HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20090112CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
January 12, 2009
5:00 P.M.
ANNUAL MEETING OF ASPEN PUBLIC FACILITIES
I) Call to Order
II) Roll Call
III) Scheduled Public Appearances
IV) Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues NOT on
the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes)
V) Special Orders of the Day
a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments
b) Agenda Deletions and Additions
c) City Manager's Comments
d) Board Reports
VI) Consent Calendar (These matters maybe adopted together by a single motion)
a) Resolution #1, 2009 -Posting Location for Meeting Schedule
b) Resolution #2, 2009 -Designating Paper for Legal Notices
c) Resolution #4, 2009 -Contract - Sopris Eng.- Burlingame Ranch Phase I -storm
drainage
d) Resolution #5, 2009 - EOTC 2009 ''/z% Transit Sales and Use Tax Budget
e) Resolution #6, 2009 -Wheeler Phase I architectural services
Minutes -December 1, 8, 2008
VII) First Reading of Ordinances
a) Ordinance #1, 2009 -Historic Designation -Aspen Athletic Club
VIII) Public Hearings
a) Ordinance #41, 2008 -Code Amendment Requiring CO Monitor
b) Resolution #3, 2009 -Conceptual PUD Aspen Valley Hospital
IX) Action Items
a) Williams Ranch Subdivision -Wright Appeal
X) Information Items
XI) Adjournment
Next Regular Meeting January 26, 2009
COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M.
Council Schedule as of 01/08/2009
All meetings will be held in the Council Chambers unless otherwise noted
1/9 11:00 am Site Visit -Aspen Valley Hospital - 0401 Castle Creek Rd.
1/12 5 pm REGULAR MEETING
1/14 5 pm SPECIAL MEETING -Ordinance #34, 2009 -Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan
1/19 HOLIDAY -Martin Luther King Day
1/20 4pm Council Discussion
Spm Work Session -Main Street Pedestrian Improvements
1/26 Spm REGULAR MEETING
1/27 NOON AACP -Community Meeting - St. Regis
5:30 pm AACP -Community Meeting - St. Regis
1/31 3:00 AACP -Community Meeting -Aspen High school
2/2 Spm Work Session
2/3 4pm Joint Work Session with BOCC
2/9 5 pm REGULAR MEETING
2/10 4pm Council Discussion
Spm Work Session -Budget Update
2/16 HOLIDAY -Presidents' Day
2/17 4pm Council Discussion
Spm Work Session: Aspen Economy Presentation
2/23 Spm REGULAR MEETING
2/24 4pm Council Discussion
Spm Work Session
3/2 Spm Work Session: Historic Preservation Task Force Draft Report
3/3 4pm Council Discussion
Spm Joint Work Session with P&Z: AACP Update
3/9 Spm REGULAR MEETING
3/10 4pm Council Discussion
Spm Work Session: AACP Update
3/16 Spm Work Session: In-Town Transportation Plan
3/17 4pm Council Discussion
Spm Work Session: AACP Update
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
DATE: December 23, 2008
RE: Annual Meeting of the Aspen Public Facilities Authority
SUMMARY: The articles of incorporation of the Aspen Public Facilities Authority state
that the annual meeting shall be held on the second Monday in January.
BACKGROUND: The Aspen Public Facilities Authority is a "non-profit corporation
and an instrumentality of the City of Aspen for certain limited purposes".
The Board of Directors of the Authority is the members of the City Council, the City
Finance Director and the City Clerk. The officers at the last annual meeting were:
President Mick Ireland
Vice President Jack Johnson
Secretary Kathryn Koch
Asst. Secretary Steve Skadron
Treasurer Don Taylor
The Articles of Incorporation state:
"Each member of the Board of Directors who is also a member of
the City Council shall serve a term coterminous with his or her term as a
member of the City Council or until his or her death, removal, resignation
or disability. The members of the Board of Directors who hold the office
of Finance Director and City Clerk shall serve terms coterminous with
their employment as Finance Director and City Clerk respectively, or until
their death, removal, resignation or disability. If a vacancy occurs for a
Director who is also a City Council member, the person succeeding such
person on the City Council shall become a Director of the Authority. If a
vacancy occurs for a Director who is also either the Finance Director or
the City Clerk, the person succeeding to such office of the City shall
become a director of the Authority.
The by-laws also state if the office of vice president or assistant secretary
become vacant, the corporation shall elect a successor from its
membership at the next regular meeting, and such election shall be for the
unexpired term of said office."
The By-Laws state the President shall be the Mayor of the City of Aspen. The Vice
President and Assistant Secretary shall be members of the City Council and shall hold
office so long as he or she remains a member of the City Council of the City of Aspen.
The Treasurer shall be the Finance Director of the City of Aspen.
The Bylaws of the Authority require that an annual meeting be held on the second
Monday of January at 5:00 p.m. at the regular meeting place of the corporation. The
Bylaws state the following order of business for regular meetings:
1. Roll call
2. Reading and approval of the minutes of the previous meeting (minutes of
January 14, 2008 attached)
3. Election of Treasurer
4. Bill and Communications
5. Report of President
6. Unfinished business
7. New business
8. Adjournment
The Authority was formed to assist in financing the construction of the Parking Facility.
The Authority initially leased the ground for the parking facility from the City, owned the
facility and leased the ground and facility back to the City. All of the Authority's interest
in the Parking Facility leases and subleases related to the Parking Facility has been
assigned to a trustee.
In 1995 the Authority passed two resolutions; one allowed the refinancing of the parking
garage bonds, and one entered into a similar lease arrangement for Cozy Point.
The Ground lease requires that the Authority "maintain its corporation existence, .. will
not dissolve or otherwise dispose of all or substantially all of its assets and will not
consolidate with or merge into another corporation..." during the term of the ground
lease.
In 2007, the Aspen Public Facilities Authority authorized the certificates of participation
for the purchase of the Isis theatre.
Reeular Meeting Aspen City Council January 14, 2008
ANNUAL PUBLIC FACILITIES MEETING
President Ireland called the meeting to order at 5:03 p.m. with members DeVilbiss,
Johnson, Skadron, Romero and Koch present.
Koch pointed out when Council is elected, they become members of the Public Facility
Authority and the Mayor is President. The offices of Vice-President and Assistant
Secretary need to be filled. The interim finance director, Barry Crook, should be
appointed as Treasurer.
Johnson moved to approve the authority minutes of January 8 and 29, 2007; seconded by
DeVilbiss. All in favor, motion carried.
DeVilbiss nominated Johnson as Vice President; Crook as Treasurer and Skadron as
Assistant Secretary. Johnson moved to approve the slate of officers; seconded by
DeVilbiss. All in favor, motion carried.
Johnson moved to adjourn at 5:10 p.m.; seconded by Romero. All in favor, motion
carried.
COUNCIL MEETING
Mayor Ireland called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. with Councilmembers DeVilbiss,
Skadron, Romero and Johnson present.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
1. Bob Nix said he read about the city's award program for historic projects. Nix
noted one of the recipients is a project against which he has filed suit and the city has
been joined as a necessary party because of a quiet title action. Nix said he will continue
to protest an award for an illegal project and will be at the awards ceremony. Mayor
Ireland said this lawsuit will be discussed at an executive session
1. Councilman Romero thanked city staff who have toiled many and late hours on
snow removal; it is a good problem to have. Councilman Romero thanked the citizens
for their patience.
2. Councilman Skadron noted it is the first meeting of 2008, an occasion to wear a
tie. Councilman Skadron said he has been backpacking in Central American and it is
great to be back in the US.
3. Councilman DeVilbiss stated he is the city's representative to RFTA. At the
January 10`h RFTA Board meeting, the principal business was discussion of trail closure
along the right-of--way from Catherine's Store to El Jebel. The trail is closed from
2
~. ~..
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
DATE: December 22, 2008
RE: Resolution Designating the Public Place for the Posting of Notices of Public
Meetings
Pursuant to 1991 legislative amendments to the Colorado Open Meeting Law as Section
24-6-402(2)(c), City Council is to annually designate at its first meeting for each calendar year a
public place for the posting of notices for meeting. By properly designating a place for posting
meeting notices, a public entity will be deemed to have given full and timely notice of any
meeting so long as notice thereof was posted as the designated place at least twenty-four hours in
advance thereof. Posting notices as the designated place will also suffice for municipal boards
and commissions.
Attached is Resolution #1, Series of 2009, which identifies the glass case in the first floor
lobby of City Hall as the designated place for posting of meeting notices. Approval of the
consent calendar will adopt this resolution.
Attach
Resolution #1, 2009
RESOLUTION #1
Series of 2009
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 notice of all of 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 "local public bodies" subject to the requirements
of the law to annually designate at the local public body's first regular meeting of each calendar
year, 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 24-6-402 (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 the 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 enclosed glass case in the
lobby of City Hall, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado.
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 Meetings
Law, C.R.S., Section 24-6-401, et seq.
Dated:
2009.
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a
true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, at a meeting held January 12, 2009.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
b.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
DATE: December 29, 2008
RE: Resolution #2, 2009 -Designating the Aspen Times Weekly as the City's
Legal Publication
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests Council adopt Resolution #2, 2009 -
designating the Aspen Times Weekly as the legal publication for the City of Aspen.
BACKGROUND: The Aspen City Charter requires all ordinances be published in full
after first reading noting the time and place for the public hearing. The land use code
also requires various public notices.
According to the state statutes, the standard for legal publications is that a newspaper has
a second class mailing permit. In order to have a second class mailing permit, a
publication has to demonstrate to the U. S. Postal Service that they have at least 50% paid
subscriber base. According to the U. S. Postmaster in Glenwood Springs, the only
newspapers that would qualify are the Snowmass Sun or the Rifle Telegram.
The City Attorney's Office is of the opinion that, as home rule charter city, the City can
designate by resolution an official newspaper for the publication of all notices required
by the City Charter or the City Code.
DISCUSSION:
In November 2008, staff sent request for bids to publish the city's legal notices to the two
Aspen newspapers. Each was asked to do a mock up of an ordinance and to quote a price
for legal publication. The Aspen Times and the Aspen Daily News both responded with
costs per column inch as well as a cost for the mock up ordinance.
The cost per column inch for the Aspen Daily News is about 5% lower than that of the
Aspen Times; however, the price quoted by the Aspen Times for publication of the mock
ordinance is 66% less. Based on those quotes, staff recommends the Aspen Times
Weekly as the paper for all the legal notices for the city of Aspen. The Aspen Times
Weekly is where legal notices are traditionally published in Aspen, which makes it easy
for the public to find them and easier for staff to check the notices.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: There is a line item in the city clerk's and the
community development department's budgets for legal notices. This will not impact the
budget.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: This will not change the way business is currently
being done so there should be no negative or positive impacts on the environment. The
most positive environmental impact would be not to publish ordinances in full; however,
that is a Charter requirement and requires voter approval to do so. We took that Charter
Amendment to the voters in November 2002 and it was defeated 1139 to 811.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends adoption of Resolution #2, 2009
ALTERNATIVES: Council can direct that the Aspen Daily News be the paper for all
legal notices for the city of Aspen.
MOTION: By adopting the consent calendar and Resolution #2, 2009, Council will be
designating the Aspen Times Weekly the site for the City of Aspen's legal notices for the
calendar year 2009.
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
Attachments:
Resolution #2, 2009
RESOLUTION #2
(Series of 2009)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL DESIGNATING THE
ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY AS THE SITE FOR THE LEGAL NOTICES FOR
THE CITY OF ASPEN
WHEREAS, there is a Charter requirement to publish ordinances adopted
by the City of Aspen and requirements within the City of Aspen land use code to
publish land use cases, and
WHEREAS, no newspaper at this end of the Roaring Fork Valley meets the
state requirements as a "legal publication", and
WHEREAS, City Council directed staff to conduct a bid process among the
publications at this end of the Roaring Fork Valley
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen has been publishing legal notices in the
Aspen Times Weekly for over 50 years, and their quote for legal notices was about
66% less than the other publication.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby designates -the Aspen
Times Weekly as the legal newspaper for the purpose of publication of all legal
notices required to be published pursuant to the Charter of the City of Aspen or
any provision of the Aspen Municipal Code for the calendar year 2009.
Dated:
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held January 12, 2009.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
G.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
THRU:
DATE OF MEMO:
MEETING DATE:
RE:
Mayor and City Council
John Laatsch
Steve Barwick
December 31, 2008
January 12, 2009
Asset Project Manager
City Manager
Burlingame Ranch Phase I: Continuation of Irrigation Pipe
and Extension of Storm Drainage System
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Asset Staff requests Council approval of Resolution #.~..
approving the contract for Professional Design Services with Sopris Engineering, LLC.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: There has been no previous action on this issue other than
the signing of the design and construction contracts with Shaw Builder LLC for the Phase I
Design and Construction of Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Project.
BACKGROUND: In 2004, the City of Aspen issued an RFQ for Burlingame Ranch Affordable
Housing development teams. A competition was held among the finalists, and Shaw Builders
LLC was selected based on a number of factors, including design, cost considerations, and
schedule. A developer model contract was executed in 2005 and a Notice to Proceed was signed
by the City in June with a completion date of November 2006, extended later to June 2007.
The contracts for design and construction for Phase I address the outflow of the irrigation ditch
water that is available to the project landscape irrigation system by overland surface discharge
within the area referred to as LOT C and Basin 1. With the purchase by the City of the land
known as LOT C for a park this overland surface discharge is no longer available for the
irrigation discharge nor is any surface discharge able to now flow over Double Bar X property
there by requiring a pipe conveyance of the irrigation ditch flow thru the Burlingame Ranch
Common properly to a discharge location consistent with nature overland flow.
Another irrigation supply system available to the project was the Water Reuse Line that when
complete will provide irrigation water to the City Golf Course. While the project incorporated
the placement of the Water Reuse Line it did not provide for a connection from the line to the
landscape irrigation pumping chamber. The Water Reuse Line was envisioned as the irrigation
Page 1 of 3
water source of choice to supplement the irrigation ditch water rather than the city potable
supply.
And the third component of this work will be to continue the storm drainage system that collects
stormwater runoff from Harmony Road and from the future Phase II & III areas of the project as
well as the stormwater from the associated Deer Hill area of the watershed. This system
continuation will remove its dischazge from the LOT C location to an azea of discharge of the
stormwater retention pond located at the Southeast corner of the property. The dischazge maybe
continued to a location on the Double Bar X property that coincides with the ranch dischazge of
their ditch and stormwater systems but either location will be consistent with nature overland
flow.
DISCUSSION: The inclusion of these three elements into one project design will reduce the
construction cost of doing them individually and will complete the objective of providing
sufficient and affordable irrigation water for the entire Burlingame Ranch project. Until the
irrigation ditch continuation is provided the ditch water is not available to the project. The only
supply of water for the landscape irrigation of Phase I is potable water at this time and the
expense of this water is huge and not necessary and is not the best use of this resource and
furthermore may not be sufficient to meet the needs of the project. The timing of this proposed
work will permit integration of the LOT C PARK DESIGN to access the irrigation ditch, water
reuse line and the stormwater runoff pipe system and afford the opportunity for a creative integral
stormwater management design for the Park and Burlingame Ranch.
It is difficult to understand why these elements were left out of the contract with Shaw Builders
LLC however there was not the purchase of LOT C on the near horizon, conditions with the
ownership of the Double Baz X changed and the inclusion of the Water Reuse Line was a late
reality therefore in hind-sight a better and more integrated design is now possible.
Asset staff obtained preliminary designs from the ShawPossDHM team for this Design project
but after cazeful consideration and the timing of the completion of Phase I, we decided to
contract both the final design and construction under sepazate contracts from the Shaw contract.
We now would like to proceed with the design work, obtain cost estimates and bid documents
and construct these utilities early in 2009.
FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: The cost of this project budget will be approximately
$300,00-$500,000
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Incomplete stormwater systems can negatively impact
streams and rivers. Our site does have redundant construction and stormwater management
systems so there should be no negative environmental impact with this work.
The Design work will include the necessary environmental protection for proper construction of
the design facilities.
Page 2 of 3
RECOMMENDED ACTION: That City Council approve this contract with Sopris
Engineering LLC for the sum of $44,500.
ALTERNATIVES: Council may direct staff to continue the notice letter approach only and rely
on settlement before proceeding with alternate contractors. This may have the benefit of avoiding
dispute costs, but could extend project completion dates.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Resolution #~ committing the City to
Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENTS: Professional Service Contract
RESOLUTION # ~/
(Series of 2009)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, AND SOPRIS ENGINEERING INC SETTING FORTH
THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REGARDING BURLINGAME RANCH
PHASE I: CONTINUATION OF IRRIGATION PIPE AND EXTENSION OF
STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract
between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and Sopris Engineering Inc., a copy of
which contract is annexed hereto and made a part thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that contract
between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and Sopris Engineering Inc. regarding
Burlingame Ranch phase I: Continuation of Irrigation Pipe and Extension of
Storm Drainage System a copy of which is annexed hereto and 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:
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held January 12, 2009.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This Agreement made and entered on the date hereinafter stated, between the CITY OF
ASPEN, Colorado, ("City") and SOPRIS ENGINEERING, LLC ("Professional").
For and in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as
follows:
1. Scope of Work. Professional shall perform in a competent and professional manner
the Scope of Work as set forth at Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated
herein.
2. Completion. Professional shall commence work immediately upon receipt of a
written Notice to Proceed from the City and complete all phases of the Scope of Work as
expeditiously as is consistent with professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the Work
in a timely manner. The parties anticipate that all work pursuant to this agreement shall be
completed no later than February 6, 2009. Upon request of the City, Professional shall submit, for
the City's approval, a schedule for the performance of Professional's services which shall be
adjusted as required as the project proceeds, and which shall include allowances for periods of time
required by the City's project engineer for review and approval of submissions and for approvals of
authorities having jurisdiction over the project. This schedule, when approved by the City, shall not,
except for reasonable cause, be exceeded by the Professional.
3. Payment. In consideration of the work performed, City shall pay Professional on a
time and expense basis for all work performed. The hourly rates for work performed by
Professional shall not exceed those hourly rates set forth at Exhibit "B" appended hereto. Except as
otherwise mutually agreed to by the parties the payments made to Professional shall not initially
exceed $44,500.00. Professional shall submit, in timely fashion, invoices for work performed. The
Ciry shall review such invoices and, if they are considered incorrect or untimely, the City shall
review the matter with Professional within ten days from receipt of the Professional's bill.
4. Non-Assienability. Both parties recognize that this contract is one for personal
services and cannot be transferred, assigned, or sublet by either party without prior written consent
of the other. Sub-Contracting, if authorized, shall not relieve the Professional of any of the
responsibilities or obligations under this agreement. Professional shall be and remain solely
responsible to the Ciry for the acts, errors, omissions or neglect of any subcontractors officers,
agents and employees, each of whom shall, for this purpose be deemed to be an agent or employee
of the Professional to the extent of the subcontract. The City shall not be obligated to pay or be
liable for payment of any sums due which may be due to any sub-contractor.
5. Termination. The Professional or the City may terminate this Agreement, without
specifying the reason therefor, by giving notice, in writing, addressed to the other party, specifying
the effective date of the termination. No fees shall be earned after the effective date of the
PSI-971.doc Page 1
termination. Upon any termination, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys,
drawings, maps, models, photographs, reports or other material prepared by the Professional
pursuant to this Agreement shall become the property of the City. Notwithstanding the above,
Professional shall not be relieved of any liability to the City for damages sustained by the City by
virtue of any breach of this Agreement by the Professional, and the City may withhold any
payments to the Professional for the purposes of set-off until such time as the exact amount of
damages due the City from the Professional may be determined.
6. Covenant A¢ainst Contingent Fees. The Professional warrants that s/he has not
employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working for the
Professional, to solicit or secure this contract, that s/he has not paid or agreed to pay any company
or person, other than a bona fide employee, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts or
any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this contract.
7. Independent Contractor Status. It is expressly acknowledged and understood by the
parties that nothing contained in this agreement shall result in, or be construed as establishing an
employment relationship. Professional shall be, and shall perform as, an independent Contractor
who agrees to use his or her best efforts to provide the said services on behalf of the City. No
agent, employee, or servant of Professional shall be, or shall be deemed to be, the employee, agent
or servant of the City. City is interested only in the results obtained under this contract. The
manner and means of conducting the work are under the sole control of Professional. None of the
benefits provided by City to its employees including, but not limited to, workers' compensation
insurance and unemployment insurance, are available from City to the employees, agents or
servants of Professional. Professional shall be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the
acts of Professional's agents, employees, servants and subcontractors during the performance of this
contract. Professional shall indemnify City against all liability and loss in connection with, and
shall assume full responsibility for payment of all federal, state and local taxes or contributions
imposed or required under unemployment insurance, social security and income tax law, with
respect to Professional and/or Professional's employees engaged in the performance of the services
agreed to herein.
8. Indemnification. Professional agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its
officers, employees, insurers, and self-insurance pool, from and against all liability, claims, and
demands, on account of injury, loss, or damage, including without limitation claims arising from
bodily injury, personal injury, sickness, disease, death, property loss or damage, or any other loss of
any kind whatsoever, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with this contract, if such
injury, loss, or damage is caused in whole or in part by, or is claimed to be caused in whole or in
part by, the act, omission, error, professional error, mistake, negligence, or other fault of the
Professional, any subcontractor of the Professional, or any officer, employee, representative, or
agent of the Professional or of any subcontractor of the Professional, or which arises out of any
workmen's compensation claim of any employee of the Professional or of any employee of any
subcontractor of the Professional. The Professional agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, and to
provide defense for and defend against, any such liability, claims or demands at the sole expense of
the Professional, or at the option of the City, agrees to pay the City or reimburse the City for the
PS1-971.doc Page 2
defense costs incurred by the City in connection with, any such liability, claims, or demands. If it is
determined by the final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction that such injury, loss, or
damage was caused in whole or in part by the act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or
its employees, the City shall reimburse the Professional for the portion of the judgment attributable
to such act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or employees.
9. Professional's Insurance. (a) Professional agrees to procure and maintain, at its own
expense, a policy or policies of insurance sufficient to insure against all liability, claims, demands,
and other obligations assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. Such insurance
shall be in addition to any other insurance requirements imposed by this contract or by law. The
Professional shall not be relieved of any liability, claims, demands, or other obligations assumed
pursuant to Section 8 above by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance, or by reason of
its failure to procure or maintain insurance in sufficient amounts, duration, or types.
(b) Professional shall procure and maintain, and shall cause any subcontractor of the
Professional to procure and maintain, the minimum insurance coverages listed below. Such
coverages shall be procured and maintained with forms and insurance acceptable to the City. All
coverages shall be continuously maintained to cover all liability, claims, demands, and other
obligations assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. In the case of any claims-
made policy, the necessary retroactive dates and extended reporting periods shall be procured to
maintain such continuous coverage.
(i) Workers' Compensation insurance to cover obligations imposed by
applicable laws for any employee engaged in the performance of work under this contract, and
Employers' Liability insurance with minimum limits of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND
DOLLARS ($500,000.00) for each accident, FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($500,000.00) disease - policy limit, and FI/E HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($500,000.00) disease -each employee. Evidence of qualified self-insured status may be substituted
for the Workers' Compensation requirements of this paragraph.
(ii) Commercial General Liability insurance with minimum combined single
limits of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE MILLION
DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) aggregate. The policy shall be applicable to all premises and
operations. The policy shall include coverage for bodily injury, broad form property damage
(including completed operations), personal injury (including coverage for contractual and
employee acts), blanket contractual, independent contractors, products, and completed
operations. The policy shall contain a severability of interests provision.
