-
eE pmpety rights associated will,Ominanco Num- Notary Public
bar 3.Sense of 2015.The cement vested right as-
sociatad min this approval aro sat to expire on
June 241h.2018.The applicant is mgues4ng an ex
Ion so they can minimize the disruption to the
re, di by staggering constractwn with the Ho- KAREN REED PATTERSON�
el Aspen.
'Land Use Reviews Rep: Emint,pn of vested NOTARY PUBLIC
Property Rights
Oedaion Malang Body:CityCouncil - (ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: STATE OF COLORADO
Applican0 Hayman Lodgmg..LLn, 605 W. Main
Siring SUita 2,Asped,CG 81611 NOTARY ID#19964002767
More Information: For What information related 'UBLICATION r
to me Project.contact Garret"rimer at me City of M Commission Expires February 15,2020
Aspen Community Development Department, 130 1
S Galena SL,Aspen,CO,(970)429 2738,Golan. OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
Lanmer®cayofaspen.cold.
Published in the Aspen rimae on December 21, ;WNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
2017.Qmooifti
• APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE
AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 101 W Main St., Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: Monday,January 8th,2018
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
County of Pitkin )
I, 'fawn Hillenbrand (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City
of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice
requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following
manner:
Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the,City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
X_ Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof
materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six
(26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in
height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior.to the public hearing _
on the 21st day of December, 2017, to and including the date and time of the
public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
_X_ Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
property subject to the .development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach,
summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as
required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the
neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and
a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt
requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the
date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development.
The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current
tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, PDs that create more
than one lot, and new Planned Developments are subject to this notice
requirement.
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any
way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this
Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be
made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or
otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal
description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of
real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the
proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning
agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
on such amendments.
Sig Lure
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 21 st day
of December, 2017, by Patrick Rawley.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
PATRICK S. RAWLEY
NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: 30
STATE OF COLORADO
NOTARY ID#19994012259
My Commission Expires July 2d,2020 �C
Notary Public
ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE:
• COPY OF THEPUBLICA TION
• PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN)
• LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BY MAIL
• APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE
AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3
PUBLIC NOTICE
Date: January8th 2018
Time: 5:0_. 0 P.M.
Place: City Hall 130 S Galena St
City Council Chambers
Purpose:
Haymax Lodging, LLC, 605 W Main
Street, Suite 2, Aspen, CO 81611 is
requesting of City Council a 24
month extension of Vested Property
Rights associated with this site. The
current vested rights associated with
Ord. No. 3 Series of 2015, which
allows for the redevelopment of the
hotel are set to expire June 24, 2018.
For further information contact Aspen
Planning Dept at 970.429.2739
j7P,�STAN CIAIISON ASSOfIAEES mr.
JW
r
�,r
�✓ 0 i.'•
Pr
-
i
a
y
h--
n
THE CITY OF ASPEN
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611
p: (970) 920.5000
f: (970) 920.5197
w: www.aspenpitkin.com
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
RE: 101 W Main Street, Molly Gibson Lodge
Public Hearing: Monday,January 8th, 2018; 5:00 PM
Meeting Location: City Hall, Council Chambers
130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 81611
Project Location: 101 W Main St., Molly Gibson Lodge; Legally Described as Lots 1
and 2, Molly Gibson Lodge Planned Development and Subdivision,
according to the Final Plat thereof recorded July 21, 2016 in Plat
Book 115 at Page 1 as Reception No. 630849, City of Aspen, Pitkin
County, Colorado.
Description: The Molly Gibson Lodge is requesting a twenty-four (24) month
extension of the vested property rights associated with Ordinance
Number 3, Series of 2015, which allows for the redevelopment of
the Hotel along Main Street and residences along Hopkins Avenue.
The current vested rights associated with this approval are set to
expire on June 24th, 2018. The applicant is requesting an extension
so they can minimize the disruption to the community by
staggering construction with the Hotel Aspen.
Land Use Reviews Req: Extension of Vested Property Rights
Decision Making Body: City Council
Applicant: Haymax Lodging, LLC, 605 W. Main Street,Suite 2,Aspen,CO 81611
More Information: For further information related to the project, contact Garrett
Larimer atthe City ofAspen Community Development Department,
130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, 970.429.2739,
garrett.larimer@cityofaspen.com.
:
H / XM ;
� lOm � ll ; ll2our]
\ \ ■! ;
~ ° C6
/
\t 12
! N § °
Q = ; �
§ \ § § 12
g ,
, S
0 p
O ®
w)
2 2
� !! B
OPM
-
�
G gf .
D -
/ ^
■ � � �
o - !
■ /
\ /
� f
/
� . .
-
�
Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius
From Parcel: 273512455067 on 12/20/2017
PrKIN
COUNT�
Instructions:
This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be
printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to
page" or"shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the
margins such that they no longer line up on the labels
sheet. Print actual size.
Disclaimer:
Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web
site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to
ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic
system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral
estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County
does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners.
Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning
the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this
site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and
reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the
user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and
liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or
data obtained on this web site.
http7//WWW.Pitkinmapsandmore.com
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY LLC ASPENIPITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORII 212 WEST HOPKINS LLC
PO BOX 1248 210 E HYMAN AVE#202 212 W HOPKINS AVE
ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
105 EAST HOPKINS LLC HITE ANGELA R FAMILY TRUST HITE HENRY HARRIS REVOC TRUST
PO BOX 193 PO BOX 155 PO BOX 155
KINGSVILLE,TX 783640193 WOODY CREEK,CO 81656 WOODY CREEK,CO 81656
TARADA LLC CHISHOLM EDITH S CHISHOLM HEATHER M
1934 OLD GALLOWS RD 2ND FL 205 W MAIN ST 205 W MAIN ST
VIENNA,VA 22182 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
STEVENSON KAREN H 135 HOPKINS LTD DEAN FAMILY LTD PTSHP LLP
205 W MAIN ST 12400 HWY 71 W#350-371 590 DELLWOOD AVE
ASPEN,CO 81611 AUSTIN,TX 78738 BOULDER,CO 80301
JES 2002 GRANTOR TRUST SHIELD JULIET E HAYMAX LODGING LLC
221 N STARWOOD DR 221 N STARWOOD DR 101 W MAIN ST
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
FTG ASPEN LLC MELTON DAVID GOOLSBY BRYAN&MICHELLE
6735 TELEGRAPH RD#110 135 W MAIN ST 6722 WAGGONER
BLOOMFIELD HILLS,MI 48301-3141 ASPEN,CO 81611 DALLAS,TX 75230
RILEY AMY CLARK NEWKAM PATRICK C JOHNSON ASPEN HOLDINGS LLC
129 W BLEEKER ST 211 W MAIN ST 4949 E LINCOLN DR#19
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 PARADISE VALLEY,AZ 852534108
GUENTHER TODD NIMMO GUENTHER KELLY BTRSARDY LLC
150 COLUMBUS AVE APT 16C 121 W SLEEKER ST PO BOX 10195 DEPT 1173
NEW YORK,NY 10023 ASPEN,CO 81611 PALO ALTO,CA 94303
KING LOUISE LLC VAUGHAN CAPITAL PTNRS LP 118 NORTH FIRST LLC
PO BOX 1467 PO BOX 390 623 E HOPKINS AVE
BASALT,CO 81621 HEBRON, IL 60034 ASPEN,CO 81611
TYROL APARTMENTS LLC TYROLEAN LODGE LLC GROVER FREDRICK W&PAULA J
200 W MAIN ST 200 W MAIN ST 399 MARSHALL HEIGHTS DR
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 WEXFORD,PA 15090
MAYER KEVIN GROSVENOR DENIS FCB LLC
222 W HOPKINS AVE#2 209 CAMINO DE LA MERCED#C PO BOX 6622
ASPEN,CO 81611 TAOS,NM 875716922 SNOWMASS VILLAGE,CO 81615-6622
i
GASTON JOHN&KATHERINE GREENASPEN LLC GARMISCH LODGING LLC
16 BRYNWOOD LN 30 ISLAND DR 110 W MAIN ST
GREENWICH,CT 06831 KEY BISCAYNE,FL 33149 ASPEN,CO 81611
WEST HOPKINS LLC BERGHOFF KRISTIN TRUST BERGHOFF MICHAEL R TRUST
PO BOX 61510 9112 WALNUT GROVE DR 9112 WALNUT GROVE DR
POTOMAC,MD 20859 INDIANAPOLIS,IN 46236 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46236
120 EAST MAIN PARTNERS LLC CITY OF ASPEN 132 W MAIN LLC
120 E MAIN ST 130 S GALENA ST 1615 CALIFORNIA ST#707
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 DENVER,CO 80202
2401 BLAKE LLC TIMBERLINE BANK ROSE BRANDON
1615 CALIFORNIA ST#707 633 24 RD PO BOX 544
DENVER,CO 80202 GRAND JUNCTION,CO 81505 WHARTON,NJ 07885
COLLINS CINDA REV TRUST CRAWFORD RANDALL&ABIGAIL LANDIS CAROLYN
301 KENWOOD PKWY#301 124 N GARMISCH ST 128 N GARMISCH ST
MINNEAPOLIS,MN 554031162 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
PARDUBA JIRI ZATS JULIE GARCIA STEVEN J
116 N GARMISCH ST 118 N GARMISCH 120 N GARMISCH
ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
AJAX VIEW COMMERCIALINORTH STAR OFF GARET CONDO ASSOC VICTORIANS AT BLEEKER CONDO ASSOC
132 W MAIN ST 400 E MAIN ST#2 101 E BLEEKER ST
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC HOTEL ASPEN CONDO ASSOC
233 W MAIN ST 4960 CONFERENCE WY N#100 COMMON AREA
ASPEN,CO 81611 BOCA RATON,FL 33431 110 W MAIN ST
ASPEN,CO 81611
NORTHSTAR OFFICE BUILDING CONDO ASS DIMITRIUS RALLI TRUST DIRE WOLF LLC
COMMON AREA 535 FREMONT DR 100 E MAIN ST#1
122 W MAIN ST PASADENA,CA 91103 ASPEN,CO 81611
ASPEN,CO 81611
100 EAST MAIN STREET LLC FLEMING KIMBERLY PAIGE 100 EAST MAIN STREET CONDO ASSOC
623 E HOPKINS AVE PO BOX 2869 100 E MAIN ST
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611