(iii) Comprehensive Automobile Liability insurance with minimum combined
single limits for bodily injury and property damage of not less than ONE MILLION
DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,00-
0.00) aggregate with respect to each Professional's owned, hired and non-owned vehicles
assigned to or used in performance of the Scope of Work. The policy shall contain a
severability of interests provision If the Professional has no owned automobiles, the
PS1-971.doc Page3
requirements of this Section shall be met by each employee of the Professional providing
services to the City under this contract.
(iv) Professional Liability insurance with the minimum limits of ONE
MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) each claim and ONE MILLION DOLLARS
($1,000,000) aggregate.
(c) The policy or policies required above shall be endorsed to include the City and the
City's officers and employees as additional insureds. Every policy required above shall be primary
insurance, and any insurance carried by the City, its officers or employees, or carried by or provided
through any insurance pool of the City, shall be excess and not contributory insurance to that
provided by Professional. No additional insured endorsement to the policy required above shall
contain any exclusion for bodily injury or property damage arising from completed operations. The
Professional shall be solely responsible for any deductible losses under any policy required above.
(d) The certificate of insurance provided by the City shall be completed by the
Professional's insurance agent as evidence that policies providing the required coverages, condi-
tions, and minimum limits are in full force and effect, and shall be reviewed and approved by the
City prior to commencement of the contract. No other form of certificate shall be used. The certifi-
cate shall identify this contract and shall provide that the coverages afforded under the policies shall
not be canceled, terminated or materially changed until at least thirty (30) days prior written notice
has been given to the City.
(e) Failure on the part of the Professional to procure or maintain policies providing the
required coverages, conditions, and minimum limits shall constitute a material breach of contract
upon which City may immediately terminate this contract, or at its discretion City may procure or
renew any such policy or any extended reporting period thereto and may pay any and all premiums
in connection therewith, and all monies so paid by City shall be repaid by Professional to City upon
demand, or City may offset the cost of the premiums against monies due to Professional from City.
(f) City reserves the right to request and receive a certified copy of any policy and any
endorsement thereto.
(g) The parties hereto understand and agree that City is relying on, and does not waive or
intend to waive by any provision of this contract, the monetary limitations (presently $150,000.00
per person and $600,000 per occurrence) or any other rights, immunities, and protections provided
by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24-10-101 et seq., C.R.S., as from time to
time amended, or otherwise available to City, its officers, or its employees.
10. City's Insurance. The parties hereto understand that the City is a member of the
Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency (CIRSA) and as such participates in the CIRSA
Property/Casualty Pool. Copies of the CIRSA policies and manual are kept at the City of Aspen
Finance Department and aze available to Professional for inspection during normal business hours.
City makes no representations whatsoever with respect to specific coverages offered by CIRSA.
PS1-971.doc Page 4
City shall provide Professional reasonable notice of any changes in its membership or participation
in CIRSA.
11. Completeness of Agreement. It is expressly agreed that this agreement contains the
entire undertaking of the parties relevant to the subject matter thereof and there are no verbal or
written representations, agreements, warranties or promises pertaining to the project matter thereof
not expressly incorporated in this writing.
12. Notice. Any written notices as called for herein may be hand delivered to the
respective persons and/or addresses listed below or mailed by certified mail return receipt
requested, to:
City:
City Manager
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Professional:
Sopris Engineering, LLC
502Main Street Suite A3
Cazbondale, Colorado 81623
13. Non-Discrimination. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, marital
status, affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry, handicap, or
religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform services under this contract.
Professional agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, Section 13-98,
pertaining to non-discrimination in employment.
14. Waiver. The waiver by the City of any term, covenant, or condition hereof shall not
operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term. No term, covenant, or
condition of this Agreement can be waived except by the written consent of the City, and
forbeazance or indulgence by the City in any regard whatsoever shall not constitute a waiver of any
term, covenant, or condition to be performed by Professional to which the same may apply and,
until complete performance by Professional of said term, covenant or condition, the City shall be
entitled to invoke any remedy available to it under this Agreement or by law despite any such
forbearance or indulgence.
15. Execution of Agreement by City. This agreement shall be binding upon all parties
hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns. Notwith-
standing anything to the contrary contained herein, this agreement shall not be binding upon the
City unless duly executed by the Mayor of the City of Aspen (or a duly authorized official in his
absence) following a Motion or Resolution of the Council of the City of Aspen authorizing the
Mayor (or a duly authorized official in his absence) to execute the same.
16. Illegal Aliens -CRS 8-17.5-101 & 24-76.5-101.
a. Purpose. During the 2006 Colorado legislative session, the Legislature passed
House Bills 06-1343 (subsequently amended by HB 07-1073) and 06-1023 that added
PS1-971.doc Page 5
new statutes relating to the employment of and contracting with illegal aliens. These new
laws prohibit all state agencies and political subdivisions, including the City of Aspen,
from knowingly hiring an illegal alien to perform work under a contract, or to knowingly
contract with a subcontractor who knowingly hires with an illegal alien to perform work
under the contract. The new laws also require that all contracts for services include
certain specific language as set forth in the statutes. The following terms and conditions
have been designed to comply with the requirements of this new law.
b. Definitions. The following terms are defined in the new law and by this reference
are incorporated herein and in any contract for services entered into with the City of
Aspen.
"Basic Pilot Program" means the basic pilot employment verification program
created in Public Law 208, 104th Congress, as amended, and expanded in Public Law
156, 108th Congress, as amended, that is administered by the United States Department
of Homeland Security.
"Public Contract for Services" means this Agreement.
"Services" means the furnishing of labor, time, or effort by a Contractor or a
subcontractor not involving the delivery of a specific end product other than reports that
are merely incidental to the required performance.
c. By signing this document, Professional certifies and represents that at this time:
(i) Professional shall confirm the employment eligibility of all employees who are
newly hired for employment in the United States; and
(ii) Professional has participated or attempted to participate in the Basic Pilot
Program in order to verify that new employees are not employ illegal aliens.
d. Professional hereby confirms that:
(i) Professional shall not knowingly employ or contract new employees
without confirming the employment eligibility of all such employees hired for
employment in the United States under the Public Contract for Services.
(ii) Professional shall not enter into a contract with a subcontractor that fails to
confirm to the Professional that the subcontractor shall not knowingly hire new
employees without confirming their employment eligibility for employment in the
United States under the Public Contract for Services.
(iii) Professional has verified or has attempted to verify through participation
in the Federal Basic Pilot Program that Professional does not employ any new
PS]-971.doc Page 6
employees who are not eligible for employment in the United States; and if
Professional has not been accepted into the Federal Basic Pilot Program prior to
entering into the Public Contract for Services, Professional shall forthwith apply
to participate in the Federal Basic Pilot Program and shall in writing verify such
application within five (5) days of the date of the Public Contract. Professional
shall continue to apply to participate in the Federal Basic Pilot Program and shall
in writing verify same every three (3) calendar months thereafter, until
Professional is accepted or the public contract for services has been completed,
whichever is earlier. The requirements of this section shall not be required or
effective if the Federal Basic Pilot Program is discontinued.
(iv) Professional shall not use the Basic Pilot Program procedures to undertake
pre-employment screening of job applicants while the Public Contract for
Services is being performed.
(v) If Professional obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing
work under the Public Contract for Services knowingly employs or contracts with
a new employee who is an illegal alien, Professional shall:
(1) Notify such subcontractor and the City of Aspen within
three days that Professional has actual knowledge that the subcontractor
has newly employed or contracted with an illegal alien; and
(2) Terminate the subcontract with the subcontractor if within
three days of receiving the notice required pursuant to this section the
subcontractor does not cease employing or contracting with the new
employee who is an illegal alien; except that Professional shall not
terminate the Public Contract for Services with the subcontractor if during
such three days the subcontractor provides information to establish that the
subcontractor has not knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal
alien.
(vi) Professional shall comply with any reasonable request by the Colorado
Department of Labor and Employment made in the course of an investigation that
the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment undertakes or is undertaking
pursuant to the authority established in Subsection 8-17.5-102 (5), C.R.S.
(vii) If Professional violates any provision of the Public Contract for Services
pertaining to the duties imposed by Subsection 8-17.5-102, C.R.S. the City of
Aspen may terminate the Public Contract for Services. If the Public Contract for
Services is so terminated, Contractor shall be liable for actual and consequential
damages to the City of Aspen arising out of Professional's violation of Subsection
8-17.5-102, C.R.S.
PS1-971.doc Page 7
(ix) If Professional operates as a sole proprietor, Professional hereby swears or
affirms under penalty of perjury that the Professional (1) is a citizen of the United
States or otherwise lawfully present in the United States pursuant to federal
law,(2) shall comply with the provisions of CRS 24-76.5-101 et seq., and (3) shall
produce one of the forms of identification required by CRS 24-76.5-103 prior to
the effective date of this Agreement.
17. General Terms.
(a) It is agreed that neither this agreement nor any of its terms, provisions,
conditions, representations or covenants can be modified, changed, terminated or amended, waived,
superseded or extended except by appropriate written instrument fully executed by the parties.
(b) If any of the provisions of this agreement shall be held invalid, illegal or
unenforceable it shall not affect or impair the validity, legality or enforceability of any other
provision.
(c) The parties acknowledge and understand that there are no conditions or
limitations to this understanding except those as contained herein at the time of the execution
hereof and that after execution no alteration, change or modification shall be made except upon a
writing signed by the parties.
(d) This agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado as
from time to time in effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed, or caused to be executed by their duly
authorized officials, this Agreement in three copies each of which shall be deemed an original on
the date hereinafter written.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
PSI -97 Ldoc Page 8
ATTESTED BY: CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
By:
Title:
Date:
PROFESSIONAL:
WITNESSED BY: 5,,, nr~(L~rnrLa , G[
~~ c/ ~~ _
By:
Ti e: ~ f ~, ~y
/
,
Date: __~~~~/~ /.n ~
PS1-971.doc Page 9
EXHIBIT "A" to Professional Services Agreement
Scope of Work
SE will provide professional engineering services as presented below. SE will primarily focus on
performing engineering studies and preliminary designs within site limits, and finalize them as detailed
construction drawings suitable for bidding. These designs will include drawings and specifications in order
to implement all of the proposed improvements.
Site Grading: Utilizing the parcel C and the project area, this work will include preparation of grading
plans and details, and design of site specific BMPs both for construction phase and post construction
performance of the site. The performance measures will be in compliance with the City of Aspen's adopted
municipal BMPs prior to the SE's signature date on this agreement. SE will identify overall site earthwork
quantities upon completion of the final designs for those areas subject to disturbance and alteration. We
will evaluate geotechnical and/or soil investigation reports the owners may provide; and we will
incorporate the recommendation as appropriate for the final design of the improvements.
Site Drainage: SE will perform a review and evaluation of the previous drainage studies and designs
provided by others, take into consideration the offsite impacts, perform drainage basin analysis, and
identify runoff from tributaries impacting the project site. These tributaries are limited to runoff from the
Harmony Drive Storm Sewer System, runoff from the southern section of the future Phase-II Project, and
runoff generated on the project site south of the Forge Road. SE will further analyze project site impacts on
the adjacent and the downstream properties, and existing conveyance routes up to the outfall point at about
the east property line. Using this information, we will prepare a final design for stormwater collection
routes and conveyance corridors, and for the facilities for on-site stormwater management practices
including sediment control and TSS removal. We will provide critical cross sections of the future drainage
collection and conveyance system, as well as quantities of all open and closed (piped) stormwater
conveyance runs.
Irrigation Water Supply: As required by the City, SE will complete the design of the raw water
imgation delivery line from the reclaimed water main, the configuration of an existing irrigation ditch, a
proposed water feature pond and overflow/bypass line; and SE will provide details as necessary to
construct this new system. This work will be coordinated with our landscaping consultant and the City's
Parks Department to incorporate all desired landscaping features.
Landscape Architecture
Our Landscape Architect's work will include coordination and interface tasks with the City Parks
Department staff in order to produce final designs with concurrence from the Pazks Department. The final
designs will be incorporated in oar set of plans and details.
Project Start-Up: This task will include astart-up meeting with the City, reviewing drawings and
improvements completed todate, and outlining the landscaping work under this proposal.
Initial Planning: This will include coordination with Parks Department and SE's project team to
complete an overall plan that will address routing of stormwater from the Phase-I Burlingame
development, alignment of the ditch, and the interface between the two projects from an aesthetic and
functional basis. It is anticipated that the Parks Department will take the lead on the design of Lot C
including the water feature proposed for that parcel; and SE will lead the civil engineering work for the
coordination between the two projects. The landscape architect will look at improvements to the landscape
plantings and retaining that will be required as a result of the work under this contract.
Construction Documents: The landscape azchitect will prepare construction level documents for the
landscape improvements in this area. Changes to the irrigation system or design of that system are not
included in this estimate. The work will consist of a landscape plan with associated details
EXHIBIT "B" to Professional Services Agreement
Sopris Engineering, LLC
Rate Schedule
Calendar Year: 2008
Total project charges are based on hourly rates, plus direct job expenses as follows:
Personnel Charees
Principal Engineer, Principal Surveyor $170. 00/hr.
Project Manager $120. 00/hr.
Project Engineer (P.E.), Survey Manager (L.S.) $105. 00/hr.
Design and/or Field Engineer, Survey Supervisor $90. 00/hr.
Technician, Field Observer, Party Chief $80. 00/hr.
Technical Typist, Clerical $50. 00/hr.
Three-man Survey Crew $160. 00/hr.
Two-man Survey Crew $140. 00/hr.
Robotic Survey Crew $140. 00/hr.
GPS Survey Crew $180. 00/hr.
Courtroom Expert Testimony $250. 00/hr.
Court and Deposition Preparation $170.00/hr
Deposition $200 .00/hr
Computer Charges
Computer Plots $20.00/ea.
Miscellaneous Charees
Photocopies $0.15/ea.
Blackline/Blueline prints $1.50/ea.
Mylar Sepias $20.00/ea.
Vehicle Mileage $0.50/mi.
Overnight Delivery (in state) $25.00/ea.
Overnight Delivery (out of state) $40.00/ea
Outside Consultants orsub-Contractors Billed at Our Cost plus 10%
Other Direct Project Expenses
Travel Expenses: Billed at Our Cost
Airfare, lodging, meals, car rental, telephone, parking fees, etc.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
DATE OF MEMO:
MEETING DATE:
RE:
Mayor and City Council
Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager
John D. Krueger, Director of Transportation
December 23, 2008
January 12,2009
~i ,~,
EOTC 20091/2°/n Transit Sales and Use Tax Budget
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Attached for your review and approval is a resolution and budget
which, if approved, would authorize the EOTC 1/2 cent transit sales and use tax budget for 2009.
This resolution and the corresponding budget reflect the decisions made by the Elected Officials
Transportation Committee (EOTC) at its October 16, 2008 meeting.
2009 EOTC Budget Summary
Total Revenues $5,000,000
Total Expenditures $3,913,830
Annual Surplus (Deficit) $1,086,170
Cumulative Surplus (Deficit) $8,779,439
*See attached 2009 budget and multi-year plan
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
City Council as a member of the EOTC approves the EOTC annual budget each year and any
additional funding requests as they are presented. City Council as a member of the EOTC approved
the 2009 budget as presented at the October 16, 2008 meeting with the addition of $13,000
miscellaneous revenue from Brush Creek lot rentals, the faze increase impact on winter no-faze
Snowmass-Aspen bus service, extension of that service to June 14th, and $20,000 for a study of that
service.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Aspen as a member of the EOTC is required to approve the budget by resolution. Each
other member of the EOTC is also required to approve the budget by resolution or ordinance before
the budget can be considered adopted. The 2009 EOTC budget was approved by the EOTC
members present at the October 16, 2008 meeting.
DISCUSSION:
The mission of the EOTC is to "work collectively to reduce and/or manage the volume of vehicles
on the road system and develop and develop a comprehensive, long-range strategy that will insure a
C:\Documents and Settings\ka[hys\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Con[enLOutlook\UGLMSOSD\09EOTC Aspen a (2) (2).doc
convenient and efficient transportation system for the Roaring Fork Valley." The 2009 budget
provides for a use of the funds in a manner consistent with the EOTC mission.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPLICATIONS:
There are no fmancial implications to the City as these are EOTC funds and not City funds.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
By encouraging mass transit and working to manage or reduce the number of vehicles on the road
system, the EOTC is having positive impacts on the environment. The EOTC 2009 budget reflects
the positive influence on the environment.
RECCOMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends that Council approve the attached resolution to approve the 2009 EOTC Budget.
ALTERNATIVES:
Council can decide not to approve the 2009 EOTC Budget and send the 2009 Budget back to the
EOTC for further discussion and approval.
PROPOSED MOTION:
"I move to approve Resolution #~_ to approve the 2009 EOTC Budget."
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution
2009 EOTC Budget and Multi-Yeaz Plan
C:\Documents and Settings\kathys\Local Se[[ings\Temporary Internet Files\Con[ent.OuUook\UGLMSOSD\09EOTC Aspen a (2) (2).doc
RESOLUTION NO.
SERIES OF 2009
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING THE 2009 EOTC BUDGET FOR THE PITKIN COUNTY 1/2 CENT TRANSIT
SALES AND USE TAX
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council, the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners
and the Town Council of Snowmass Village (the "Parties") have previously identified general
elements of their Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan (the "Plan") which are eligible for
funding from the Pitkin County one-half cent transit sales and use tax; and
WHEREAS, by intergovernmental agreement dated September 14, 1993, the Parties agreed:
a. to conduct regular public meetings to continue to refine and agree upon
proposed projects and transportation elements consistent with or complimentary to
the Plan; and
b. that all expenditures and projects to be funded from the County-wide one-
half cent transit sales and use tax shall be agreed upon by the Parties and evidenced
by a resolution adopted by the governing body of each party; and
WHEREAS, at a public meeting held on October 16, 2008, the Parties considered and
approved the attached initial budget for the year 2009 for the Pitkin County one-half cent transit
sales and use tax; and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen wishes to ratify the approval given at the October 16a'
meeting by adoption of this resolution.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, that the attached initial one-half cent transit sales and use tax budget for the year 2009 is
hereby approved as summarized below:
Total Revenues
Total Expenditures
$5,000,000
$3,913,830
RESOLVED, APPROVED, AND. ADOPTED this 12`" of Day of January 2009, by the
City Council for the City of Aspen, Colorado.
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk, do certify that the foregoing is a
true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, at a meeting held January 12, 2009.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
C:\DocumenLS and Settings\kathys\Local Settings\Tempocary Internet Files\Content.0udook\UGLMSOSD\09EOTC Aspen a (2) (2).doc
~L e.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Ireland and Council
FROM: Gram Slaton, Wheeler Opera House
DATE: December 30, 2008
RE: Wheeler Opera House 21 s' Century Master Plan
Architectural Design Services Contract Award
SUMMARY:
The staff and board of the Wheeler Opera House unanimously recommend that the design team led by
Farewell Mills Gatsch LLC be awarded the contract for Architectural Design Services for the Wheeler's
21'" Century Master Plan.
DISCUSSION:
Construction of a Wheeler expansion has been in discussion from at least 1975 as part of a comprehensive
renovation and improvement of the 1889 Wheeler Opera House. Efforts to construct an expansion during
the 1983-1984 renovation were unsuccessful due to a number of issues, including appropriateness of
design and lack of available funds. Direction was given to Wheeler staff in 2004 to revive investigation
into construction of a Wheeler expansion to better serve the arts groups of Aspen and the Roaring Fork
Valley. In 2005 and 2006, areas in the historic venue were also identified as needing improvement if the
goals and desires of the City of Aspen and the arts user groups were to be truly met.
Upon direction given by the Aspen City Council in January 2008 and further given in August 2008,
Wheeler staff has pursued identification of a creative team for architectural design services for its 21s'
Century Master Plan, which advances recommended development of the Wheeler Parcel immediately
west of the historic structure, as well as possible changes to the 1889-vintage building that will improve
its ability to serve its patrons, user groups, and the hospitality and energy conservation goals of the City
of Aspen.
In June 2008, the Wheeler distributed a Request For Qualifications to the local and national architectural
community, inviting all interested parties to state their appropriateness to the Wheeler project based on
the following criteria:
• Experience with general theatre construction
• Experience with historic projects with limited footprints
• Green technology
• Construction in rural/resort settings
• Creative team assembly
• Experience with municipal governments, historic preservation organizations, and community
groups
In July 2008, the RFQ closed and resulted in twenty eight (28) submissions. Upon careful review by a
five-person committee (comprised of Wheeler Board member Pamela Cunningham, City Historic
Preservation Officer Amy Guthrie, independent consultant Bob Schultz, Assistant City Manager Randy
Ready, and Wheeler Executive Director Gram Slaton), these submissions were reduced [o six (6) semi-
finalist candidates.
Pfocus LLC, a national theatre consulting firm specializing in theatre construction projects, was secured
in July 2008 to assist with [he further reduction of these candidates. Due diligence was also conducted at
this time by Wheeler staff with building owners/operators of key projects put forward by the applicants as
representative projects. This investigation led to one of the six being released from further consideration.
Wheeler staff conducted extensive onsite investigations of buildings by the remaining five contenders in
September 2008, with road trips through Connecticut and upstate New Jersey, and the Puget Sound region
of Washington State. Buildings in the Denver area pertaining to one architectural concern were also
investigated. Based on these findings, Wheeler staff and the Qualifications Review Committee
recommended that three teams be advanced for final consideration:
• Farewell Mills Gatsch (FMG), of Princeton, New Jersey
• Hammond Beeby Rupert Ainge (Hammond Beeby), of Chicago, Illinois
• LMN Architects (LMN), of Seattle, Washington
These three firms were offered the opportunity to submit documentation through a Request For Proposals
describing why each would be the best firm for the project based on the following criteria:
• Proposed team -atypical team would include a local architectural firm, a theatre
consultant firm, an acoustician, structural engineering concerns, cost estimating
professionals, and other specialized construction consultants
• Relevant experience -what five specific examples would the proposed team advance as
being most relevant to the Wheeler expansion project and why
• Challenges and approach to work -identification of both the physical and procedural
challenges relative to the Wheeler project/Aspen land use process, and how the team
would propose successfully meeting those challenges
• Sustainable design -what five examples would the proposed team advance that most
successfully present their dedication not only to LEED-certification construction, but also
the latest trends in and directions for sustainable design, and how those would inform
their direction for sustainable design for the Wheeler expansion
• Historic preservation -examples and proven experience in working with owners in
projects requiring an advanced commitment to historic preservation
• Community involvement -how would the team involve and engage the Aspen
community as regards this project
• Workload and timeframe -what substantial commitments does the team already have
that might detract from having their best team available for the Wheeler expansion, and
what total timeframe does the team envision for the successful public process,
excavation, and construction of the Wheeler expansion
• Budget - a breakout of budget for the first phase of the project, and a suggested range of
fees for the balance of the pre-construction and construction phases of the project
Each team was invited to come to Aspen (at its own expense) and spend time with Wheeler and City staff
to collect information and better prepare their responses to these criteria. Each team spent at least one full
day in Aspen during the time between the RFPs issuance in October and close in late November 2008.
Teams were availed of the entire Wheeler staff, plus the Assistant City Manager, appropriate Community
Development and Historic Preservation staff, and representatives of the Wheeler Board of Directors.
On December 2 and 3, 2008, the three firms gave formal presentations to an expanded committee at the
Wheeler. Each firm brought significant members from the entire team, including local architectural
partners. Each firm was given 45 minutes for its presentation, followed by 45 minutes for questions and
answers. The expanded committee featured representatives from Aspen's arts community (Aspen Music
Festival, Aspen Film, Theatre Aspen) and all but one member of the Wheeler Board of Directors. Karen
O'Connor from Pfocus LLC was brought in to render her professional outside opinion.
After much discussion with the expanded committee, and further with the original, core committee, it was
unanimously decided to recommend the Farewell Mills Gatsch team for selection as awazdee for the
contract. This was further discussed and ratified with the Wheeler Board of Directors as its December 10,
2008, meeting.
The FMG team is comprised of the following key team members:
• Aspen-based architectural firm Rowland & Broughton
• National theatre consulting firm Fisher Dachs
• National acoustics firm Jaffe Holden
• Colorado-based engineering firm Resource Engineering Group
• Valley-based civil engineering firm Schmueser Gordon
• Valley-based geotechnical firm Yeh & Associates
• Colorado-based structural engineering firm KL&A, Inc
• Aspen-based landscape/sustainable design firm bluegreen
• National cost-estimating firm Faithful & Gould
• Local cost-estimating firm Shaw Construction
The reasons why staff, the Proposal Review Committee and the Wheeler Board are recommending the
FMG team are as follows:
• Exceptional theatre construction experience with both renovation and new-construction
projects that are both sensitive to the history of the owner and surrounds and fully
Functional as a theatrical venue. Examples include;
• Westport Country Playhouse (CT), in "reimagining" a l9'"-
Century barn used for over 80 years as a summer theatre and
launch-point for Broadway product
• Shakespeare Theatre of New Jersey (Drew University), which
repurposed a gymnasium space into a leading resident theatre
with great diversity of user options
• Count Basie Theatre (Red Bank NJ), which just went through a
thorough restoration and replacement of all building and
technical systems in only five months
• Exceptional dedication to both historic preservation and sustainable design
• Principal Michael Mills served as Chairman of the New Jersey
Preservation of Historic Resources (1991 - 2001), and chaired
the AIA Historic Resources Committee (2005)
• Westport Country Playhouse (CT), for repurposing salvageable
elements from the old barn into the new structure
• The Willow School (NJ), which is on the very cutting edge of
sustainable design and building systems
• Paepcke Auditorium, which has completed all necessary
approvals prior to construction in upgrading this signature venue
at The Aspen Institute
Deep sensitivity to architecture that references its geographic setting and native materials
• Understanding the historic architectural thread that ties the 1889
Wheeler to the Richardson School of Romanesque design
Understanding the significant natural history and landmarks of
[he American Wes[, particularly in Colorado and eastern Utah
• Selection of Resource Engineering Group as its engineering partner
• REG's dedication to the latest developments in sustainable
design made this a compelling and exciting team partner choice
• REG's understanding of the goals of the City of Aspen and
opportunities for energy harvesting in the downtown core
• Proven track record of delivering projects on time and at budget
• All buildings investigated through due diligence asserted this
• Conservative and realistic fee structure
• Middle-range of the three proposers, with strong detail
• Best overall team for designing and delivering the kind of Wheeler expansion that meets
all staff and City goals and initiatives
• A beautiful, signature building that references but does not rival
or overwhelm the 1889 Wheeler Opera House
• A clear "sense of place" in terms of relationship to other central
core historical structures and Western architectural vernacular
• A deep dedication to advancing sustainability, and designing a
Wheeler expansion that can possibly serve as a model for
creating carbon-neutral American theatres
• Recognized national leadership in historic preservation
• A team of professionals, many of the senior members of which
have long history of working with Farewell Mills Gatsch
• Partnership with an Aspen-based architectural firm that is doing
innovative work while also including deep historic preservation
expenence
• A recognition of the limits of the Wheeler's budget, time
schedule, presenting overlap, and other factors that require
significant sensitivity in planning and execution
• Flexibility in thinking and creative partnering that can fully
include and engage members of the general community as well
as Wheeler staff and arts user groups
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The Wheeler RFP divides the scope of work into several distinct sections, and at the end of each section
the Wheeler and the City of Aspen are able to terminate the contract without damages or other financial
burden. The contract award relative to this document is for the first scope of work only, through the Pre-
Design & Planning Phase, which would include developing the project through a Task Force and stop
short of committing to the development of construction documents. Therefore, the total amount of the
contract with FMG would be $276,350, which includes reimbursables. For the 2009 operating budget,
the Wheeler has recommended and received Council approval for an amount of $400,000 for the 21"
Century Master Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Wheeler staff and Board recommend awarding the contract for the first phase of azchitectural design
services relative to the Wheeler Opera House 21 "' Century Master Plan to Farewell Mills Gatsch.
Wheeler 21st Century Master Plan RFP
Document & Flnal Presentation Score Sheet
Proposed Team (20%)
Relevant Experience (15%)
Challenges and Approach to Work (15%)
Sustainable Design (15%)
Historic Preservation (15%)
Community Involvement (10%)
Workload and Timeframe (5%)
Budget (5%)
Farewell Mills Gatsch Hammond Beebv LMN
17 15 16
13 10 13
12 14 15
15 12 11
15 14 12
9 5 9
5 5 5
4 4 3
TOTALS 90 79 84
r
C
O
a
a ~
d
,O a ~ U
N~ V O
U d N
N
.
~ C. O A
~. U L N
W r.
.O- y
.p N.
X y
N
h y ~ y a E
~
d rn o
3 a
-. c E ~ m m
~ a
0 a.. m N ~ v
'
d. N 'y.
... ~
C O
;
N _
. d
U C.
«
U U C J «O U ry
V
T
C C O' ~
O U C
O 6 C ~ ~. C ~~
U
O
006 N d , O
N
t
N N
.
o m« d
d a _
O C
a C7 N
O) N N C N l0 ~, d.
l0 O'. C ~. N. 3 O L_ C ~
a.? a 3 ~ _y 3 y a
O U~J rL. C y W 0
d
V j E~ O O
n N N C C
O W
O d N y N
L O N
~ 4.
a y
~ c ~° N a O. n~ ~..
Q ry p N 6 «
C t`0
r L «
«~ O L
¢ C U
~ O U O. ~
r
L
y N
O H C C ry ~ ti
_
~ V
L c c
m d d$ n C7 o
~ y m n
m ro y d.
m w
E. m> .a N~
d° d
- y a
y. U 0 0. ~' c
N.
~ ti
N p L a
O d O W.
C N
¢ °' j .
N L d~ o
V« N N Y U N j y C U
E ~° y«~ t6 y ~ t E ~~ E
O L.~
~~ cO1. mm vm
a
N ~ m
N d
N O N O m `~ c t0 C y ~'L.
3 L' « N'~ C~ d 0 L C :j
ry W d O O N'
' N"
'
~ ~~
c
~
m o of ~ c d a
. -° y
F N~« U F N. F- V LL y ~
0 0 0 0
O u1 ~ N
U ~
~
~ O Ol
~
~
°-' ~ N
.0
n 0 0
~
x d
o w
a o c
a` > °- ~°
N
~ Q
~ ~ ~
ld
N
d
C
N
N
t
U
L
OI
N C
N N
L m
E
E c
~ O
a
N
d y ~
C C r
~ N N
~ L
y
N ~ d
N ~ >
n c rn
U 'y
`o d
N U y
L O ~
O N
c U
U .~ S
N N N
a « 6
O N
N d O
U U ~
c c
~ « c
a L (0
x .3
d
A N a
7
itl O d
N O D
U y
~ >`, O
m
L N ~1
U ~ O
`2 d (D
0
0
N
C
O
Z
d
d
U
O
N_
°>
C U
o d
N, O`
N O.
3 «
O' L
N' J~
Ud .y..
O C
n
E
a a
O °~'
U a
°' E
L
o m
d m
O
.N_. O
J jn
O N
d
J N
d
T L
m n
~ d
U y
t0
y C
m
m c
.d. ~
E
-'' E
C ~
O O
d ~
H «
0
O
C
d
E
0
c
C
7
E
E
U
E
c0
v
c
O
N
m'
O.'
N
C
m
m
0
A
O
N
E
U
U
O
N
n
N
N
N
H
-o
N
O
Y
O
d
O'
rn
~,
d
U
m
m
a
0
n.
d
0
J
H
F
~~~_~ o
a~
O
O
4 ~
V
E d
A NN
Y p.
d W
O N
a ~
~,,,~,,~~~a
N ~
d d
N
a`
O
O
O
U
O
Q.
Q
c
tC
m
rn
c
w
A
U
0
U
m
R
C
.~
N
0
a
!_/
N
m
a
U
0
N
Z
O
0
d
d
7
O
G
~`
7
E
U
~J
0
O
E
L
m
K
O
0
3
0
0
J
m
r
a
a
0
~""
_~ 9~~~~~_~ ~~~
iN ~
0
r o
T
o ~
~ ~
° .`i Y
N d O
E d 3
0
r o L
x ~
W
a c a
~' ~ 4
a d ~
ct m
N
d
7 ~
M U
N
W~, a a
0 0~
~^ c F'
.-~ n ~ ~
~ c ~ /r F~
0
o r O ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ m
.i O d
O~ id ~,
O m ~ m
m
°' ~ m
~ ~ ~~ o
N E o
N = U ?y
RESOLUTION # ~j
(Series of 2009)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, AND FAREWELL MILLS GATSCH ARCHITECTS
LLC, FOR THE PURCHASE OF ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES RELATIVE
TO THE WHEELER OPERA HOUSE 21sT CENTURY MASTER PLAN AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract
between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and Farewell Mills Gatsch Architects LLC,
a copy of which contract is annexed hereto and made a part thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that contract
between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and Farewell Mills Gatsch Architects LLC,
regarding architectural services for Phase One (Pre-Design and Planning Phase) of
the Wheeler Opera House 21S` Century Master Plan, a copy of which is annexed
hereto and 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:
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held ***
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
This Agreement made and entered on the date hereinafter stated, between the CITY OF
ASPEN, Colorado, ("City") and Farewell Mills Gatsch Architects, LLC, Princeton, NJ ("Architect").
For and in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. Scope of Services. Architect shall perform in a competent and professional manner the
Scope of Services as set forth at Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated
herein.
2. Completion. Architect shall commence work immediately upon receipt of a written
Notice to Proceed from the City and complete all phases of the Scope of Work as expeditiously as is
consistent with professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the Work in a timely manner.
Upon request of the City, Architect shall submit, for the City's approval, a schedule for the
performance of Architect's services which shall be adjusted as required as the project proceeds, and
which shall include allowances for periods of time required by the City's project engineer for review
and approval of submissions and for approvals of authorities having jurisdiction over the project. This
schedule, when approved by the City, shall not, except for reasonable cause, be exceeded by the
Architect.
3. Paymen[. In consideration of the work performed, City shall pay Architect Two
hundred eighty thousand, four hundred fifty dollars and no cents ($280,450.00), including
reimbursable expenses, in the event that all Phases are performed as requested by City. The City shall
have the option of asking Architect to perform any number of Phases of the Project. Payment shall be
based upon the Fee Proposal, for phases performed. The City shall notify Architect of phases it wishes
to have performed via formal written Notices to Proceed. Fees including any additional services or
reimbursable expenses shall not exceed the following amounts for each given phase:
Pre-Design/Planning Phase: $280,450.00
4. Contract Documents. The following documents are agreed to constitute the Contract
Documents. In the event that any provision of one Contract Document conflicts with the provisions of
another, the provision in the Contract Document listed first below shall govern, except as otherwise
specifically stated:
a. Agreement
b. Request for Proposals & Scope of Services
c. Proposal/Cost estimate and attachments, including all written
representations of Architect
d. Instructions to Proposers
e. Supplemental Conditions, if any
AGI-981 Page 1 _
f. City's Standard Terms and Conditions for Professional Architectural Services.
5. Compliance With Procurement Code. The Architect acknowledges that this Agreement
is entered into subject to the requirements of the City of Aspen Procurement Code, Title 4, of the
Aspen Municipal Code. As such, the Architect agrees to comply with all requirements of said
Procurement Code, and such requirements are incorporated herein by this reference (copies of the code
are available upon request to the City for a nominal charge). Architect shall immediately notify the
City Manager in writing of any violation of said Code by the City's employees or agents, which
violation(s) shall be considered a breach of this Agreement. Further, failure to notify the City of any
violation of the Procurement Code shall be deemed as a waiver of any action or defense that the
Architect may have against the City by reason of such violation of the Procurement Code. A copy of
the City of Aspen's Procurement Code may be found online at
htt~//www. aspenpitkin.com/pdfs/depts/38/coaspent04.pdf
6. Non-Assi ng ability. Both parties recognize that this contract is one for specific services
and cannot be transferred, assigned, or sublet by either party without prior written consent of the other.
Sub-Contracting, if authorized, shall not relieve the Architect of any of the responsibilities or
obligations under this agreement. Architect shall be and remain solely responsible to the City for the
negligent acts, errors, and omissions of any of his consultants, agents and employees, each of whom
shall, for this purpose be deemed to be an agent or employee of the Architect to the extent of the
subcontract. The City shall not be obligated to pay or be liable for payment of any sums due which
may be due to any sub-contractor.
7. Termination for Default or for Convenience of Citv.
a. Termination by Ciry. The performance of services under this Agreement may be
terminated by the City:
1. Whenever the Architect shall default in performance of this Agreement in
accordance with its terms, and fails to cure or show cause why such failure to
perform should be excused within ten (10) days (or longer as the City may allow
or shorter, but not less than five (5) days, for failure to provide proof of
insurance or maintenance of any dangerous condition) after hand-delivery or
mailing to the Architect of a notice specifying the default. If mailed, said notice
shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the address specified
herein for Architect.
The Architect shall not be in default be reasons of any failure in performance of
this Agreement in accordance with its terms if such failure arises out of causes
beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Architect. Such
causes may include, but are not restricted to, acts of God, natural disasters,
strikes, or freight embargoes, but in every case the failure to perform must be
beyond the control of the Architect. Upon request of the Architect, the City
shall ascertain the facts and failure, and, if the City shall determine that any
failure to perform constituted a valid commercial excuse, the performance shall
be revised accordingly and notice of default withdrawn; or
AGI-981 Paget _
2. Whenever for any reason and in its sole discretion the City shall determine that
such termination is in its best interest and convenient.
b. Notice of Termination. In the event of termination for the convenience of the City, the
City shall deliver to the Architect a written notice of termination, specifying the reasons
therefore, and the effective date of such termination. The effective date shall not be
earlier than the date of hand-delivery or the date of mailing of the notice, plus Five (5)
business days. The notice of termination shall be sent regulaz first-class mail to the
address of the Architect herein provided. The Architect or the City may terminate this
Agreement, without specifying the reason therefor, by giving notice, in writing,
addressed to the other party, specifying the effective date of the termination. No fees
shall be earned after the effective date of the termination. Upon any termination, all
finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models,
photographs, reports or other material prepazed by the Architect shall become [he
property of [he City. Notwithstanding the above, Architect shall not be relieved of any
liability to the City for damages sustained by the City by virtue of any breach of this
Agreement by the Architect.
c. Termination Procedure. Afrer the effective date of the notice of termination for default
or for the convenience of the City, unless otherwise directed by the City, the Architect
shall:
Stop work under the Agreement on the date specified in the notice of
termination.
2. Place no further orders for materials, services or facilities.
3. Terminate all orders and subcontractors to the extent that they relate to the
performance of work terminated by the notice of termination.
4. With the approval or ratification of the City, settle all outstanding liabIlities and
all claims arising out of such termination on orders or reimbursable in whole or
in part in accordance with this Agreement.
d. Termination Payment. After the effective date of a notice of termination for the
convenience of the City, the Architect shall submit to the City his termination claim in
the form of a final invoice in accordance with the provisions in Section 3 hereinabove,
including costs incurred and profit to the date of termination (but not for future profit,
which shall not be paid), and costs incurred because of termination, which termination
costs shall not exceed 10% of the total amount of proposal; provided, however, that in
the event of default by the Architect, no extra costs incurred because of termination
shall be paid to the Architect and any costs paid shall not be a waiver of any claim,
counterclaim or setoff by the City against the Architect on account of any default. Such
claim must be submitted promptly, but in no event later than thirty (30) days from the
effective date of termination, unless one or more extensions are granted in writing by
AG1-981 Page 3
the City. Upon the Architect's failure to submit a claim in the time allowed, the City
may review the information available to it and determine the amount due the Architect,
if any, and pay the Architect the amount as determined.
e. Termination Settlement. Subject to Paragraph S.d, the Architect and City may negotiate
the whole or any part of the amount or amounts to be paid, upon termination for default
or the convenience of the City.
f. Remedies. The Architect shall have the right of appeal from any determination made by
the City under this termination section; except that if the Architect has failed to submit
his claim within the time provided in Paragraph S.d, above, and has failed to properly
request an extension, he shall have no right of appeal. In any case where the City has
made a determination of the amount due under Pazagraph S.d. or S.e., above, the City
shall pay the Architect: (1) the amount the City has determined if there is no right of
appeal or if timely appeal has been taken, or (2) the amount finally determined on such
appeal if an appeal has been taken.
g. Method of Appeal. If the Architect disagrees with the City's determination under
Paragraphs S.d. or S.e., he can appeal this decision in writing to the City. Such appeal
must be made in writing within twenty (20) days of receipt in writing of the City's
determination. The City shall have twenty (20) days in which to respond in writing to
the appeal. The City's response shall be final and conclusive unless within thirty (30)
days from the date of receipt of such response the Architect submits the dispute to a
court of competent jurisdiction.
8. Covenant Against Contingent Fees. The Architect warrants that s/he has not employed or
retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working for the Architect, to solicit
or secure this contract, that s/he has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a
bona fide employee, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts or any other consideration
contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this contract. For a breach or violation of
this contract without liability, or in its discretion to deduct from the contract price or consideration, or
otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or
contingent fee.
9. Independent Contractor Status. It is expressly acknowledged and understood by the parties that
nothing contained in this agreement shall result in, or be construed as establishing an employment
relationship. Architect shall be, and shall perform as, an independent Contractor who agrees to use his
or her best efforts to provide the said services on behalf of the City. No agent, employee, or servant of
Architect shall be, or shall be deemed to be, the employee, agent or servant of the City. City is
interested only in the results obtained under this contract. The manner and means of conducting the
work are under the sole control of Architect. None of the benefits provided by City to its employees
including, but not limited to, workers' compensation insurance and unemployment insurance, are
available from City to the employees, agents or servants of Architect. Architect shall be solely and
entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of Architect's agents, employees, servants and
subcontractors during the performance of this contract. Architect shall indemnify City against all
liability and loss in connection with, and shall assume full responsibility for payment of all federal,
AG1-981 Page4 _
state and local taxes or contributions imposed or required under unemployment insurance, social
security and income tax law, with respect to Architect and/or Architect's employees engaged in the
performance of the services agreed to herein. ARCHITECT, AS AN INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTOR, SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO WORKERS' COMPENSATION
BENEFITS AND SHALL BE OBLIGATED TO PAY FEDERAL AND STATE INCOME TAX
ON ANY MONIES EARNED PURSUANT TO THIS AGREEMENT.
10. Indemnification. Architect agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers,
employees, insurers, and self-insurance pool, from and against all liability, claims, and demands, on
account of injury, loss, or damage, including claims arising from bodily injury, personal injury,
sickness, disease, death, property loss or damage, which azise out of or are in any manner connected
with this contract, if such injury, loss, or damage is caused in whole or in part by, or is claimed to be
caused in whole or in part by, the negligent act, omission, error, Architect error of the Architect, any
subcontractor of [he Architect, or any officer, employee, representative, or agent of the Architect or of
any subcontractor of the Architect, or which azises out of any workmen's compensation claim of any
employee of the Architect or of any employee of any subcontractor of the Architect. The Architect
agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, and to provide defense for and defend against, any such
liability, claims or demands at the sole expense of the Architect, or at the option of the City, agrees to
pay the City or reimburse the City for the defense costs incurred by the City in connection with, any
such liability, claims, or demands. The Architect also agrees to bear all other costs and expenses
related thereto, including court costs and attorney fees, whether or not any such liability, claims, or
demands alleged are groundless, false, or fraudulent. If it is determined by the final judgment of a
court of competent jurisdiction that such injury, loss, or damage was caused in whole or in part by the
act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or its employees, the City shall reimburse the
Architect for the portion of the judgment attributable to such act, omission, or other fault of the City,
its officers, or employees.
11. Architect's Insurance. (a) Architect agrees to procure and maintain, at its own expense,
a policy or policies of insurance sufficient to insure against all liability, claims, demands, and other
obligations assumed by the Architect pursuant to Section 8 above in amounts and aggregates as stated
below. Such insurance shall be in addition to any other insurance requirements imposed by this
contract or by law. The Architect shall not be relieved of any liability, claims, demands, or other
obligations assumed pursuant to Section 6 above by reason of its failure to procure or maintain
insurance, or by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance in sufficient amounts, duration,
or types.
(b) Architect shall procure and maintain, and shall cause any subcontractor of the Architect to
procure and maintain, the minimum insurance coverages listed below. Such coverages shall be
procured and maintained with forms and insurance acceptable to the City. All coverages shall be
continuously maintained to cover all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by the
Architect pursuant to Section 8 above. In [he case of any claims-made policy, the necessazy retroactive
dates and extended reporting periods shall be procured to maintain such continuous coverage.
(i) Workmen's Compensation insurance to cover obligations imposed by applicable
laws for any employee engaged in the performance of work under this contract, and Employers'
Liability insurance with minimum limits of no less than the state of Colorado statutory
AGI-981 Pages _
minimums. Evidence of qualified self-insured status may be substituted for the Workmen's
Compensation requirements of this pazagraph.
(ii) Commercial General Liability insurance with minimum combined single limits
of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($300,000.00) each occurrence and SIX
HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($600,000.00) aggregate. The policy shall be applicable
to all premises and operations. The policy shall include coverage for bodily injury, broad form
property damage (including completed operations), personal injury (including coverage for
contractual and employee acts), blanket contractual, independent contractors, products, and
completed operations. The policy shall contain a severability of interests provision.
(iii) Comprehensive Automobile Liability insurance with minimum combined single
limits for bodily injury and property damage of not less than THREE HUNDRED
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($30Q000.00) each occurrence and THREE HUNDRED
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($300,000.00) aggregate with respect to each Architect's owned,
hired and non-owned vehicles assigned to or used in performance of the Scope of Work. The
policy shall contain a severability of interest provision. If the Architect has no owned
automobiles, the requirements of this Section shall be met by each employee of the Architect
providing services to the City under this contract.
(iv) Architect Liability insurance with the minimum limits of TWO HUNDRED
FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($250,000) each claim and TWO HUNDRED FIFTY
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($250,000) aggregate.
(c) Except for the Architect's professional liability policy, the policy or policies required
above shall be endorsed to include the City and the City's officers and employees as additional
insureds. Every policy required above shall be primary insurance, and any insurance carried by the
City, its officers or employees, or carried by or provided through any insurance pool of the City, shall
be excess and not contributory insurance to that provided by Architect. No additional insured
endorsement to the policy required above shall contain any exclusion for bodily injury or property
damage arising from completed operations. The Architect shall be solely responsible for any
deductible losses under any policy required above.
(d) The certificate of insurance provided by the City shall be completed by the Architect's
insurance agent as evidence that policies providing the required coverages, conditions, and minimum
limits are in full force and effect, and shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to
commencement of the contract. No other form of certificate shall be used. The certificate shall
identify this contract and shall provide that the coverages afforded under the policies shall not be
canceled, terminated or materially changed until at least thirty (30) days prior written notice has been
given to the City.
(e) Failure on the part of the Architect to procure or maintain policies providing the
required coverages, conditions, and minimum limits shall constitute a material breach of contract upon
which City may immediately terminate this contract, or at its discretion City may procure any such
policy or any extended reporting period thereto and may pay any and all premiums in connection
AGI-981 Page 6
therewith, and all monies so paid by City shall be repaid by Architect to City upon demand, or City
may offset the cost of the premiums against monies due to Architect from City.
(f) City reserves the right to request and receive a certified copy of any policy and any
endorsement thereto.
(g) The parties hereto understand and agree that City is relying on, and does not waive or
intend to waive by any provision of this contract, the monetary limitations (presently $150,000.00 per
person and $600,000 per occurrence) or any other rights, immunities, and protection provided by the
Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24-10-101 et seq., C.R.S., as from time to time
amended, or otherwise available to City, its officers, or its employees.
12. City's Insurance. The parties hereto understand that the City is a member of the
Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency (CIRSA) and as such participates in the CIRSA
Property/Casualty Pool. Copies of the CIRSA policies and manual are kept at the City of Aspen
Finance Department and are available to Architect for inspection during normal business hours. City
makes no representations whatsoever with respect to specific coverages offered by CIRSA. City shall
provide Architect reasonable notice of any changes in its membership or participation in CIRSA.
13. Exemption From Sales and Use Taxes. All purchases of construction, building or other
materials for any agreement shall not include Federal Excise Taxes or Colorado State or local sales or
use taxes. City is exempt from such taxes under applicable federal, state and local laws. Owner's
State of Colorado tax identification number is 98-04557. City's Federal Tax Identification Number is
84-6000563.
14. Ownership of Design Materials and Documents.
a. The Owner acknowledges the Architect's documents and drawings as Instruments of
Professional Service, which are owned by the Architect. Any drawings, specifications and other
documents, including those in electronic form, prepared by the Architect and the Architect's
consultants aze Instruments of Service for use solely with respect to this Project. The Architect and the
Architect's consultants shall be deemed the authors and owners of their respective Instruments of
Service and shall retain al] common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including copyrights.
Upon execution of this Agreement, the Architect grants to the Owner a nonexclusive license to
reproduce the Architect's Instruments of Service solely for purposes of constructing, using and
maintaining the Project, provided that the Owner shall comply with all obligations, including prompt
payment of all sums when due, under this Agreement. The Architect shall obtain similaz nonexclusive
licenses from the Architect's consultants consistent with this Agreement. Any termination of this
Agreement prior to completion of the Project shall, subject to the following conditions, terminate this
license. The documents and drawings prepazed by the Architect for the Project which is the subject of
this agreement may be used by the Owner and any successor architect for purposes of the Project, upon
the proper termination of this agreement, subject to the following conditions: (1) The Owner and any
successor azchitect shall remove the title block, signature and seal of the Architect, if any, from any
such instruments of service to be used as hereinafter provided. (2) Such instruments of service may be
incorporated into the work product of the successor architect so long as the successor architect agrees
to accept full and complete responsibility for such information and data so incorporated. The delivery
AGI-981 Pagel
to and acceptance by the Owner and successor architect of the instruments of service shall constitute an
agreement to such acceptance of responsibility. (3) The Owner and the successor architect may
thereafter use and employ such instruments of service for the completion of this Project only. (4) The
Owner and the successor architect shall not use or reuse, nor allow others to use or reuse, said
instruments of service on other projects; and the Owner agrees, to the fullest extent permitted by law,
to indemnify and hold harmless the Architect from and against any claim, liability or cost (including
reasonable attorneys' fees and defense costs) arising out of any unauthorized use, reuse or modification
of the instruments of service by the Owner, the successor azchitec[ or by any person or entity which
acquires or obtains the same from or through the Owner or the successor architect.
b. During the term of the Agreement, the Architect shall be responsible for any loss or
damage to the Design Materials, while the Materials are in the possession of
the Architect or any of its Subcontractors, and any such Design Materials lost or damaged shall be
replaced or restored at the Architect's expense.
c. It is understood that City considers the Project's aggregate architectural expression (that
is, the overall combination of the Project's visually appazent design features) and any
distinctive individual features, to be unique and of commercial value, and [he Architect
and its Design Subcontractors agree not to design or build, or allow other third parties
the use of the Design Materials to design or build another structure(s) having a
substantially similar azchitectural expression so that an average person would relate the
structure(s) to the Project. Architect and its Design Subcontractors shall, however, be
free to use individual features from the Project or combinations of features in other
projects, so long as the Architect complies with the first sentence of this paragraph.
Architect shall include this provision in its contracts with its Design subcontractors and
provide copies of these agreements to City.
d. At of the conclusion of the Project, or in the event of the proper termination of the
Agreement, Architect shall turn over to City any of the Design Materials referred to in
above which have not yet been submitted to City. Architect shall submit the Design
Materials to City within ten days of the conclusion of the project, or date of termination.
In the event of the failure by Architect to make such delivery as provided above,
Architect shall pay City any damages City may sustain from the failure.
e. Prior to the Architect providing to the Owner any Instruments of Service in electronic
form or the Owner providing to the Architect any electronic data for incorporation into the Instruments
of Service, the Owner and the Architect shall by separate written agreement set forth the specific
conditions governing the format of such Instruments of Service or electronic data, including any
special limitations or licenses not otherwise provided in this Agreement.
15. Annual Appropriations. If the Agreement awarded as a result of a bid or request for
proposals extends beyond the calendar year, nothing herein shall be construed as an obligation by the
City beyond any amounts that may be, from time to time, appropriated by the City on an annual basis.
It is understood that payment under any agreement is conditional upon annual appropriation of funds
AGI-981 Page 8
by said governing body and that before providing services or materials for which funds have not been
appropriated.
16. Completeness of Agreement. It is expressly agreed that this agreement contains the
entire undertaking of the parties relevant to the subject matter thereof and there are no verbal or written
representations, agreements, warranties or promises pertaining to the project matter thereof not
expressly incorporated in this writing.
17. Notice. Any written notices as called for herein may be hand delivered to the respective
persons and/or addresses listed below or mailed by certified mail return receipt requested, to:
City:
City Manager
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Architect:
Michael R. Schnoering, AIA, Partner
Fazewell Mills Gatsch Architects, LLC
200 Forrestal Road
Princeton, NJ 08540
18. Non-Discrimination; penalty. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex,
marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry,
handicap, or religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform services under this
contract. Architect agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, Section 13-98,
pertaining to non-discrimination in employment.
19. Waiver. The waiver by the City of any term, covenant, or condition hereof shall not
operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term. No term, covenant, or
condition of this Agreement can be waived except by the written consent of the City, and forbearance
or indulgence by the City in any regard whatsoever shall not constitute a waiver of any term, covenant,
or condition to be performed by Architect to which the same may apply and, until complete
performance by Architect of said term, covenant or condition, the City shall be entitled to invoke any
remedy available to it under this Agreement or by law despite any such forbeazance or indulgence.
20. Execution of Agreement by City. This agreement shall be binding upon all parties
hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns. Notwithstanding
anything to the contrazy contained herein, this agreement shall not be binding upon the City unless
duly executed by the City Manager or Mayor of the City of Aspen (or a duly authorized official in his
absence) following a Motion or Resolution of the Council of the City of Aspen authorizing the City
Manager or Mayor (or duly authorized official in his absence) to execute the same.
21. General Terms.
AGI-981 Page 9
(a) It is agreed that neither this agreement nor any of its terms, provisions,
conditions, representations or covenants can be modified, changed, terminated or amended, waived,
superseded or extended except by appropriate written instrument fully executed by the parties.
(b) If any of the provisions of this agreement shall be held invalid, illegal or
unenforceable it shall not affect or impair the validity, legality or enforceability of any other provision.
(c) The parties acknowledge and understand that there are no conditions or
limitations to this understanding except those as contained herein at the time of the execution hereof
and that after execution no alteration, change or modification shall be made except upon a writing
signed by the parties.
(d) This agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado as from
time to time in effect.
AGI-98I Page 10
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed, or caused to be executed by their duly
authorized officials, this Agreement in three copies each of which shall be deemed an original on the
date hereinafter written.
Dated:
ATTESTED BY:
SED BY:
A'LIG~n~( ~~~eJ~
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
By:
By:
Mi~1~e L
REVIEWED BY:
City Attorney
JPW-1/2/2009-M:\city\cityatty\areh\ag I -981.doc
TEG T' ~ LTiC.
Project Manager
AGt-981 Page 11 _
ARCHITECT:
Certification and Supplemental Conditions to Contract for Services -
Conformance with ~8-17.5.101, et seq.
Purpose. During the 2006 Colorado legislative session, the Legislature passed House Bi1106-1343
that added a new article 17.5 to Title 8 of the Colorado Revised Statutes entitled "Dlegal Aliens -
Public Contracts for Services." This new law prohibits all state agencies and political subdivisions,
including the City of Aspen, from knowingly employing or contracting with an illegal alien to
perform work under a contract, or to knowingly contract with a subcontractor who knowingly
employs or contracts with an illegal alien to perform work under the contract. The new law also
requires that all contracts for services include certain specific language as set forth in the statutes. This
Certification and Supplemental Conditions has been designed to comply with the requirements of this
new law.
Applicability. The certification and supplemental conditions set forth herein shall be required to be
executed by all persons having a public contract for services with the City of Aspen.
Definitions. The following terms are defined in the new law and by this reference are incorporated
herein and in any contract for services entered into with the City of Aspen.
"Basic Pilot Program" means the basic pilot employment verification program created in
Public Law 208, 104th Congress, as amended, and expanded in Public Law 156, 108th Congress, as
amended, that is administered by the United States Department of Homeland Security.
"Contractor" means a person having a public contract for services with the City of Aspen.
"Public Contract for Services" means any type of agreement, regardless of what the agreement
may be called, between the City of Aspen and a Contractor for the procurement of services. It
specifically means the contract or agreement referenced below.
"Services" means the furnishing of labor, time, or effort by a Contractor or a subcontractor not
involving the delivery of a specific end product other than reports that are merely incidental to the
required performance.
PURSUANT TO SECTION 8-17.5-101, C.R.S., et. seq.:
By signing this document, Contractor certifies and represents that at this time:
(i) Contractor does not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien; and
(ii) Contractor has participated or attempted to participate in the Basic Pilot Program in order to verify
that it does not employ illegal aliens.
The Public Contract for Services referenced below is hereby amended to include the following terms
and conditions:
1. Contractor shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under
the Public Contract for Services.
2. Contractor shall not enter into a contract with a subcontractor that fails to certify to the
Contractor that the subcontractor shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to
perform work under the Public Contract for Services.
3. Contractor has verified or has attempted to verify through participation in the Federal Basic
Pilot Program that Contractor does not employ any illegal aliens; and if Contractor has not been
accepted into the Federal Basic Pilot Program prior to entering into the Public Contract for Services,
Contractor shall forthwith apply to participate in the Federal Basic Pilot Program and shall in writing
verify such application within five (5) days of the date of the Public Contract. Contractor shall
continue to apply to participate in the Federal Basic Pilot Program and shall in writing verify same
every three (3) calendar months thereafter, until Contractor is accepted or the public contract for
services has been completed, whichever is earlier. The requirements of this section shall not be
required or effective if the Federal Basic Pilot Program is discontinued.
4. Contractor shall not use the Basic Pilot Program procedures to undertake pre-employment
screening ofjob applicants while the Public Contract for Services is being performed.
5. If Contractor obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing work under the Public
Contract for Services knowingly employs or contracts with an illegal alien, Contractor shall:
(i) Notify such subcontractor and the City of Aspen within three days that Contractor has
actual knowledge that the subcontractor is employing or contracting with an illegal alien; and
(ii) Terminate the subcontract with the subcontractor if within three days of receiving the
notice required pursuant to this section the subcontractor does not cease employing or contracting
with the illegal alien; except that Contractor shall not terminate the Public Contract for Services with
the subcontractor if during such three days the subcontractor provides information to establish that the
subcontractor has not knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal alien.
6. Contractor shall comply with any reasonable request by the Colorado Department of Labor
and Employment made in the course of an investigation that the Colorado Department of Labor and
Employment undertakes or is undertaking pursuant to the authority established in Subsection 8-17.5-
102 (5), C.R.S.
7. If Contractor violates any provision of the Public Contract for Services pertaining to the
duties imposed by Subsection 8-17.5-102, C.R.S. the City of Aspen may terminate the Public Contract
for Services. If the Public Contract for Services is so terminated, Contractor shall be liable for actual
and consequential damages to the City of Aspen arising out of Contractor's violation of Subsection 8-
17.5-102, C.R.S.
Public Contract for
Contractor:
By: Pl ~~ /
Title: P/1',~7~lErL
rEcrs LLG
JPW- saved: 8/23/2006-867-M:\city\cityatty\contract\forms\certification - hb-06-1343.doc
it of Aspen S[andazd Terms and Conditions -Architectural Services
City of Aspen
(Yeretion AG~C-981
STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS
FOR PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS
AGC-981 Page 1
i[ of Aspen S[andazd Terms and Conditions -Architectural Services
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS
FOR PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
(Version AGC-981)
INTRODUCTION
These standard terms and conditions have been prepared by the City of Aspen to be incorporated by
reference into Agreements entered into between the City of Aspen and Achitects or professional
architectural firms for professional architectural services. The provisions herein are interrelated with
other standazd contract documents customarily used by the City of Aspen and a change in one may
necessitate a change in others. Whenever a conflict exists in the terms and conditions of this
document and the Agreement, the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement shall take
precedence.
ARTICLE 1
ARCHITECT'S SERVICES AND RESPONSIBILTI'lES
1.1. GENERAL
1.1.1. The Architect shall perform the services undertaken according to the Agreement with the
City. The part of the project for which Architect is to provide services pursuant to the Agreement
with the City is hereinafter called This Part of the Project.
1.1.2. The Architect shall designate, when necessazy, a representative authorized to act in the
Architect's behalf with respect to This Part of the Project.
1.1.3. The Architect's services shall be performed in character, sequence and timing so that they
will be coordinated with those of the City and all other consultants for the Project.
1.1.4 The Architect shall recommend to the City the obtaining of such investigations, surveys,
tests, analyses and reports as maybe necessary for the proper execution of the Architect's services.
1.1.5 The Architect shall provide progress copies of drawings, reports, specifications and other
necessary information to the City and other consultants. All aspects of the Work designed by the
Architect shall be coordinated by the Architect, and the Architect shall also become familiar with
the Work designed by the City and other consultants as necessary for the proper coordination of the
Project.
AGC-981 Page 2
City of Aspen Standazd Terms and Conditions -Architectural Services
1.1.6 The Architect shall cooperate with the City in determining the proper share of the
constmction budget to be allocated to This Part of the Project.
1.2 BASIC SERVICES
The Scope of Work document shall set forth the Basic Services which the Architect has agreed to
perform. The Scope of Work may consist of one or more of the following phases. The terms and
conditions set forth below apply to those phases which have been made a part of the Scope of
Services.
PRE-DESIGN/PLANN/NG PHASE
1.2.1 The Architect shall ascertain the requirements for This Part of the Project and shall confirm
such requirements with the City.
1.2.2 The Architect shall review alternative systems with the City, attend necessary conferences,
prepaze necessary analyses, drawings and other documents, be available for general consultation,
and make recommendations regazding basic systems for This Part of the Project. When necessary,
the Architect shall consult with public agencies and other organizations concerning utility services
and requirements.
1.2.3 The Architect shall prepaze and submit to the City a Statement of Probable Construction
Cost of This Part of the Project based on current area, volume or other unit costs, as directed by the
City.
1.3 ADDTI'IONAL SERVICES
The following Services aze not included in Basic Services unless specifically included in the Scope
of Work. They shall, however, be provided if requested in writing by the City, and they shall be
paid for by the City as provided in the Agreement, in addition to the compensation for Basic
Services.
1.3.1 Providing financial feasibility or other special studies.
1.3.2 Providing planning surveys, site evaluations, environmental studies or comparative studies
of prospective sites, and preparing special surveys, studies and submissions required for approvals
of governmental authorities or others having jurisdiction over the Project.
1.3.3 Providing services relative to future facilities, systems and equipment which aze not
intended to be constmcted during the construction Phase.
AGC-981 Page 3
Ciro of Aspen Standard Terms and Conditions -Architectural Services
1.3.4 Providing services to investigate existing conditions or facilities, or to make measured
drawings thereof, or to verify the accuracy of drawings or other information related thereto.
1.3.5 Prepazing documents for alternate, separate or sequential bids, or providing extra services in
connection with bidding, negotiation or construction prior to the completion of the Construction
Documents Phase, when requested by the City.
1.3.6 Providing coordination of work performed by separate contractors or by the City's own
forces.
1.3.7 Providing services in connection with the work of a construction manager or separate
consultants retained by the City.
1.3.8 Providing Detailed Estimates of Construction Cost, analyses of owning and operating costs,
or detailed quantity surveys or inventories of material, equipment and labor.
1.3.9 Providing engineering services or special consultants related to interior design services and
other similar services required for, or in connection with, the selection, procurement or installation
of furniture, furnishings and related equipment.
1.3.10 Providing services for planning tenant or rental spaces.
1.3.11 Making revisions in Drawings, Specifications or other documents when such revisions aze
inconsistent with written approvals or instructions previously given, aze required by the enactment
or revision of codes, laws or regulations subsequent to the preparation of such documents, or are
due to other causes not solely within the control of the Architect.
1.3.12 Preparing Drawings, Specifications and supporting data, and providing other services in
connection with Change Orders to the extent that the adjustment in the Basic Compensation
resulting from the adjusted Construction Cost is not commensurate with the services required of the
Architect, provided such Change Orders are required by causes not solely within the control of the
Architect.
1.3.13 Making investigations, surveys, valuations, inventories or detailed appraisals of existing
facilities, and providing services required in connection with construction performed by the City.
1.3.14 Providing consultation concerning replacement of any Work damaged by fire or other cause
during construction, and furnishing services as may be required in connection with the replacement
of such Work.
1.3.15 Providing services made necessazy by the default of the Contractor, or by major defects or
AGC-981 Page 4
Ci[v of Ascen Standard Terms and Conditions- Architectural Services
deficiencies in the Work of the Contractor, or by failure of performance of either the City or the
Contractor under the Contract for Construction.
1.3.16 Preparing a set of reproducible record drawings showing significant changes in the Work
made during construction, based on mazked-up prints, drawings and other data furnished by the
Contractor to the City.
1.3.17 Providing extensive assistance in the utilization of any equipment or system, such as initial
start-up or testing, adjusting and balancing, preparation of operation and maintenance manuals,
training personnel for operation and maintenance, and consultation during operation.
1.3.18 Providing services after issuance to the City of the final Certificate for Payment, or in the
absence of a final Certificate for Payment, more than sixty days after the Date of Substantial
Completion of the Work.
1.3.19 Preparing to serve or serving as an expert witness in connection with any public hearing,
arbitration proceeding or legal proceeding.
1.3.20 Providing services of consultants for other than the normal engineering services for This
Part of the Project.
1.3.21 Providing any other services not otherwise included in this Agreement or not customarily
furnished in accordance with generally accepted engineering practice.
ARTICLE 2
THE CTI'Y'S RESPONSIBII.TCIES
2.1 The City shall, with reasonable promptness, provide all available information regarding the
requirements for This Part of the Project.
2.2 The City shall designate, when necessary, a representative authorized to act in the City's
behalf with respect to This Part of the Project. The City, or such authorized representative, shall
examine documents submitted by the Architect and shall render decisions pertaining thereto
promptly, to avoid unreasonable delay in the progress of the Architect's services. Architect's invoice
shall be for the period ending the 25th day of each month. The invoice should be received by the
City's Project Manager no later than the 1st of each month. The City of Aspen's authorized
representative shall be the Wheeler Opera House Director, Gram Slaton.
2.8 If the City observes or otherwise becomes aware of any fault or defect with respect to This
Part of the Project, or nonconformance with the Contract Documents, prompt written notice thereof
shall be given by the City to the Architect.
AGC-981 Page 5
City of Ascen Standard Terms and Conditions - Archi[ecmral Services
2.9 The City shall consult with [he Architect before issuing interpretations or clarifications of
the Architect's Drawings and Specifications and shall request the recommendation of the Architect
before acting upon Shop Drawings, Product Data, Samples or other submissions of the Contractor,
or upon Change Orders affecting This Part of the Project.
2.11 The City shall advise the Architect of the identity of other consultants participating in the
Project and the scope of their services.
2.12 The City shall review the Architect's work for compliance with the City's program and for
overall coordination with the City.
ARTICLE 3
CONSTRUCTION COST
3.1 The Construction Cost of the Project shall be the total cost or estimated cost to the City of
all elements of the Project designed or specified by the City or the City's consultants. The
Construction Cost of This Part of the Project shall be the total cost or estimated cost to the City of
all elements of the Project designed or specified by the Architect.
3.2 The Construction Cost of the Project or of This Part of the Project shall include at current
market rates, including a reasonable allowance for overhead and profit, the cost of labor and
materials furnished by the City and any equipment which has been designed, specified, selected or
specially provided for by the City and, the City's consultants.
3.3 Construction Cost does not include the compensation of the City's consultants, the cost of
the land, rights-of-way, or other costs which are the responsibility of the City as provided in Article
2.
3.4 Evaluations of the City's Project budget, Statements of Probable Construction Cost and
Detailed Estimates of Construction Cost, if any, prepared by the Architect, represent the Architect's
best judgment as a design professional familiaz with the construction industry.
ARTICLE 4
DIRECT PERSONNEL EXPENSE
4.1 Direct Personnel Expense is defined as the direct salaries of all the Architect's personnel
engaged on the Project, and the portion of the cost of their mandatory and customary contributions
and benefits related thereto, such as employment taxes and other statutory employee benefits,
AGC-981 Page 6
Ci[v of Aspen Standard Terms and Conditions -Architectural Services
insurance, sick leave, holidays, vacations, pensions, and similar contributions and benefits.
ARTICLE 5
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
5.1 Reimbursable Expenses are in addition to compensation for Basic and Additional Services
and include actual expenditures made by the Architect and the Architect's employees and
consultants in the interest of the Project (to the extent they aze reimbursable by the City for the
expenses listed in the following Subparagraphs; provided that Architect shall not be reimbursed for
expenses unless prior written approval therefore has been obtained from City.
5.1.1 Expense of transportation in connection with the Project; living expenses in connection with
out-of-town travel; long distance communications; and fees paid for securing approvals of
authorities having jurisdiction over the Project.
5.1.2 Expense of reproductions, postage and handling of Drawings, Specifications and other
documents, excluding reproductions for the office use of the Architect, the City and the City's
consultants.
5.1.3 Expense of data processing and photographic production techniques when used in
connection with Additional Services.
5.1.4 If authorized in advance by the City, expense of overtime work requiring higher than regular
rates.
5.1.5 Expense of renderings, models and mock-ups requested by the City.
ARTICLE 6
PAYMENTS TO THE ARCHTI'ECT
6.1 PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF SERVICES
6.1.1 Payments for Basic Services, Additional Services and Reimbursable Expenses shall be
made on the basis set forth in the Agreement.
6.1.2 The City shall disclose to the Architect, prior to the execution of this Agreement, any
contingent or other special provisions relative to compensation. Invoices based on percentage of
work completed plus reimbursables should be submitted monthly. The City processes invoices
and issues checks weekly on Wednesdays.
AGC-981 Page 7
Ciro of Aspen S[andazd Tertns and Conditions - Archi[ecNral Services
6.1.3 The Architect shall submit, in timely fashion, invoices for Basic Services, Additional
Services and Reimbursable Expenses. The City shall review such invoices and, if they are
considered incorrect or untimely, the City shall review the matter with the Architect and confirm, in
writing to the Architect within ten days from receipt of the Architect's billing, the City's
understanding of the disposition of the issue.
6.1.4 If and to the extent that the Contract Time initially established in the Contract for
Constmction is exceeded or extended through no fault of the Architect, compensation for any Basic
Services required for such extended period of Administration of the Construction Contract shall be
computed as set forth in the Agreement.
ARTICLE 7
ARCHITECT'S ACCOUNTING RECORDS
7.1 Records of Reimbursable Expenses and expenses pertaining to Additional Services and
services performed on the basis of a Multiple of Direct Personnel Expense shall be kept on the basis
of generally accepted accounting principles and shall be available to the City or the City's
authorized representative at mutually convenient times.
ARTICLE 8
OWNERSHIP AND USE OF DOCUMENTS
8.2 The Architect shall maintain on file, and make available to the City, design calculations for
This Part of the Project, and shall furnish copies thereof to the City on request.
8.3 Submission or distribution to meet official regulatory requirements, or for other purposes in
connection with the Project, is not to be construed as publication in derogation of the City's or the
Architect's rights.
JPW-1/2/09-M:\city\cityatty\arch\agc-981. doc
AGC-981 Page 8
E~HI~IT A
December 19, zoos
Wheeler Opera House Expansion
Scoce of Work
Farewell Mills Gatsch Architects, LLC (FMG}, assisted by Rowland + Broughton (R+B) and our team of
consultants, will provide Pre-Design/Planning, Schematic Design, Design Development, Constmction
Document, Bidding/Negotiation, and Constmction Administration Phase Services in accordance with the RFP
and as follows. We will follow the City's design standards and work closely with Wheeler and City
representatives to ensure a dynamic, sustainable, and practical design that respects the iconic character of the
Wheeler Opem House and supports the City's commitment to performing arts in Aspen.
PRE-DESIGN/PLANNING PHASE
Concept Designs
Programming: Programming is an important part of FMG's design process. It is during this phase of the
project that the Project's goals and design issues are cLuified. The program will be developed in extensive
detail, building on existing information, in order to provide a rational basis for design decision-making and
to ensure that Aspen's values are reflected in the building design. The core activity in our programming
process is the interview. To determine space needs and attain a better understanding of how the City,
Wheeler staff, visiting arts organizations, tenants, and patrons interact and operate, we will conduct a
series of interviews keyed to Work Session 1 with individuals identified by the City as key decision-
makers in the process. This work will include gathering information required to establish the Mission
Statement, design goals, priorities, and information required to develop conceptual. design alternatives.
After concluding the interviewing process our team will analyze the information gathered and develop
performance and design criteria for the facility. Issues such as space requirements and relationships,
theater operational needs, acoustical criteria for the new and existing buildings, concessions and public
circulation, environment, safety, furnishings. and equipment, flexibility, and site information will be
described. We will prepare a draft report for review by the City to ensure that we have understood all the
parameters before we begin design. We wilt make revisions to conclude this portion of the phase widr a
presentation of the final Progmm Document memorializing our process and its conclusions. The approved
Program Dceument will form the basis of the ensuing design phases.
Work Session, Public Information Session, HPC/PBcZ, Engineering, Canary Initiative, and Design Team
Meetings: FMG and its consultants will work with the City to develop a comprehensive schedule for
review sessions with interested parties, and will attend all necessary meetings during this phase. Since the
project team (City, Engineering, and Design Team) is Large, we propose to schedule intensive groups of
multi~ay meetings to make the best use of all resotuces and allow sufficient input and design time
throughout dre phase. We have utilized this process with great success on the Paepcke Memorial
Auditorium project, where City and team meetings have been coordinated and combined into multi-day
visits.
Building and Site Surveys: FMG and its consultants will initiate and carry out an extensive survey and
existing document review for the building site and Wheeler Opera House to review conditions of the
interior and exterior materials and systems. We will utilize existing geotechnical information for subsoil
conditions, and we will rely on existing site documentation for location of utilities and other significant
site appurtenances, except that we will employ dre services of our civil and MEP/FP engineers to verify
critical conditions with City officiaLc. FMG will visually survey and document exterior conditions of the
EXHi~IT A
Wheeler's fagade to ascertain Ute conditions that may affect the work and to provide any additional
information on possible maintenance or repairs that could be considered for inclusion in the project or as
part of the Wheeler's ongoing maintenance program.
• Sustainable Goals: FMG will lead discussions with Wheeler and City representatives and, with the
assistance of key consultants, develop the LEED checklist as an initial measure of sustainable tazgets.
FMG will review alternative metrics with City representatives and will assist in the evaluation of each as
possible tools in maximizing the sustainability of the project.
Conceptual Design: FMG and R+B will review the data received in early meetings and surveys, including
programming and building information, and will develop three alternatives for the new addition and
existing building renovations. Deliverables will consist of floor plans, elevations, building sections, and
imagery renderings depicting the overall intent of the design. Initial ideas will be presented in Work
Session 2, and will include schedule analysis and initial cost model information. Development of the ideas,
drawings, and cost model will be undertaken in preparation For Work Session 3, where final design,
budget, and schedule concepts will be presented. In addition, the Design Team will:
- Perfomt a preliminary code and zoning analysis for the existing and proposed stmctures.
- Perform preliminary site calculations in order to develop alternatives for stormwater management,
including sustainable quantity and quality control targets.
- Develop site design alternatives, including pedestrian and vehicular access, loading, and parking.
- Perform preliminary energy analysis and design calculations to study system alternatives,
including possible on-site production and offseiting current or improved energy use in the
Wheeler.
- Analyze and propose alternatives for mechanical system acoustical upgrades for the Wheeler.
- Perform preliminary electrical load calculations and coordinate possible alternative service needs
with the local utility.
- Establish conceptual structural system for new constrnction, including cost effective approaches to
shoring and underpinning.
- Identify issues and approaches to solutions with existing building structures, including possible
balcotry reco~gumtion and projection booth renovation/reconstruction.
- Establish theater systems and equipment schemes for review and discussion, including possible
existing rigging and/or lighting revisions.
- Establish acoustical criteria, based on programming needs, for each space in the new and existing
building.
- Establish audio and video system and equipment schemes for review and discussion.
- Coordinate with the Owner's Construction Manager to develop construction logistics needs and
options, including parking, lay down, and storage.
- Coordinate with the Owner's Constmction Manager to analyze and develop construction
sequences and possible phasing of wnstmction packages.
• Schedule: Based on the RFP and additional discussion widr City representatives, FMG has developed a
preliminary schedule of activities and meetings designed to provide a logical and efficient path to
completion of the Pre-Design/Planning Phase. FMG will work with the City to review, revise, and monitor
this schedule from the start of the project, and we will maintain the design schedule, malting adjustments
as needed and agreed upon as work progresses.
• Budget Cost Model: Based on preliminary and final conceptual designs, including all building system
descriptions, FMG will produce budget cost models that will include alternate designs, phasing, City input
on non-building related costs, and local market factors. The entire Design Team assigned to the phase is
responsible for input and review of this information to achieve the most comprehensive budget
infomration possible. This information will be reviewed with the City in Work Sessions 2 and 3, and will
~~HI~IT A
be revised and updated as required by design changes. The approved Budget Model will form one part of
the basis for moving forward into Schematic Design.
• Schematic Desigq Design Development, Coastnrcdon Document, Bidding/Negotiation, and Constnrction
Administration phase services will be determined once the scope of the project is determined and approved
by the City of Aspen.
EXI-IIB@'T i4
December 19, 2008
Wheeler Opera House Expansion
Fee Proposal Summary
Farewell Mills Gatsch Architects, LLC proposes the following professional fees based on the RFP and
assumptions noted herein. A detailed Task and Fee Breakdown follows this summary.
Pre-Design and Planning Phase
Civil, MEP/FP, and Structural Engineering (SGM, REG, KL&A): $38,000
Theater, Acoustics, and AV Design (FDA, JHA): $43,500
Estimating (F+GI' $13,000
Subtotal: $94,500
FMG Mark-up:
$9,450
Land Planning Architecture Communiri Involvement (FMG, R+B): 5127,500
Total Proposed Fee: $231,450
Estimated Reimbursable Expenses: $49,000
Design, Estimating, Construction Dowment, Bidding, and Construction Phases
Estimated Range of Professional Fees (% of Construction Cost): 8% -11°,fi
Estimated Reimbursable Expenses (% of Construction Cost): .75%-1.25%
Fee Notes:
1. FMG has included'/: of total estimated travel time for Pre-Design/Planning at no cost to the City.
2. Services exclude hazardous materials identification and abatement.
3. Services exclude land survey.
4. Landsppe, lighting, geotechnica{, and wayfinding/signageclesign services will be utilized in the
SD-CA phases of the project.
5. Reimbursable expenses will be invoiced separately at 1.1 times cost.
m ~~
H C:
~q~
m
ne3
~i?
'',e
~~
6A
F
O
~~
Y2
I ~ PeMef ~
',
~"im m 'm
r , ~ CM1BrW„GUDn 3
I
~
~ I Pmbtl F
a i'u l
w,
a
m Meruq.r
i j
i R
Senur Propremmp
l
I
I
I
mo ~ ° 'm g ^ ' NM,fhYl
I
a NNXec13
i
~~
I
~
PeM®
F
m L ,. Clurpe.Preveneron
8 I S'
N omnPmo~
r.
I
li I, I
I i .
'. I
1
auNTOru
I i I N
' I I £
m of ~' ' w w ~ II
mo
p
a PBMBrF CMga
l I
I ~ :
I a
$ 'm~ I° 'm vrga Ar[nMtl
~
~ 9VBTGTAL
I I '' ~i ~I
s
RN.Pr.m-leMSCepe
~~ FDA. TM1UIer
1
I
,
$GM-Crvp Eipireeny
1
YM - [kIX1 Mu1 Ergv a eiurp
I ~
i
I
I REG. MEPrFP
I ~
I
I
I
it
CbnWn -LSM1Mp
I I III
ItL 6 P. 51rMwal
I '~ JHA.4wstlol
i
Ew ~ WryNMIrp eM 51pnw
III
F6G-611metiip
I
1'
~ I
GIIBTOTNL
PNG
NeA uP
~~
N^_F~
W
N~z
m a
°
9
i1 i
~ z
e. n
2 p
E
$m £~ ~ o- 9 ~y 9 @2
£ u g ~ ~ ~ a y m m ~ ~ a 8 $ ~ m 3 ~ % D
c,
m "' o $ 3 a aa ~ 4 v ~ ~ ~
s ~
~ ~ ~ ro 9 $ ~ $
m 3 ~ ? 3
m< ~
99
a
~ yy j 3
2
~
^
~
'
' q
~ ~, "
r ~.
. m
~
~ o
Z4
' T
$
9 p m
~ y
S o i 4 i
E_
_ m
~. -~
m ~
°
~ ~ ~
p N g
_5,
~ Yp
p p
P
~ F
mi
3
ro
~
f
D
~
x SS
p i
o ,~
~' 6
i C
5
c m $
'$ @@~
5
9
2 ga
y D ~
$
'S i9S d ~ ~ 3 ~ m ~ ~ E g a yD $ ~ m ~
m SS 3 E
B
6
m L°
°
~
~
g
Y
Y
2
~
~ a
m
° @m $ m
2 $
°
°
°
o
~
O
p
~
N
~N
O
~
"
fj
(j
P
0
0
0
O O
~
e ~ ~ ~ °
3 s e e m e " e e e e ~
a ~
s a a o a a s e e e e : ~
~
3 s 3 a a s a ~ a a < a ~ a ~ a ~ ~ g 3 a : m a s x a x s
° ~ m ~ 8 ~ ` i 8 8 8 -I T T c 8 8 '' T T ~ c ~ ~ S ` ~ m ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s a 3
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $ m s m ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~
s
3 a
3 a
3
~
fr F
8 F
8 ~
e
a y F
8 F
8
<
<
~ ~
"
r
a
g
o ~ ~ ~
~
" ~
~
~ F
8 ~
6
~
~ ~
. o
m "
m s
9
~
^^- N
.2
Q
° ~
e a
~ Q
s ~
~ S
~ g
~ S
~S g
~ z
~ e
~
~
~ e
~ S
~ ~
~
~ e
~ e
~ ~
~ S
~ g
~ ~
5 N
~ a
~
~ a
~
s
$ e
~ c
~ c
~ _
~ s
~
`o
~ ~
s
m
__._ _. _. ..._ _..._ _. _.. n
t o
$ ~'~e O
?Q
m
a
~_ !
.
Ana
~~o
°"
a _°
w ~
r
a
v
s y
~
4
5
D
g g S
S S
• u
•~
•~
_
~ ~
g
D
i~
s
a
~R y
~n
Farewell Mills Gatsch
Farewell Mills Gatsch Architects, LLC
Partner -Michael Farewell & Michael Mills $ 275
Partner -Michael Schnoering & lorine Murray-Mechini $ 250
Senior Associate $ 175
Architectural Historian $ 150
Project Manager $ 125
STANQARD
Senior Project Architect
HOURLY RATES $ 110
2008
Project Architect $ q5
Interior Designer $ 120
Designer/Draftsperson $ 80
Support Staff $ 70
Hourly rates may be adjusted annually
O yv
J R G,
~b
,Cm
r ry
N ti 3
rowland+t~roughton
architecture antl urban tlesign
SCHEDULE OF HOURLY RATES
18 November 2008
The following are our professional hourly rates:
Principal $205.00
Associate $175.00
Project Manager $155.00
Project Architect $120.00
Project Coordinator $95.00
Designer $75.00
F w ,
F~.i
E V w
Ed3
0
~~~
~ m
4+ n
c~ ~
c»
~~m
m
~°"
d
ci p m
omv
3~~
+m~
=n
-o
®~=
o~~
F ~'
~"J
U p N
~'
c W A
m 0
~~ O
~wm
~ ~ +
0
3 * ~
wo
o~
m
W A
O ~
W A
~ V
V W
N
Pege 1 of 1
Resource
Engineering
Group, Inc.
elCicierrcy • suslainabilily • simplicity
Michael Schnoering
Partner
Fazewell Mills Gatsch Architects, LLC
200 Forrestal Road
Princeton, NJ 08540 December 17, 2008
Regarding: Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Engineering Hourly Rates
Deaz Michael:
Our standard hourly rates are: $150/hr for Principal Engineers, $120/hr for Associate Engineers and
$75 for Administrative. This applies to Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Engineering services.
Please feel free to call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
August Hasz PE
P.O. Box 3725 • Crested Butte CO 81224 USA • tel (970) 349-1216
fax (970) 349-1218 • info@reginc.com • www.reginc.com
KLF~A, Inc.
Structural Engineers 8 Builders
1717 Washington Avenue, Suite 100
Golden, Cdorado 80901
Ph: 303384-9910 Faz 3033849915
Michael R. Schnoering, AIA
Farewell Mills Gatsch Architects, LLC
200 Forrestal Road
Princeton, NJ 08540
Re: KL&A Hourly Rates
Dear Michael,
The following aze KL&A's current hourly rates:
Principal: $150
Associate: $120
Project Manager. $105
Project Engineer: $105
Engineer (Licensed):. $ 95
Structural Designer $ 85
Engineering Intem: $ 70
Clerical: $ 60
Sincerely,
i
Brant J. Lahnert, P.E.
Principal Engineer
Chief Financial Officer
C^DO,:w~nasentl5v~unB'~IahmMlYDavniene'tupord3W8 HwulyRms.doc
December 17, 2008
JaffeHatden
Acoustics•Audio • Video
^ r
PREVAILING BILLING RATES ON AN HOURLY BASIS
Staff Hourly Rate
Principals $275.
Senior Consultants $225.
Consultants $175.
These rates effective as of January 1, 2008
JaffeHolden.com
Northeast: 114-A Washington Street, Norwalk, CT 06854 • tel +1 (203) 838-0167 • fax +1 (203) 838-0168
West:1453 Third Street Promenade, Suite 335, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • tel +1 (310) 319-1333 • fax +1 (310) 319-1344
Theatre Planning and Design Fisher Dachs Associates 22 West 1s street
New York NY 1GG11
Tel 212 691 3070
Fax 212 Ei3.i 1(i44
w~mtm.fd2-onlitte corn
ffDD ~'~,
Current Hourly Rates
Person/Category
Joshua Dachs, Principal
Joseph Mobilia, Associate Principal
Robert Campbell, Associate Principal
Senior Associates
Associates, Project Managers
Consultants
per Hour per Field Day
250 2500
200 2000
200 2000
190 1900
170 1700
160 1700
FAITHFUL+GOULD
New Jersey Hourly Rate Structure
2008
,v ... _ . ;
u
- ~ , _ Ili
Estimatin I Controls Services
SVP / VP/ O erations Director: $175
Senior Cost / PM /Scheduler: $125-$160
Senior Consultant $125-$150
Cost Mana er /Estimator: $100-$120
Admin /Technical su ort: $60-$75
MEP Cost Mana er $125-$140
PM / Chan a Order Services
Senior Pro'ect Mana er $125-$160
Scheduler $120-$145
Asst PM/Site Man er $90-$120
Claims anal sis $140-$250
Court testimon $140-$250
VE tasks $110-$175
Risk $175
Other Services
CVS $125-$200
Facility Condition Assessor $125-$200
FAITHFUL+GOULD Billing Rates
Page 1
esse design
E'-~.~~ o'~~~. cr. b!.ix 1790
h35 ~f(, C(li0t3c/C ,^,'i(i27
15'OjE25 a57 s3 f9%01927-a?9° to
;n `f]~Ii=Sfiltt5rlJR_OP" P
billing rates
$150 - 100 principal + creative director
$80 - 50 staff
SCHMUESER;GOROONjMEYER
E N G I N E E R S{ S U R V E Y O R S
FEE SCHEDULE
March 2008
HOURLY RATE
PRINCIPAL ENGINEER .......................................................................................................... ....:......................$155.00
SENIOR ENGINEER il ............................................................................................................. ...........................$140.00
SENIOR ENGINEER I ............................................................................................................. ............................$130.00
SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER .............................................................................................. ............................$125.00
PROJECT MANAGER ............................................................................................................ ............................$110.00
DESIGN ENGINEER II ............................................................................................................ ............................$110.00
DESIGN ENGINEER I ............................................................................................................. ............................ $ 90.00
DESIGN TECHNICIAN ........................................................................................................... ............................$ 65.00
SENIOR ENERGY CONSULTANT ......................................................................................... ............................$120.00
ENERGY MANAGER .............................................................................................................. ............................$ 90.00
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER ................................................................................................ ............................ $105.00
CONSTRUCTION TECHNICIAN II ......................................................................................... ............................ $ 95.00
CONSTRUCTION TECHNICIAN I .......................................................................................... ............................$ 85.00
CADD MANAGER ................................................................................................................... ............................ $115.00
SENIOR CADD DESIGNER .................................................................................................... ............................ $100.00
CADD DESIGNER .................................................................................................................. ............................$ 90.00
CADD DRAFTER .................................................................................................................... ............................$ 75.00
GISTECHNICIAN ................................................................................................................... ............................$ 95.00
MARKETING MANAGER ........................................................................................................ ............................$ 85.00
CLERICAL STAFF .................................................................................................................. ............................$ 65.00
SURVEY MANAGER .............................................................................................................. ............................ $140.00
LAND SURVEYOR ................................................................................................................. ............................$120.00
SURVEY PROJECT MANAGER ............................................................................................. ............................ $100.00
SENIOR SURVEY TECHNICIAN ............................................................................................ ............................$ 85.00
SURVEY TECHNICIAN .......................................................................................................... ............................$ 75.00
FIELD SURVEY (1-Man Crew) ............................................................................................... ............................$150.00
FIELD SURVEY (1-Man Crew OVERTIME) ........................................................................... ............................. $225.00
FIELD SURVEY (2-Man Crew) .............................................................................................. .............................$200.00
FIELD SURVEY (2-Man Crew OVERTIME) ........................................................................... ............................. $300.00
EXPERT TESTIMONY ........................................................................................................... ............................. $300.00
REIMBURSABLES
Eauioment Rate
VehiGe Mileage ........................................................................................................ ..................... $ 0.70/mile
ATV /SNOWMOBILE .............................................................................................. ..................... $ 125.00/day
Flow Tote ................................................................................................................. ..................... $ 125.00/day
Reoroduction (Plot Sheets are typical "D" size @ 2' x 3', Oversize higher)
Black & White Plots .................................................................................................. ..................... $ 5.50/sheet
Mylar Plots ............................................................................................................... ..................... $19.00/sheet
Color Plots ............................................................................................................... ..................... $30.00/sheet
Photocopies ............................................................................................................. .....................$ 025/page
Miscellaneous
Overtime will be charged out at 1'7i times hourly rate (field survey overtime rates noted above).
10°'° will be added to all direct expenses, including FedEx, special delivery and courier charges, special consultants,
subcontractors, laboratory tests, airfare, lodging, meals, car rental, telephone, outside printing expense, etc. Interest
of 1.5% per month will be charged for invoices past 30 days.
v
pr}ncipz! $200-110
asseclxtafsunior staS4 $100-65
s'.aft $80-65
., . ~,~E :,i~~, ~ :.,.
billing rates
~.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
FROM: Jason Lasser, Special Projects Planner ,L
RE: 720 East I-Iyman Avenue, Historic Landmark Designation
1`` Reading of Ordinance No D l ,Series of 2009
DATE: January 5, 2009
MEETING DATE: January 12, 2009
APPLICANT /OWNER:
CM, LLC c/o Roger Marolt, represented by
REPRESENTATIVE:
Lenny Oates, Oates, Kenezevich,
Gardenswartz, and Kelly, P.C.
w '~~' ~~lr..
_ ~~':..
LOCATION: "~~",~~ ~~- ~
~,~ '~
720 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen Athletic fi"r"''`
Club Condominium & Duvike
Condominium, City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado.
CURRENT ZONING:
Mixed Use (MU)
SUMMARY:
The application requests (voluntary)
designation as a Historic Landmark.
Designation and review by the City Council
allows the project to proceed through
Ordinance 48, Series of 2007.
Photo: view ti~om the southeast - 720 1~:ast Ilynla
commonly known as the Aspen Athletic Club Building.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request to be
designated as a Historic Landmark
SUMMARY: The property is among those listed as "Potential Historic Resources" provided
with a level of protection under Ordinance #48, Series of 2007. The building, located on the
corner of East Hyman Avenue and South Original Street, is a three story (above grade) mixed use
building built in the mid 70's (drawings dated 1976). The project was designed by Robin Molny,
who was trained under Frank Lloyd Wright at Taliesin and later worked with Fritz Benedict. In
addition to the recently designated Hearthstone House, he designed other significant buildings
and projects in Aspen including the Hyman and Cooper Avenue pedestrian malls.
On October 8, 2008, the Historic Preservation Commission voted 4-1, recommending approval to
designate 720 East Hyman as a Historic Landmark (minutes attached as Exhibit D). The HPC
application included minor review for a proposed remodel of the building, which was approved
with conditions on Oct 8, 2009. Due to the difficult economic climate, the applicant may be
revising the approved proposal to remodel the building, at this time is only requesting review for
Historic Designation.
The application requests (voluntary) designation as a Historic Landmark. Designation and review
by the City Council allows the project to proceed through Ordinance 48, Series of 2007 and
provides the owner with Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) exemptions that are
relevant to their project. If the applicant chooses to remodel the building as proposed in the HPC
application, the relevant exemptions would exempt the development from competition for
GMQS Allocations. Up to four (4) employees generated by the additional development shall not
require the provision for affordable housing. Up to one free-market residence may be created
(without having to provide affordable housing). Additional free-market units (beyond one) shall
be reviewed pursuant to Section 26.470.080.2 -New Free-Market Residential Unit s within a
Multi-Family or Mixed-Use Project.
HISTORIC DESIGNATION
26.415.030B. Criteria.
To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures,
an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or
objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance.
The significance of the property located at 720 East Hyman Avenue will be evaluated according
to the following criteria:
Sec. 26.415.030. Designation of historic properties.
2. A property or district is deemed significant as a representation of
Aspen's 20th Century history, was constructed in whole or in part more than
thirty (30) years prior to the year in which the application for designation is
being made, possesses sufficient integrity of location, setting, design, materials,
workmanship and association and is related to one (1) or more of the following:
t,
a. An event, pattern, or trend that has made a significant contribution
to local, state, regional or national history,
b. People whose specific contributions to local, state, regional or
national history is deemed important and can be identified and
documented, or
c. A physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a
type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical
or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman or
design philosophy that is deemed important.
Staff Resaonse: Staff finds that all of the above criteria are met:
a. An event, pattern, or trend that has made a significant contribution to local, state,
regional or national history: `~
Staff does not argue that Aspen Athletic Club ~$uilding exemplifies textbook Wrightian
architecture in town. Restricting the analysis of. a design profession like architecture to a uniform
set of criteria that qualify a building as contributing to a specific style fails to recognize the
artistic freedom azchitects like Molny exercised- as Wright expressed to Molny, "If you
understand the principles of my architecture, then your buildings need not look like mine."
Applying this idea to preservation of 720 East Hyman; while it does not replicate the exact
teachings of a master azchitect, it is defined in part by Aspen's creative environment where
architects, and other creative professionals, could experiment with modern philosophies and the
built environment in this specific context. It is exactly this creative adventure that produced
interesting architecture in Aspen-architecture that communicates both a sense of place (the high
country and extreme environment) and a higher level of design. Spatial connections, relationship
to the site and connection with nature, and utilizing the materials for both aesthetic and structural
functions aze all examples of Wrightian philosophy.
Molny used Wrightian design philosophy- for example: organic architecture (composing
buildings with space rather than mass and scale; and creating a harmony of architecture and
environment) - to create an open floor plan and aninterior/exterior courtyard. Aspen was lucky
to be home to many intellectuals, including modernist azchitects, who were starting out in the
field. Molny used his foundation at Taliesen to'draw upon the physical and intellectual
environment of Aspen, and create a building that is`t><ot a replica of Wright; but indicative of his
own background, design, experiences, and clienfl ~lolny was not the only azchitect in Aspen
whose training under Frank Lloyd Wright influenced the towns azchitectural character. Please
refer to Community Developments paper; Aspens 20`h Century Architecture, Modernism for
more information about this trend.
Staff finds that criterion a. is met.
b. People whose specific contributions to local, state, regional or national history is deemed
important and can be identified and documented,
Aspen was fortunate to attract a vaziety of highly trained architects who left a modern impression
throughout the town. Among the architectural crowd was Robin Molny who trained at Taliesen
under Frank Lloyd Wright for five years and in the 1950s was selected by Wright to supervise the
Greenberg Residence in Dousman, Wisconsin. Wright is quoted as describing Molny as a "poet"
saying "he'll be a good architect one day." Subsequently, Molny moved to Aspen, worked for
Fritz Benedict, and opened his own architecture firm. The Hearthstone House (134 East Hyman,
1961), the Mason and Morse Building (514 East Hyman, heavily altered, 1971), and the
downtown pedestrian malls (1970s) were all designed by Molny. The HPC awarded Molny two
Welton Anderson Preservation Honor Awazds in 1995 for the pedestrian malls and again in 1997
for significant architectural contributions to Aspen.; ADick Carney, Chairman of the Frank Lloyd
Wright Foundation Board, wrote a letter honoring:Molny when he was presented with the Welton
Anderson Preservation Honor Award in 1997:
Robin Molny's architectural contributions are locally significant in their representation and
communication of Aspen life in the 1960s and 1970s. As indicated through the careful
orientation of the main atrium, Molny was sensitive to spatial relationships: he designed the
atrium to serve as a flexible, light-filled, transition between the exterior and interior, taking
advantage of the views to the mountain, and creating interest for those inside the building.
Staff finds that criterion b. is met.
c. A physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or
method of construction, or represents the technical or aesthetic achievements of a
recognized designer, craftsman or design philosophy that is deemed important.
.,.
The elegant use of structural members to create the lForm, fenestration, and architectural interest,
attention to small details like bolt patterns display the craftsmanship and philosophy of a quality
designer. Robin Molny represented his appreciation and knowledge of materials and architectural
history in the construction of the Aspen Athletic Building with the use of the current technology
and construction techniques. The first patents for glu-lam beams were issued in Switzerland and
Germany, and the first U.S. manufacturing standard for glu-lam was published in 1963, Staff
believes that Molny allowed the materials of the day to drive the design process, resulting in a
building that explores the technical possibilities of the day. Staff finds that the design and history
of the Aspen Athletic Club Building to be indicative of an important design philosophy.
Staff finds that criterion c is met.
Recommendation: Staff finds that criteria for the Historic Designation are fulfilled. Staff
recommends approval of the request to be designated as a Historic Landmark.
DECISION MAHING OPTIONS:
• ~~~!~
The City Council may: '
• approve the application,
• disapprove the application, or
• continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that City Council approve the request for Historic
Designation for the property located at 720 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen Athletic Club
Condominium & Duvike Condominium, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE):
I move to approve Ordinance #0~ 1, Series of 2009, upon first reading
Exhibits:
A. Integrity Assessment -Existing Building
B. Photos of Existing Building
C. Application
D. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes -October 8, 2008
ORDINANCE NO~,, SERIES OF 2008
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AN APPLICATION
FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 720
EAST HYMAN AVE (COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB
BUILDING), ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB CONDOMINIUM & DUVIKE
CONDOMINIUM, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
PARCEL ID: 2737-182-11010 (through 11031) & 2737-182-11800, and 11801
WHEREAS, the applicant, CM LLC c/o Roger Marolt, represented by Lenny Oates, Oates
Kenezevich, Gardenswaztz, and Kelly, P.C., has requested Minor Development for the property
located at 720 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen Athletic Club Condominium & Duvike
Condominium, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.050 of the Aspen Municipal Code establishes the process for
Designation and states that an application for listing on the Aspen Inventory of Historic
Landmark Sites and Structures shall be approved if City Council, after a recommendation from
HPC, determines sufficient evidence exists that the property meets the criteria; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on October 8, 2007, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application, found the application for Minor Development and Historic Landmazk
Review met the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and the Aspen
Municipal Code Historic Landmark Standards revie~ criteria, and approved the application by a
vote of four to one (4 to 1). '
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all the
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 Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the
promotion of public health, safety, and welfaze.
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February 9, 2009, the Aspen City Council
approved the request for the property at 720 East Hyman Avenue to be designated as a Historic
Landmark, as described herein, by a vote of to ~-~:
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
The Aspen City Council approves the application for Landmark Designation of the property at
720 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen Athletic Club Condominium & Duvike Condominium, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado;
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary
to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the
City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific
development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice
shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development
plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years,
pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado
Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 720 East Hyman Avenue,
Aspen, Colorado.
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews
and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or
the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this
approval.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial
review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin
to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required
under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the
Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
The rights granted by the approval of this site-specific development plan shall remain
vested for a period of three (3) years from the effective date of the approved development
order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this
approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Failure to properly
record all plats and agreements required to be recorded by this Code within one-hundred-
eighty (180) days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the
forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void
within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits).
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial
review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin
to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required
under Subsection 26.304.070.A of this Chapter.
Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in
the creation of a vested property right.
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews
and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or
the City provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval.
The establishment of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of
ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property
subject to land use regulation by the City including, but not limited to, building, fire,
plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this
development approval, the applicant shall abide by any and all such building, fire,
plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in
writing by the City.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the 12`s day of January, 2009.
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of , 2009.
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
Approved as to form:
John Worcester, City Attorney
EXISTING BUILDING -EXHIBIT A
INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT- WRIGHTIAN
Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance.
• LOCATION Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the
place where the historic event occurred.
5 -The structure is in its original location.
3 -The structure has been moved within the original site but still maintains the
original alignment and proximity to the street.
0 -The structure has been moved to a location that is dissimilar to its original
site.
Staff Response:
The structure is in the original location. Staff finds the location score to be a S.
TOTAL LOCATION POINTS (maximum of 5) = 5
• DESIGN Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space,
structure, and style of a property.
BUILDING FORM
10- The original plan form, based on authenticating documentation, is still intact.
6 -The plan form has been altered, but the addition would meet the design
guidelines.
0 -Alterations and/or additions to the building are such that the original form
of the structure is obscured.
Staff Response:
The original plan, building form, footprint, structural elements, spatial relationships, and style
are still intact. The glu-lam beams are the primary structural and aesthetic elements, and have
not been altered. Staff finds the building form score to be a 10.
ROOF FORM
10 -The original roof form is unaltered.
6 - Additions have been made that alter roof form that would meet the
current design guidelines. The overall horizontal emphasis and wide overhangs
have been maintained.
0 -Alterations to the roof have been made that obscure its original form or that detract
from its horizontal emphasis.
Staff Response:
The roof form is a flat roof, with no overhang, and a parapet wall on the west eave. Staff
believes that the original design has not been altered. The uppermost glu-lam beam defines the
roofline, and has not been modified. Staff finds the finds form score to be a 10.
SCALE
5 -The original scale and proportions of the building ate intact.
3 - The building has been expanded but the scale of the original portion is
intact and the addition would meet the design guidelines.
0 - The scale of the building has been negatively affected by additions or
alterations.
Sta ff Response: ~
The ordgdnal scale and proportions are still intact, there have been no expansions, additions, or
alterations. Stafffinds the scale score to be a S.
SOLID/VOID PATTERN
10 -The original pattern of glazing and exterior materials is intact.
6 -The original pattern of glazing and exterior materials has been altered
but in a manner that would meet the design guidelines.
0- The original pattern of glazing and exterior materials is altered.
Staff Response:
The pattern of glazing, details, and exterior materials are intact. The original glazing and
solid/void relationships have not been modified. Stafffinds the solid/void score to be a 10.
CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES
10-The horizontal form, relationship to the environment through battered foundation
walls, cantilevered floors and/or porches, clear areas of glazing which create
visual connections to the outside and the inside, and the effect of the roof plane
hovering over the ground are intact.
6 -There are minor alterations to the horizontal form, relationship to the environment
through battered foundation walls, captilevered floors and/or porches, cleaz azeas
of glazing which create visual connections to the outside and the inside, and the
effect of the roof plane hovering over the ground.
0 -There have been major alterations to the horizontal form and design features that
relate the building to its environment.
Staff Response
The glu-lam beams that are used for both the str:ecture and to establish the horizontal banding
and voids for glazing or open space are the primary character defining features of the building.
Below the largest horizontal beam is the main space vertical butt joined glazing which creates a
light fzlled space which creates nearly transparent visual and physical connections from the
exterior and interior. The existing sliding glass doors on the ground floor allow the space to be
converted into what feels like a covered patio, which is strengthened by the use of pavers which
are the same, both indoor and outdoor, Stafffinds the character defining features score to be a
10.
TOTAL DESIGN POINTS (maximum of 45) = 45
• SETTING Setting is the physical environment of a historic property.
~:(
5- The physical surroundings are similar to that found when the structure was
originally constructed.
3- There are minor modifications to the physical surroundings but the changes
conform to the design guidelines.
0- The physical surroundings detract from the historic character of the building.
Staff Response:
The exterior physical surroundings, which consists of several brick planters and walls, trees,
bushes, berms, and a herringbone brick sidewalk paving(that matches the interior main space of
the building) are believed to be constructed at the same time as the structure. Staff finds the
setting score to be a 5. ,;
TOTAL SETTING POINTS (maximum of 5) = 5
• MATERIALS Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited
during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a
historic property.
EXTERIOR SURFACES
15-The original combination of exterior wall materials and glazing are intact.
10-There have been minor alterations to the original exterior wall materials and
glazing made in a manner that conform to the design guidelines.
5-There have been major changes to the original combination of exterior wall
materials and glazing.
0- All exterior wall materials and glazing has been replaced.
Staff Response:
The exterior surfaces, combination of exterior wall materials and glazing are intact. The
surfaces on the NE and SW corners and the parapet wall on the west fafade have been painted
beige, which is the only painted surface on the building, as the beams, hoppers, and
miscellaneous trim pieces are stained. Staff questions the authenticity of the beige paint, but
understands that it is minor in nature, and is reversible. Staff finds the exterior surfaces score to
be a 14.
DOORS AND WINDOWS
10-All or most of the original door and window units are intact.
5 -Some of the original door and window units have been replaced but the new units
would meet the design guidelines.
0 -Most of the original door and window units have been replaced with units that
would not meet design guidelines.
Staff Response:
The existing doors, specifically the sliding doors on the ground floor that retract to expose the
pedestrian level to the outside, are an integral component of the facade and design. The
operation and stacking characteristics are intact. The windows, essentially sheets of insulated,
tempered, and mirrored or tdnted glass are elegantly connected to each other and the structure to
~;~
minimize obstruction to the natural view, or reflecting it from the exterior. The original window,
configuration, and operation are intact, Stafff:nds the doors and windows score to be a 10.
TOTAL MATERIALS POINTS (maximum of 25) = 24
• WORKMANSHIP Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular
culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.
COMPOSITION
15 -The structural composition that distinguishes the stylistic category of
Wrightian is intact. Materials are usually natural and hand worked; such as
rough sawn wood timbers and brick. Brick is generally used as a base material,
wall infill or in an anchoring fireplace element. Wood structural systems tend
more toward heavy timber or post and beam than typical stud framing.
Structural members and construction methods are usually expressed in the
building. For example; load-bearing columns may be expressed inside and out,
the wall plane is then created by an'infill of glass or brick.
10- There have been some alterations to the structural composition, but the changes
would meet the design guidelines.
0 - There have been some alterations to the structural composition, and the changes
would not meet the design guidelines.
Staff Response:
The wood structural system is expressed both on the interior and exterior, and the wall plane is
created by an infill of glass and plywood. While the style is not easily identifiable as a Wrightian
design, the characteristics of the composition criterion precisely match the existing building.
Staff finds the composition score to be a IS.
FINISHES & COLOR SCHEME
5 -The natural color scheme and finishes that define the stylistic category of
Wrightian is intact.
3 -There have been minor alterations to the natural color scheme and finishes that
define the stylistic category of Wrightian.
0- There have been significant alterations to the natural color scheme and finishes
that define the stylistic category of Wrightian.
Staff Response:
The color (dark wood) and finishes (stain) which compliment the desire the expression of the
natural materials are believed to be intact. Staff guestions the authenticity of the beige paint, but
understands that it is minor in nature, and is reversible Staff finds the finishes and color scheme
score to be a 4.
TOTAL WORKMANSHIP POINTS (maximum of 20) = 19
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of I00) = 98
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF POINTS=100
MINIMUM THRESHOLD FOR DESIGNATION= 75 POINTS
Note: Each azea of the integrity analysis includes a description of the circumstances that might
be found and a point assignment. However the reviewer may choose another number within the
point range to more accurately reflect the specific property.
~.~~
,,
i'
--
t,: YF ..
r' . . ;~ '.
~, ~:
' -..~~
~,
~,:~ ~ .ate .a.
,~' ,~. ti.~. {~
/ ;
)'
t ~,..
~i
'•
L'S `~ .; ._ ~ ' _~.
~' \ .`
~ ~
r-~ ~
°~:. `~
~~~
~ -i M' it
~ R ~ ~~
1
•-'
~• ' ~'
~' ~
. ~' r;
,f . r,
~:~~r .~..'ny;'rt~
~F~l:'
~. i
~~ ~ .
~..,;::
~ ._ ~..
p ` ~':
~:.
-~~;~~` '
. ,: ;r
.~ 4
:.~ ~'
~_' ~ ~.•
n
t`_ -__
,, __._ ~ ,
~y '-
.-r
L
i~'
Y
:~ .~~
~~1
~.~~
~~
~ Y
` _II~.
~~ ~, '.~.
Y
Y
~...
/ 7
. ; .~ : r.
-'
~, ~~~
.. ~yr.,'.'~'Ti
}•
--~..~
~. ~ ~ •~J
~~
~~
y.
dom. _
~ "~`~`
r.
i ~ ~~-
i
` .
-~
`~~
~~
~~~ ,~,
~a, ~ ... Ar_.~
~. ~ . ,~
r ~
.,-., . ~~~~~ r'' ,
.ir
v
,'
~1
~~
i~
~~
.,
.. - , .~
_. =y
.~
r
~'~
~~
~f+~ --~.
~~
. ~ ~~
,~
. ~~.. ~~
t#j
__
~``~~-`"
Ii
The alley is gone and has basically lost its use and it might as well be
planted as long as they are traditional plant materials.
Sarah concurred with Brian and Ann.
Stan said the city could open the alley at agytime. Stan said they will work
with the Parks department and ask Mr. Hodgson to get involved and
hopefully he will participate.
Sarah said it needs to be thought out as to what it will look like in 30 years.
Ann said the applicant has worked hard to make this work and the conditions
can be worked out with staff and monitor.
Michael went over the conditions:
1. Front porch is approved as presented tonight.
2. The palate is approved with further review in terms of refinement of
the detailing and the choice of final roof material. (detail of rain
screen) (detail of posts).
3. Eliminate
4. Chimney cap eliminated and to be restudied and reviewed by staff and
monitor.
5. Landscaping in alley to be approved by staff, monitor and the Parks
Department.
MOTION.• Sarah moved to approve resolution #24 for Lift I as amended;
second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried 4-0.
Monitor -Ann and Brian
Popcorn Wagon
MOTION.• Sarah opened the public nearing and moved to continue the
Popcorn Wagon until IO/22/2008; second by Brian. All in favor, motion
carried.
720 E. Hyman Ave. -Aspen Athletic Club -Minor Development
And Landmark Designation
11
t,
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 8.2008
Jason Lasser, planner said this is a voluntary designation. Designation has
three criteria, (a)the event pattern or trend related to local histories (b)
people who contributed and in this case it was Robin Molny (c) physical
design and whether it contributes. We are looking at the exterior.
The second component is minor review. Keep the existing planters which
are in the right-of--way guideline 1.16. There is no encroachment license.
Engineering doesn't have a problem with that if they are not modified or
changed at all. They are OK with the conifer trees being removed from the
planters but they are not OK with redoing anything structural on the walls of
the planters. Guideline 2.9 covering original building materials. Right now
they are painted and we are recommending removal of the paint.
Guideline 3.3 keeping ratio to the windows. They are adding a new floor on
the interior side, the courtyard space. Right now it is a two story volume.
They are proposing to put a floor in there so the perception is that you look
through the exterior glazing and that floor line will interrupt the vertical
glazing that is butt jointed along the fagade. There will also be a glass
railing. I am not sure HPC has purview over the inside but it is something
that you will perceive from the exterior, guideline 3.3.
Guideline 3.5, 3.7 talk about the windows. They are proposing to replace
the plywood hoppers that are in two locations. There are two glue lamb
beans across that create a horizontal structure and in between that is the
glazing. Above that is a line of hopper windows that fold out to provide
ventilation. They are proposing to replace those with glazing in the same
location and they are not changing the proportions or the framing detail.
Staff supports the change.
Guideline 4.1 talks about preserving the doors. On the ground floor there
are sliding doors. You can open the doors and it looks like a transparent
space. The proposal is that the doors be fixed and staff is recommending
that they keep the existing aluminum clad'sliding doors.
14.6 and 14.7 relates to the lighting. We haven't seen any lighting and that
should be discussed. Staff recommends approval of designation and the
minor review with conditions.
Condition:
Keeep existing doors on the ground floor.
Remove the conifers. If the planters are replaced Parks has a planting
recommendation.
12
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 8, 2008
Remove the beige paint to reveal the existing wood.
If planters are modified or removed that will have to be put within the lot
line.
Amy pointed out that there are pictures that the planters are original. Robin
Molny studied at Taliesen. The integration of the inside to the outside
would have been important. You can see through the building and how the
flooring on the inside comes out. These planters aze important and are part
of modern historic landscape in which we do not have many examples of in
town. Staff feels they should stay.
Rich Kailen, architect with Charles Cunniffe.
We would continue the plants on Hyman and plant aspen trees around
Original to keep the pedestrian link. That would require us to redevelop the
planters. The basement continues out to the lot line and the planters have
done water damage to the basement. We would we rebuild them to what
they were before. Our client loves the building and has already done some
repairs to bring out the character of the wood. He also has put copper
flashing on the glue lamb beans. Either Way the planters need to be torn
apart and reworked. The planters are as hrigh as they are because there is a
basement under them. We would also pull off the pavers and determine the
water damage.
Jason said there are solaz shades proposed and we need to see how they aze
going to be attached to the building.
Rich said the shades would match the color of the existing windows. They
would cantilever off the middle of the structural beams.
Ann said from the exterior you will see a line across the building.
Rich said all the windows would be retained.
Nora said you will no longer see the atrium.
Rich said what we are proposing with the shades is reversible.
,~~a
Rich said he doesn't feel the doors are historic but we could recreate them.
We want to keep the quality of the building as is. We aze proposing to
13
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 8.2008
replace simple store front window in a medium bronze color insulated
glazing panel that wouldn't change the profile of the exterior.
Michael said the building is very inefficient.
Amy said in the future plans they might lia~putting residential up above on
the third floor and they could receive growth management exemptions for
the new residential units. If they have net leasable they could have some
relief on some mitigation requirements. It is a nice gesture for the owner to
offer.
Sarah asked when the building was built. Jason said the drawings indicate
1976.
Rich said the public access will be on Original and the existing access will
be Coates Reid and Waldron's dedicated entrance.
Michael said it is hard to perceive how the interior remodel will be perceived
from the outside.
Brian asked about the new design of the planters. Rich said they would be
retained at the 2 x6 level and brought to the lot line.
Amy said she feels more discussion slioutld'occur with Engineering in order
to come to a middle ground and allow repairs and water proofing. If they
need to get an encroachment license that is OK.
Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. There were no
public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed.
Brian said we are discussing:
Landscaping, planters, window shading and designation.
The board supported designation of the building.
Michael went over the conditions.
Existing ground floor exterior sliding doors: Brian said sliding glass doors
rather than fixed glass would be his preference. Sarah agreed.
14
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 8.2008
Jason said how the doors are hung is important. If the glazing gets thicker it
might go beyond. Rich said the slider would be insulated and the profile
would not change.
Ann said the planters are an integral part of the project and creating a
directed entrance needs to stay the same.
Rich said a ramp needs to be created on the Original side.
Sarah said this building was designed as a two story atrium and the whole
use of it is changing.
Michael said he is in favor of retaining the existing planters.
Brian said the main concern is that we maintain the main character that was
crafted which is along Hyman.
Nora said the experience from the outside and the inside is critical in this
building.
Brian said if the architect does this properly they can do a Wrightian type
architecture of bringing the inside to the outside and see the internal
functions on both sides of the wall.
Jason the walls are reversible. They are not taking out the glue Iambs etc.
Michael said the atrium creates a lack of vitality in the building.
Rich said we can make the floor plate as thin as possible.
Michael said the way that the light plays ~on the interior atrium is an
important part of the design of the structure. It is not clear to me that this
new design is going to be perceived in the same way as the existing structure
is.
Ann said the interior walls are very transparent.
Lennie Oats said we have acceded to the transparency on the inside and that
is as far as we are willing to go.
15
Sarah said we have to make buildings more efficient.
Jason said staff and monitor can look at the details of the floor as it tapers.
Sarah said the proposal hits many of our guidelines, I ,9,1.13, 1.16,2.1, 2.6,
2.7.
MOTION: Sarah moved to approve resolution #25 for 720 E. Hyman Ave.,
Aspen Athletic Club for a minor development and landmark designation with
the following conditions:
1. The applicant will replace the ground floor exterior sliding doors and
maintain their existing configuration and operation,
2. That the applicant will retain the existing planters primarily on the
Hyman side but will look at the planter configuration on Original
Street and work with the new accessible needs and try to maintain as
much of the original landscape as passible.
3. The applicant will remove the Cori~erous trees in conjunction with
Parks and Engineering.
4. The beige paint will be removed.
S. The applicant will apply for aright-of-way permit for all the
landscaping items as stated in staff's memo.
6. The applicant will work with parks to choose the appropriate tree
species from the Arbor Guide and those plantings will be
appropriately and carefully considered in size as they grow.
7. The new awning windows are approved.
8. The breeze-alay as proposed are approved but final design will be
approved by staff and monitor.
9. Historic Designation is approved.
Motion second by Ann
Ann made two amendments: Amendment take out (new) in #6 and add
restored planters.
Amendment: #4 -The applicant will need to comply and apply for all
landscaping standards eta ~ ~~
Sarah second the amendment.
Brian, yes; Sarah, yes; Ann, yes; Nora, yes; Michael no. Motion carried
401.
16
ASPEN IIISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 8.2008
MOTION: Brian moved to adjourn; second by Nora. All in favor, motion
carried.
Meetin adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk
17
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 8.2008
Sarah asked what kind of material the siding is. Tim said mahogany. The
size and height are correct. The spacing between the board is like a rain
screen on the entire house.
Chairperson Michael Hoffman opened the~public hearing. There were no
public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed.
Sarah commented on the porch and the tapered columns are a nice addition
and work well on the house. The new fascia detail is more complimentary
and in keeping with the guidelines.
Ann said the revisions of the porch are fine and the materials are
appropriate. Texturally they are different and a nice solution. The windows
are fine. Amore contemporary light should be researched.
Sarah said the material palate is fine and having the rain screen is OK. I am
in favor of the metal clad windows. The mahogany. is beautiful and with a
little stain will work well. The palate has a lot of the same thing but that
could be OK. The most important thing is the mass and scale and we have
reached that. The details need to be kept fine and keep the rusty look out of
it.
Brian said he has no problem with what is~being proposed. The photos
presented showing how the mahogany siding works are very helpful. It is
something that can work. If the siding is mahogany I would said eliminate
the spacing in between or go with a painted siding that allows the spacing to
occur. The windows are fine.
Tim said the gap in the siding gives a shadow line and we can certainly work
with staff on the size of that gap. I've done it a couple of times. On the
porch return the neighbor to the north has the same return and secondly it is
in line with the windows. The side of the porch dies into the wall. We could
certainly go to cedaz shingles rather than shakes.
Jeffrey said they can simplify the chimney cap.
Brian stated that the landscaping in the alley is beneficial to the applicants
and the people next door. The houses are relatively close together.
i~
10
a.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council
FROM: Stephen Kanipe, Chief Building Official
THROUGH: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
DATE OF MEMO: January 7, 2009
MEETING DATE: January 14, 2009
RE: Amend Title 8, Building Codes, of the Aspen Municipal Code to
include Carbon Monoxide Detector Regulations, Second Reading
and public hearing of Ordinance #41 Series of 2008
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests Council hold the properly noticed public
hearing regarding an Ordinance #41 or 2008 requiring carbon monoxide detectors in all
new and existing residential construction.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: At Council's regularly scheduled meeting on
December 8, 2008 the carbon monoxide detector ordinance was read. Also the
Administrative Order requiring CO detectors in all new residential construction effective
December 8, 2008 was discussed. Council was supportive of the action.
BACKGROUND: December 17, 2008 the Pitkin County BOCC heard and passed an
emergency ordinance requiring the installation of CO detectors in residential
construction. This ordinance and its provisions are the product of collaboration between
the Aspen Fire Protection District, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County and the Aspen/Pitkin
Housing Office.
SUMMARY: The proposed ordinance is considered the best of and most applicable
sections of the example communities and addresses requirements for both existing and
new residential construction. It is applicable to all buildings that provide a place for
people to sleep; single family private homes, apartments, condominiums, hotels,
timeshare units, the jail, the hospital and homeless shelters. The requirement applies to
any "sleeping area'. The proposed ordinance also addresses the location, placement and
number of detectors determined by the arrangement of the sleeping areas in the
residential structure using the most recent information available.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Ordinance #41 of 2008
on second reading.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Ordinance #41 of 2008 requiring the
installation of carbon monoxide detectors in all new and existing residential
construction.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
2
ORDINANCE N0.41
(SERIES 2008)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, AMENDING TITLE 8 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE BY
THE ADDITION OF A NEW CHAPTER 8.15 TO ESTABLISH THE
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTORS.
WHEREAS, exposure to carbon monoxide (CO), a colorless, odorless gas, can cause
headaches, dizziness, nausea, faintness, and, at high levels, death; and
WHEREAS, carbon monoxide (CO) may be present in residential occupancy sleeping
areas as a result of sources of heat or energy created by fossil fuels or by the use of
machinery or vehicles powered by fossil fuels, causing a significant risk to their
occupants, as well as emergency services personnel who may come to their aid; and,
WHEREAS, a tragedy occurred in the vicinity of the City of Aspen on the night of
November 27, 2008, resulting in the deaths of four people from carbon monoxide
poisoning; and,
WHEREAS The City Council considers it in the best interest of the public health,
safety, and welfare of the citizens and guests of Aspen to adopt this Ordinance;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1.
Title 8 of the Aspen Municipal Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new Chapter
8.15, which chapter shall read as follows:
Chapter 8.15
Carbon Monoxide Detectors
Section 8.15.010 Purpose and Scope.
This chapter is enacted for the purpose of protecting the health and safety of the residents
of the City, its visitors and employees, by requiring operable carbon monoxide detectors
in existing and new residential occupancies thereby hopefully reducing the number of
injuries and fatalities resulting from carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning.
The provisions of this ordinance shall apply to all new residential construction containing
a sleeping unit, additions to residential buildings containing a sleeping unit, remodels of
residential buildings containing a sleeping unit for which a building permit is required
and to the replacement or addition of a fuel burning appliance for which a permit is
required.
Section 8.15.020 Definitions.
The following terms as used in this chapter shall have the indicated meaning:
Building Codes: The building, fire and other technical codes adopted pursuant to Chapter
8 of this Code.
CO Detector: A device sensing invisible particles of carbon monoxide that is either
battery powered or AC powered with battery back up that has been installed in
accordance with its manufacturer's recommendations, which, when activated, will
provide some form of visual or audible detector, and which has been either UL
(Underwriters Laboratories Inc.) listed or CSA (Canadian Standards Association)
approved.
Dwelling: Any building or portion thereof containing one or more dwelling units
occupied as, or deigned or intended for occupancy as, a residence by one or more
families.
Dwelling Unit: Any building or portion thereof designed, occupied, or intended as a
residence, with complete and independent living facilities for one or more persons
including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation.
Residential Occupancies:
A. Any of the residential uses as such terms are defined and described in
International Residential Code and International Building Code in Chapter 8.16 and 8.20
of this Code.
B. Any residential occupancy or any institutional occupancy with sleeping units
as such terms are defined in the building codes.
C. Any other occupancy used for sleeping purposes.
Separate Sleeping Area: Bedrooms or sleeping rooms separated by other use areas, such
as a kitchen or living room, but not including bathrooms.
Sleeping Unit: A room or space in which people sleep, which can also include permanent
provisions for living, eating, and either sanitation or kitchen facilities but not both.
Section 8.15.030 Responsibilities.
A. All existing residential occupancies and all residential occupancies to be
constructed after the effective date of this ordinance shall be equipped with CO detectors
in accordance with the requirements of this Chapter,
B. The owner of a residential occupancy shall be responsible to install and
maintain required CO detector(s) in such residential occupancy in accordance with the
requirements of this Chapter. The owner of a residential occupancy shall test and replace
all batteries necessary for operation of a required CO detector, except for dwellings or
dwelling units where the tenant has been notified of such responsibility. The owner of a
residential occupancy shall immediately repair or replace any defective CO detector
required under the provision of this Chapter.
C. The owner of a dwelling or dwelling unit that is rented or leased to a tenant,
shall immediately, upon notice from the tenant, repair or replace a defective CO detector
required to be located within such dwelling or dwelling unit, except that the owner need
not repair or replace any CO detector where the defective condition was caused by the
tenant, the tenant's family, or the tenant's guests or invitees. The owner shall install new
batteries in any required CO detector at the beginning of a new lease or tenancy. The
owner shall furnish to the tenant at the beginning of a new lease or new tenancy written
notice of the owner's responsibility to install and maintain a required CO detector on the
premises. The tenant shall inform the owner of any CO detector malfunction, test and
replace batteries necessary For operation and repair or replace a defective CO detector in
the event that the defective condition was caused by the tenant, the tenant's family, or the
tenant's guests or invitees, by inappropriate use or misuse of the dwelling or dwelling
unit during the rental term or any extension of it.
D. A tenant in possession of a dwelling or dwelling unit shall be responsible for
testing and replacing any batteries necessary for operation of a required CO detector,
informing the owner of a CO detector malfunction and repairing or replacing a defective
CO detector in the event that the defective condition was caused by the tenant, the
tenant's family, or the tenant's guests or invitees, by inappropriate use or misuse of the
dwelling or dwelling unit during the rental term or any extension of it.
8.15.040 Carbon Monoxide Detector -Installation Requirements.
A. Carbon Monoxide detector(s) shall be centrally located outside of each
separate sleeping area in the immediate vicinity of the bedrooms or sleeping rooms.
Residential occupancies shall be considered to be in compliance with this requirement if
CO detector(s) are installed within a dwelling unit such that an audible signal not less
than 70 decibels reaches each sleeping azea. CO detectors shall be hazd wired in new
construction. In interior alterations, repairs or additions requiring a permit, or when one
or more sleeping rooms are added or created in existing dwellings, detectors shall be hazd
wired where the alterations or repairs result in the removal of interior wall or ceiling
finishes unless there is an attic , crawlspace or basement available which would provide
access for hard wiring.
B. Carbon monoxide detectors shall be installed within each sleeping area
containing any fuel burning appliance such as a gas log, decorative gas fireplace
appliances, gas clothes dryer or wood burning appliance, etc.
C. It is the intention of this Chapter to implement the requirements of the existing
building codes, including NFPA #720, 2009 edition approved as an American October
10, 2008, to the greatest extent practicable for existing residential occupancies. The
building official or the fire official may approve alternative locations or methods for the
installation of CO detectors, if the result would meet the spirit and intent of the building
codes and NFPA #720. The building official, in coordination with the fire official, may
also adopt written guidelines illustrating or describing required locations of CO detectors,
and any approved alternative locations or methods for bringing residential occupancies
into compliance with the requirements of this chapter.
D. A CO detector is deemed approved for purposes of this Chapter if it complies
with all applicable state and federal regulations, and bears the label of a nationally
recognized standard testing laboratory and meets the revised standard of at least UL 2034
and subsequent revision or its equivalent. The CO detector may be a combination
smoke/gas/CO device.
E. Each CO detector shall be mounted in accordance with the manufacturer's
instructions, though a ceiling mount is preferred. CO detector(s) may not be mounted in
areas of low air movement (dead air spaces),
F. If a CO detector is required to be installed in a common hallway and found to
be tampered with it shall be replaced with ahard-wired device (missing or inoperable
batteries shall not constitute tampering). Any CO detector found to be missing a battery
shall be replaced by the owner with a tamper proof CO detector with a sealed battery.
G. In new construction, the required CO detector shall receive their primazy
power from the building wiring when such wiring is served from a commercial source,
and when primary power is interrupted, shall receive power from a battery. Wiring shall
be permanent and without a disconnecting switch other than those required for
overcurrent protection. CO detectors shall be permitted to be battery operated when
installed in buildings without commercial power or in buildings that undergo alterations,
repairs or additions as stipulated in Section 8.15.040 A.
Section 8.15.050 Prohibitions.
A. It shall be unlawful for any owner of a residential occupancy to fail to install
and maintain an operable CO detector when required under the provisions of this chapter.
B. It shall be unlawful for any person to remove or render ineffective a CO
detector installed to satisfy the requirements of this ordinance. This provision shall not
apply to a building owner, manager or his/her agent in the normal procedure of repairing
or replacing a CO detector.
. C. No person shall, without privilege to do so, knowingly move, deface, damage,
destroy or otherwise improperly tamper with a CO detector required to be installed
pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter so as to destroy or diminish its effectiveness or
availability for its intended purpose.
Section 8.15.060 Enforcement Responsibility.
The building official and the fire code official, or their designees, shall monitor
compliance with this Chapter and may perform enforcement inspections upon, but not
limited to, the following instances: when notified of a change in occupancy; when
reviewing or inspecting the construction, repair, rehabilitation or renovation of the
interior of a residential occupancy pursuant to a required permit, when inspecting at the
request of the building owner; when inspecting for any other purpose under the
provisions of this code; or when on the premises for any lawful purpose, including but
not limited to such purposes as responding to a fire or other request for fire department
services.
Section 8.15.070 Penalties and Remedies for Violations.
A. Infraction: A violation of the provisions of this Chapter is an infraction and
upon conviction shall be punishable as set forth in Chapter 1.04 of this Code.
B. Other Remedies: This Chapter may also be enforced by injunction,
mandamus, judicial abatement or any other appropriate action in law or equity.
C. Daily Violations: Each day that any violation of this Chapter continues shall be
considered a separate offense for purposes of the penalties and remedies available to the
city.
8.15.080 Effective Date: All owners of existing residential occupancies shall come
into compliance with the requirements of this Chapter on or before March 2, 2009.
Section 2.
This ordinance shall become effective 30 days following passage and publication.
Section 3.
This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an
abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances
repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded
under such prior ordinances.
Section 4.
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.
A public heazing on the ordinance was held on thel2th day of January, 2009, in the City
Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the
City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 2008.
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
John P. Worcester, City Attorney
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2008.
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
7PW-saved: 12/19/2008-2085-G:\john\word\ords\carbon monoxide detectors.doc
V~ b.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council,
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director~J'~ ~ " 1
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Direct
RE: Aspen Valley Hospital -Master Facilities Plan (401 Castle Creek Road) -
Conceptual Planned Unit Development -Resolution No063 ,Series 2009 -
Public Hearine
MEETING
DATE: January 12, 2009
APPLICANT /OWNER: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
Aspen Valley Hospital, David The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
Ressler, CEO conceptual approval of a Planned Unit Development with
conditions.
REPRESENTATIVE:
Leslie Lamont, Lamont
Planning Services.
LOCATION:
Parcel C, Aspen Valley
Hospital District Subdivision,
commonly known as 401 Castle
Creek Road.
CURRENT ZONING Bc USE
Located in the Public (PUB)
zone district. Lot C contains
] 9.1 acres or approximately
832,085 sq. fr. of lot area.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The Applicant is requesting to
develop a master plan for the
redevelopment and expansion
of the hospital campus.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends~'that the City Council request additional
information, if necessary, on the space needs/national
standards that result in the size of the building proposed, pose
any initial questions council may have, and continue the
hearing to January 26`h.
Page 1 of 7
Photo of the hospital's main entry.
LANb USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES'
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approval from the City Council to redevelop
and expand the hospital site:
development plan pursuant to Land Use
review authority after considering a rec
Commission).
Chapter 26.445 (Gifu Council is the final
endation from the Planning and Zoning
Conceptual PUD review before the City Council is the second step in a four step review process.
Once the conceptual application is heard by the Commission (step one), the City Council reviews
the application and recommendations of the Commission at a public hearing. If approved by City
Council, the Applicant may then make an application for Final PUD review before the Planning
and Zoning Commission (step three). City Council will then consider the Final PUD application
as the fourth and final step in the review. Additional land use approvals necessary for this project
can be consolidated with the Final PUD application. As noted in the application, the applicant
will be proposing redevelopment in four (4) phases to maintain existing operations throughout
the redevelopment and will be requesting Final PUD approval for each phase prior to the start of
the subject phase, rather than final approval of the entire project.
Due to the scale of this project, the review of the proposed master facilities plan has been
scheduled over three meetings. At each meeting certain aspects of the project will be reviewed so
that the Council may comprehensively evaluate the project. The following schedule and topics
are proposed:
January 12, 2009: Project Overview:, O~~{~ational Needs, Program, Trends,
Phasing, Architecture/Design, and questions raised by council
January 26, 2009: Employee Housing, Site Improvements (grading, drainage,
trail), Noise Analysis, Transportation (parking generation,
trail easement, site, roads, bikes, trails, parking garage), and
Housekeeping Items
February 9, 2009: Conditions of approval, Vote
The intent of each of these hearings is to focus on specific parts of a project and allow the
Council the opportunity to identify any major questions or concerns that the Council would like
to have the Applicant address further, either at this stage of review (conceptual) or at a later,
more specific stage of review (final).
The proposed master facilities plan is being developed as a Planned Unit development (PUD).
As such, the purpose of a PUD, as noted in the Land Use Code "is to encourage flexibility and
innovation in the development of land which;
A. Promotes the purposes, goals, and objectives ~f~3t~he Aspen Area Community Plan.
B. Achieves a more desirable development pattert'tz a higher quality design and site planning, a
greater variety in the type and character oFthe development, and a greater compatibility with
Page 2 of 7
existing and future land uses than would be possible through the strict application of the
underlying zone district provisions.
C. Preserves natural and man-made features of historic, cultural, or scenic value.
D. Promotes more efficient use of land, public facilities, and governmental services.
E. Incorporates an appropriate level of public input to the planning process to ensure sensitivity
to neighborhood and community goals and objectives."
These aze overarching principles to consider when evaluating this project in addition to the
specific PUD review criteria.
The Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) reviewed the Application on July 151, July 15`",
August Sa' and August 19, 2008. The minutes frortri'"these meetings are attached as Exhibit B.
The Applicant received a recommendation of Ctinceptual PUD approval, with conditions,
pursuant to Resolution 23, Series 2008 (Exhibit C):
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The Applicant, Aspen Valley Hospital District, LLC has requested approval to redevelop and
expand the existing hospital campus which was annexed into the city in 2003. The focus of the
proposal is on Parcel C of the campus, where the hospital, senior center/assisted living
(Whitcomb Terrace), ambulance barn, heli-pad and the hospital CEO's residence is located.
Pazcel A of the campus includes the Schultz building and Mountain Oaks employee housing.
Parcel C contains approximately 19.1 acres or 832,085 squaze feet.
Figure 1: Subject Site
j - \; NOR7H /h
ter- ~ ~__-__ Y=2P 4~-/f~
j i ~/ /~i ~ i 'tee `\, `(.. ~\\`\
// L.` II I \~~ ~~~
~~ ~ ~~ ._,e... ~~ ~~t
~ ~ ~ IC ~: ~
,~
°~ ^~ ~~`
1 ~`
~;,, i ~~~~, ~,
A.
III ~i
. 1l ~ ~\~ ~~i L.
\~~_ `'~
~E' _v
~ ~ ~ J~ ? ~\.,,m..~
1~~,
~'/ ~r'f ~'t~
=+' ~ fi.
Yage 3 of "/
~f
t:
The Applicant would like to redevelop the parcel taking into account a twenty yeaz program life
cycle with an anticipated 2016 build-out timeline. The following tables compare existing and
proposed development for the site and the buildings on the campus.
Tahlel Fxictina anri Prnnncerl Cnnditions
Existin Conditions Pro osed Conditions
Pazcel Area 832,085 s . ft. 832,085 sq. ft.
Building Footprint
(residence, hospital, bus barn,
& phase I) 90,849 sq. ft. 171,164 sq. fr.
O en S ace 550,536 s . ft. 471,067 s . ft.
Surface parkin 175 110*
Notes: * The proposed surface area does not include parking structure spaces, proposed for 229
spaces. The total for surface and aza a arkin pro osed is 339 s aces.
Table 7• Fxistino and Pmnnsed ['ttnss Square Feet O~'Develonment
Existing Facilit Proposed Addition Total at Build-Out
Below Grade 5,000 24,558 29,558
Above Grade 70,700 96,121 166,821
Med. Office 0 17,716 17,716
Sub-Total 75,700 138,395 214,095
Parkin Gara e 0 76,000 76,000
Total 75,700 214,395 290,095
Operational Needs/7'rends/ PI'OEram:
The cun•ent hospital facility is approximately thirty (30) years old. Since the hospital's
development in the 1970s, changes have occurred in the health caze industry necessitating
modification in the cunent delivery of services as well as consideration for the long-term
delivery of services. The hospital has been analyzing current hospital standards and national
guidelines as well as developing a formal needs assessment to develop a master facilities plan
that provides for the delivery of healthcare service. Examples of trends that have changed since
the original construction of the hospital include a shift to outpatient care and a greater demand
for diagnostic testing.
Staff Comments: Staff expects the Applicant to go; into greater detail on the current trends in
healthcare and how these trends impact the c~irrent and future operational needs of the
building. The Applicant should provide informatioh on how the future needs of the building's
program dictate the size of the proposal. Any national standards on recommended square
footages may help the Council and staff better understand how the proposed program meets
certain size standards and why it results in the size of the building being proposed.
Phasing:
The project is divided into four phases, so that hospital operations can continue throughout
construction and anticipates a five to seven year construction schedule. Each phase of
development allows the hospital to continue day to day operations. Following is an overview of
the proposed phases of development. The square footage proposed in the following tables are
gross numbers (not floor area calculations) and are conceptual in nature.
Page 4 of 7
Phase I: This phase is currently underway and includes the renovation and expansion of the
obstetrics wazd. As part of their annexation into the city, the hospital was previously approved to
develop an additional 6,100 squaze feet of floor areal ~hbsequent to the annexation, the floor area
was approved for use as either patient caze or' obstetrics. Mitigation associated with this phase
will be reviewed under the final PUD application (at a subsequent meeting) before the Planning
and Zoning Commission. Table 3, below, provides a breakdown of renovated and new square
footage for Phase I.
T.,l.lu Z• Annnvatarl anA T~TPxxr ('nnetmrtinn Phase T
Renovated New Total
Basement 0 0 0
Level One 4,252 5,721 9,973
Level Two 0 0 0
Medical Office 0 0 0
Total 4,252 5,721 9,973
Phase II: Development associated with the proposed second phase includes a majority of the site
improvements including the proposed parking garage, the loop service road and drainage. Phase
II also includes a two story addition that wraps around the north and east sides of the existing
building. The uses within the new and remodeled,,building are itemized on page 8 of the
Applicant's application (Exhibit A). Table 4 below,iprovides a breakdown of renovated and new
squaze footage for Phase II. q €~-
,
Tahlr d• Runnvatarl anra Naw ('nnstn IDfinn Phase 11
Renovated New Total
Basement 168 10,074 10,242
Level One 22,728 18,630 41,358
Level Two 0 21,884 21,884
Medical Office 0 9,035 9,035
Total 22,896 59,623 82,519
Phase III: The third phase of development includes a two story addition on the west side of the
existing hospital. The first floor will include the expansion of the emergency department,
imaging department, surgical suite and central plant upgrades. On the second floor, medical
office space is proposed as well as patient/family services and a roof heli-pad. Table 5, below,
provides a breakdown of renovated and new square footage for Phase II.
T..l.l,. C. De«......4na o«~7 T~io.xr ('nn etnirtinn PhacP ttt
Renovated New Total
Basement 0 10,671 10,671
Level One 25,149 ~~ 32,715 57,864
Level Two 0 11,043 11,043
Medical Office 0 8,681 8,681
Total 25,149 63,110 88,259
Page 5 of 7
Phase IV: The final phase of the development includes a new primary entrance with a revised
patient drop-off area. Upgrades to Castle Creek Road and Doolittle Drive are proposed during
Phase IV as well as the creation of a chapel. As noted in the application, the medical foundation
office will be enlarged or relocated during this phase. The cazdiology clinic and lab will be
relocated and enlarged s as well the occupational health and outpatient clinic.
Takla Fi• Rennvaterl and New CnncTrnntinn. Phase. TV
Renovated New Total
Basement 3,509 3,813 7,322
Level One 15,574 6,128 21,702
Level Two 0 0 0
Medical Office 0 0 0
Total 19,083 9,941 29,024
Architecture and Desi>rn:
The subject development is considered an essential public facility. As noted in the land use code,
it is "a facility which serves an essential public purpose, is available for use by, or benefit of, the
general public and serves the needs of the community." The Commercial Design Guidelines are
not applicable to this project as only commercial, lodging and mixed use projects (with a
commercial component) are required to meet the guidelines. As such, the PUD criteria with
regard to azchitectural character will be the basis for evaluating the architecture and design. The
three review criteria in question are as follows:
Section 26.445.050 E, Architectural Character.
1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately relate to
existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for and
indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and
cultural resources.
2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of
the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive
mechanical systems.
3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and appropriate
manner that does not require significant maintenance.
Staff Comments: Staff believes the current conceptual design of the building provides an
appropriate character for the site and its location within the City. As an institutional building,
the hospital has specific design requirements to functionally serve the public. The proposed
materials and design conceptually represent a character appropriate for the use of the building.
Additionally, the hospital is committed to receiving LEEDS certification and developing a
`green' building. Any steps to be energy efficient are worthwhile.
Affordable Housine:
As noted under the previously described schedule, a detailed discussion on affordable housing is
scheduled for the second heazing (January 26`h). Currently no affordable housing is proposed on
the hospital campus, but the hospital does have other holdings being used for affordable housing
within the city. With the proposed expansion and remodel of the hospital, important threshold
Pagg 6 of7
questions that affect the context of final review will need to be resolved so that clear direction
can be provided to the Applicant on how employee generation and potential housing mitigation
should be handled. Council's role is to consider policy recommendations by the Planning and
Zoning Commission on how mitigation should be undertaken and provide direction to the
Applicant. As an essential public facility, "each operation shall be analyzed for its unique
employee needs."
Site Access/Drainase/ Circulation:
Also scheduled for January 26` is an in depth review of the site's proposed drainage, circulation,
and access. The Applicant has been working with staff to address initial issues raised related to
the review before the Planning and Zoning Commission and some potential changes from the
original application are anticipated to be reviewed at the next meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: At this point and time, Staff recommends the City Council continue
the public hearing to January 26, 2009.
CITY MANAGER
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to continue the hearing on the AVH Master Facilities Plan to
January 26, 2009."
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A - PUD Review Criteria
EXHIBIT B -Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 23, Series of 2008
EXHIBIT C -Planning and Zoning Commission minutes: July ls~, July 15`h, August 5`h
and August 19, 2008
EXHIBIT D - Map of hospital district boundaries
EXHIBIT E -Application dated January 2008
Page 7 of 7
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 26.445, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Sec. 26.445.050. Review Criteria conceptual, £mal, consolidated and minor PUD.
A development application for conceptual, final, consolidated, conceptual and final or
minor PUD shall comply with the following standazds and requirements. Due to the
limited issues associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD
review, certain standazds shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an
applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity
to the standazds and procedures of this Chapter and this Title.
A. General requirements.
1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community
Plan.
Staff believes that a number of the goals in the Aspen Area Community Plan are met
at a conceptual level including: "containing development...to ensure development is
contained and sprawl minimized," "maintain and improve the appeal of walking and
bicycling," and "protect and enhance the natural environment." The development is
located with the urban growth boundary, has multimodal opportunities for getting to
the hospital, and minimizes the development footprint of the site.
2. The proposed development shall be Fonsistent with the character of existing
land uses in the surrounding area. ~ '
The proposed development is on a large tract of land that acts as a campus setting for
the hospital, senior housing, ambulance barn, and health and human services building.
The property is close to open space and some dense neighborhoods. The development
is an expansion of an existing use. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of
the surrounding area.
Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the future development
of the area. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt
from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed
development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD
development plan review.
Not Applicable at this point in the review. The Applicant will be required to make a
Growth Management Application as part ~o~' the Final PUD. Under the current
proposal, the application will be reviewed' as an essential public facility, and may
Exhibit H-PUD Review Criteria
Page 1 of 10
require growth management approval for the development of new commercial
space/medical clinics (net leasable) and the development of affordable housing.
B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements:
The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for al[
properties within the PUD as described in Genera[ Provisions, Section 26.445.040,
above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a
guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the
proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and
existing development patterns shall be emphasized.
The PUD development plans establish dimensional requirements for all properties in a
PUD. The dimensions of the PUD shall be memorialized during the Final PUD review.
1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are
appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property:
a. The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future
land uses in the surrounding area.
The dimensional requirements allow for the expansion of the hospital while
minimizing the footprint of the hospital and maintaining open space. At a
conceptual level, the proposed building expansion and its location on the site
is compatible with the character of the area.
b. Natural or man-made hazards.
No known natural hazazds exist on. the Fiot. The relocation of the heli-pad will
reduce a potential man-made hazazd.$taff finds this criterion to be met.
c. Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area
such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and
landforms.
Most of the development proposed is within areas of the site that have already
been impacted by development. The applicant is proposing to maintain a large
percentage of open space and natural vegetation on the site. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
d. Existing and proposed man-made characteristics ojthe property and the
surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation,
parking, and historical resources.
The applicant is proposing a service loop road with certain improvements to
separate circulation by use. Improvements with regazd to vehicular circulation
r '' Exhibit H -PUD Review Criteria
Page 2 of 10
are proposed as well as pedestrian improvements. At a conceptual level, staff
finds this criterion to be met.
2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity
of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of
the proposed PDD and of the surrounding area.
The Applicant is proposing to concentrate the redevelopment to an area that is
already developed, minimizing the impact of the new development and maintaining
a large amount of undeveloped land on the site. As noted earlier, a Iarge portion of
the site is undeveloped and the proposal will maintain that feeling of openness.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based
on the following considerations:
a. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed
development including any non-residential [and uses.
b. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking
is proposed.
c. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities,
including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize
automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development.
d. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and
general activity centers in the city.
The Applicant provided a summary of the parking needs analysis in the application.
The consultant undertaking the analysis considered alternative modes of
transportation that can be used to get to the hospital and reduced the estimated
number of off-street parking spaces needed For the redevelopment. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
~,,',
4. The maximum allowable density within a PDD may be reduced if there exists
insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a
PUD may be reduced if.•
a. There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities or other
utilities to service the proposed development.
b. There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal
and road maintenance to the proposed development.
The applicant is not proposing any housing for this review. Staff finds this criterion
not applicable.
Exhibit H - PUD Review Criteria
Page 3 of 10
5. The maximum allowable density withirt a PUD may be reduced if there exists
natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifecally, the maximum
density of a PUD may be reduced if.•
a. The [and is not suitab[efor the proposed development because of ground
instability or the possibility of mudflow, rock falls or avalanche dangers.
b. The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural
watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water
pollution.
c. The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in
the surrounding area and the City.
d. The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway or
trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or
causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site.
The applicant is not proposing any housing for this review. Staff finds this criterion
not applicable.
6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists
a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the
development pattern is compatible with. its surrounding development patterns
~.
and with the site's physical constraints..
a. The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as
expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area
plan to which the property is subject.
b. The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and
there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified
in Subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided or those
characteristics mitigated.
c. The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern
compatible with and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and
expected development pattern, land uses and characteristics.
Notes:
a. Lot sizes jor individual lots within a PUD may be established at a higher
or lower rate than specified in the underlying Zone District as long as,
on average, the entire PUD conforms to the maximum density provisions
of the respective Zone District or as otherwise established as the
maximum allowable density pursuant to a final PUD Development Plan.
b. The approved dimensional requirements for all lots within the PUD are
required to be reflected in thefinal PUD development plans.
~.
The applicant is not proposing any housing for this review. Staff finds this criterion
not applicable.
C. Site Design.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is
complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public
Exhibit H -PUD Review Criteria
Page 4 of 10
spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall
comply with the following:
1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide
visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of
the town are preserved or enhanced in ari, appropriate manner.
A large portion of the site is undeveloped aril in a natural state. The redevelopment is
proposed to maintain that feel and limit the developed area of the 19 acre site. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve signiftcant open spaces
and vistas.
As mentioned previously, a lazge portion of the site is undeveloped and in a natural
state. The redevelopment is proposed so as to maintain that feel and limit the
developed area of the 19 acre site. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban
or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement
of vehicular and pedestrian movement.
The proposed building is generally oriented towards the public street but is set back
from the street which contributes to the more open feel of Castle Creek Road.
Existing vegetation currently screens the hospital.
4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and
service vehicle access.
The City of Aspen Fire Mazshal has reviewed the proposal, and has noted that final
details on the service loop road will be necessazy in the future. Staff finds this
criterion to be met at a conceptual level.
S. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided.
According to the Application, the project will comply with all applicable
requirements. Improvements aze being proposed for the pedestrian trail. Staff finds
this criterion to be met.
6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and
reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties.
According to a letter submitted by the Applicant's engineer, site drainage will be
handled with retention ponds in the more natural, undeveloped azea of the site. Staff
finds this criterion to be met at a conceptual level.
Exhibit H - PUD Review Criteria
Page 5 of 10
7. For non-residential [and uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately
designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use.
The Application has developed the master plan to accommodate the multiple
functions at the site: helicopter access, ambulance and service access, as well as
patient access. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
D. Landscape Plan.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with
the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and
proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with
the following:
The Applicant provided a draft landscaping plan as part of the original Conceptual
application. An updated version will be provided as part of the Final PUD Application.
1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces,
preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and
variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate.
The Applicant has provided some conceptual landscaping on the site plan in the
application and has developed the landscaping to correspond with the two
development zones of the project: developed and natural. A number of new plantings
are proposed with a more intensive/traditional landscaping near the hospital and
natural grasses, serviceberry and gambel oak in the natural areas. A final landscape
plan will be submitted as part of the Final PUD application. Staff finds this criterion
to be met.
2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide
uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an
appropriate manner.
The undeveloped area of the site provides ,~ natural open setting. Enhancements in
this area need to preserve these features.
3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape
features is appropriate.
The Applicant will provide a final landscape plan in with the Final PUD. This will
ensure existing landscaping is preserved or mitigated for if it is to be removed. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
E. Architectural Character.
1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately
relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a
Exhibit H -PUD Review Criteria
Page 6 of 10
character suitable for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale
and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources.
A variety of materials are being proposed for the redevelopment of the hospital: glass,
masonry, and stone. As an institutional type of use, the conceptual design reflects the use
of the building with a palette of materials that fit well on the site.
2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking
advantage of the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of
non- or less-intensive mechanical systems.
The Applicant has noted that the building is expected to be designed to achieve LEED
certification and that it is anticipated that the building is designed and constructed in an
environmentally sustainable way. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and
appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance.
The Applicant has submitted a conceptual plan for snow removal and storage as part of
the application. A final detailed plan will be rec}tfired to be addressed at final application.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
F. Lighting.
1. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be
lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general
aesthetic concerns.
2. Al[ exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards
unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting
of site features, buildings, landscape elements and lighting to call inordinate
attention to the property is prohibited jor residential development.
The Applicant will comply with all lighting regulations in place. Amore detailed
plan will be provided as part of the Final PUD.
C. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area.
If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area
for the mutual benefit of a[[ development in thg proposed PUD, the following criteria
shall be met:
,~
1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or
recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development,
considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of
the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available
to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD.
Exhibit H -PUD Review Criteria
Page 7 of 10
2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is
deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit
owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner.
3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the
permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared
facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial,
or industrial development.
There aze no common park, open space or recreation areas proposed by the Applicant.
The site contains the existing Nordic trail and Pedestrian trail that have easements
allowing for public use on private property. Changes or improvements to these two
trails will need to be approved by city staff. The Applicant is proposing a new passive
use area in the vicinity of the proposed retention ponds. There is no public access
easement being proposed at this time for the passive use area. Staff finds this criterion
to be met at a conceptual level.
H. Utilities and Public facilities.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue
burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an
unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with
the development shall comply with the followings °
r
1. Adequate public infrastructurefaci[ities,terist to accommodate the development.
The Water, Sanitation, and Electric Departments reviewed this application and
determined there is adequate service for this development. This will be addressed in
greater detail at Final PUD.
2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated
by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer.
At this time no adverse impacts on the public infrastructure are anticipated. This will
be addressed in greater detail at Final PUD.
3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided
appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the
additional improvement.
This criterion will be addressed at Final PUD when a finalized site plan and
associated materials are available for City Departments to review.
I. Access and Circulation. (Only standards 1&2 apply to Minor PUD applications)
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not
unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and
Exhibit H -PUD Review Criteria
Page 8 of 10
recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access
and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria:
1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a
public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian
way, or other area dedicated to public or private use.
Staff believes that all structures and uses will have appropriate access to a public
street. A thorough traffic impact analysis with final application will detail any
necessary improvements related to access. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. The proposed development, vehicular arecess points, and parking arrangement
do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed
development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to
accommodate the development.
Staff believes the conceptual design of adding a service access road, potential
improvements to Doolittle Drive and a new parking circulation scheme will ease
congestion at this site. Staff does find this criterion met.
3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or
connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to
significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public
trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and
maintenance.
The proposed development has existing trail easements on the property. Staff finds
this criterion to be met.
4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific
plans regarding recreational trails,-~iedestrian and bicycle paths, and
transportation are proposed to be imp[einented in an appropriate manner.
The Parks department has reviewed the application and found that no additional
easements are necessary at a conceptual level. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under
private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure
appropriate public and emergency access.
There are no internal streets proposed as part of this PUD. Staff finds this criterion to
be met.
6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for
lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical.
Exhibit H -PUD Review Criteria
Page 9 of 10
i~
There are no gates or guard posts proposed as part of this PUD. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
J. Phasing of Development Plan. (does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications)
The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an
unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an
individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is
proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan.
No phasing is proposed as part of this development.
~MNi~ ~ln,~ilc~, ~,'~}2
,.~ ~-j-ti,,~~~ t ~ ~ ~~ ~~ts~
G5 ~i~'~
Exhibit H -PUD Review Criteria
Page 10 of 10
-- -
~~
RESOLUTION N0.23,
(SERII4S OF 2008)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT FOR THE ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL MASTER FACILITIES
PLAN FOR THE ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT, LEGALLY DESCIBED AS
PARCEL C, ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT SUBDIVSION AND COMMONLY
DESCRIBED AS 401 CASTLE CREEK ROAD
ParcellD:273512307801
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the
Aspen Valley Hospital District, represented by Leslie Lamont of Lamont Planning Services,
requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of a Conceptual
Development Plan for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the redevelopment and expansion
of the hospital through development of a master plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from
the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Fire Protection District, Pazks
Department, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, Pitkin County and the Transportation
Department as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and,
WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department
reviewed the proposed Conceptual PUD and recommended approval with conditions; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code, Conceptual PUD
approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering
recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development
Director, and relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS, Conceptual PUD review by the Planning and Zoning Commission requires
a public hearing and this application was reviewed at multiple public hearings where the
recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were
heard; and,
WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on July 1, 2008 the Planning and Zoning
Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and continued the
public hearing to July 15, 2008 for further discussion. At the July 15, 2008 public hearing, the
Planning and Zoning Commission re-opened the public hearing to consider the project and
continued the hearing until August 5, 2008 for further discussion. At the August 5, 2008 public
hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission rr`-'opened the public hearing to consider the
project and continued the project to August J9, 20b8 for further discussion. At the August 19,
2008 public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission re-opened the public hearing to
consider the project and recommended City Council approve the Conceptual Planned Unit
Development application by a six to zero (6-0) vote, with the findings and conditions listed
hereinafter; and,
Page l of 5
WHEREAS, Conceptual PUD approval shall only grant the ability for the applicant to
submit a Final PUD application and the proposed de~vFlopment is further subject to Final PUD
review as well as other associated land use review approvals pursuant to the Municipal Code.
WHEREAS, an application was submitted for the Aspen Valley Hospital District, which
proposed on parcel C a redeveloped and expanded multi-story hospital building generally
consisting of an expanded obstetrics ward, patient care rooms, emergency department, imaging
department, cardiology clinic and lab, surgical suite, rehabilitation and therapy space, nuclear
medicine space, intensive care ward, oncology space, administration offices and central plant
upgrades. Also proposed are a new parking garage, loop service road, drainage ponds, medical
office space, roof heli-pad, and new primazy entrance with a revised patient drop-off area.
WHEREAS, the Commission finds that the development application as proposed and
identified as Exhibit A of the July 1st staff memo meets the review standards for a Conceptual
PUD as long as certain conditions aze implemented.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends that the City Council approve the Conceptual Planned Unit Development for Aspen
Valley Hospital Master Facilities Plan, subject to the conditions listed in Section 1 below.
Section 1:
The approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. The Final PUD application shall reflect and del~lonstrate compliance with the Conceptual
application reviewed by the Commission,, ;~y
2. The Final PUD application shall include:
a. An application for Final PUD and associated land use review approval pwsuant to the
Municipal Code. Apre-application conference with a member of the Community
Development Department is required prior to submitting an application.
b. Delineation of all dimensional provisions to become requirements of the PUD.
c. A proposed PUD plat(s).
3. Prior to submitting an application for a Final PUD, the applicant shall maintain certain
aspects of the proposal from conceptual to final application or make revisions to the
development proposal as identified by the Planning and Zoning Commission as follows:
a. Overall Building Size, Uses, Architecture, and Design. The proposed building size,
massing and scale are conceptually appropriate for the site as well as the proposed
uses; however, the pazking garage should be evaluated and treated to minimize visual
impact. The proposed materials and azchitecture of the building aze appropriate for
the site.
b. Evaluation of Employee Generation. The consideration of volume, support services,
decompression and increased efficiencyras outlined in the Conceptual Application
dated January 2008 is appropriate in '~dtermining Employee Generation. Medical
office space employee generation' should be evaluated by auditing other medical
offices. Existing Employees Housed credits can be used for Employee Generation
Page 2 of 5
mitigation; however, a detailed inventory of the total number of employees housed,
credits that have been used, and those remaining shall be provided.
c. Nordic Trail Location. Any relocation of the Nordic trail will be finalized with the
input of neighbors and the Pazks Department.
d. Drainage/ Snow Storage. The Applicant will further evaluate the feasibility of using
the proposed detention ponds for snow storage, as the proposed vehiculaz use of the
trail to access the ponds is not permitted ~7t the city. An alternative solution for access
to the ponds or for snow storage needs tope considered.
e. Service Loop Road. The Applicant shall continue to work with staff on the
improvements associated with development of the service road.
f. Pazking. By Final PUD application, the Applicant shall provide a current, detailed
pazking needs assessment based upon the proposed size and use of the building.
g. Enlazged Study Area. The Applicant shall include a greater study azea for the main
entry to the hospital to include the RFTA bus stop, the pedestrian crossing across
Castle Creek and Doolittle Drive (including a separate access onto Castle Creek Road
for Doolittle Drive). Any proposed options will be reviewed with RFTA, the Pazks
Depaztment, and Engineering Department.
h. Housekeeping Items. Consent by departments potentially affected by the removal of
the 100 feet easement shall be received prior to removal of the easement. A clear
history of the affordable housing `pazcel' designated on the site shall be provided for
the city to consider removal of the `parcel'.
Section 2: BaildinH
The final design shall meet adopted building codes, and requirements if and when a building
permit is submitted. ; ~,
;~
Section 3: Engineering
Final 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. A
comprehensive drainage report must be completed according to the engineering department's
design criteria for final PUD application. This analysis must account for all off site basins and
must consider the downstream facilities. It must also identify whether or not these facilities are
sized appropriately. The report must also include the analysis of drainage along Castle Creek
Road associated with project improvements. A detailed Transportation Impact Analysis shall be
submitted with final PUD application meeting the scope and criteria for evaluation as provided
by the City Engineer.
Section 4: Affordable Housing
The APCHA board recommends that credits be allowed to be used for the employee mitigation
requirement. The credits will need to be verified and approved by staff during Final PUD
application. Up-to-date employee numbers shall be provided to APCHA during Final PUD
application for review. It is recommended that the Applicant work with staff on the credit and
employee generation prior to Final PUD application.
Page 3 of ~
{
,.
Section 5: Fire Mitigation
All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is not
limited to access (Intemationa] Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire
sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907).
Section 6: Transaortatlon
Additional information on the existing and proposed incentives that the hospital uses and is
considering in the traffic mitigation plan shall be provided at Final PUD application.
Section 7: Public Works
The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and
with the applicable standazds of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of
the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Utility
placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards.
Section 8: Sanitation District Requirements
Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications,
which are on file at the District office.
Section 9: Environmental Health
The state of Colorado mandates specific mitigation requirements with regazd 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, and noise
abatement.
Section 10: Exterior Lighting
All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to
Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting.
Section ll: School Lands Dedication and Impact Fees
The Applicant shall pay any applicable impact fees and the school lands dedication assessed at
the time of building permit application submittal and paid at building permit issuance.
Section 12: Parks `
A formal vegetation protection plan shall be regUiied with building permit application. An
approved tree permit will be required before any demolition or access infrastructure work takes
place. Final layout of the plantings and park designs require Park Department approval. A
detailed landscape plan shall be provided at final application.
Section 13•
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 14:
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
Page 4 of 5
slit
deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on August 19, 2008.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: P N AND ZONING COMMISSION:
G'-~~-•--- ~ w~i
im True, Special Counsel pam Chair
ATTEST:
., ~ ~ ^
ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
~~
Page 5 of S
Ashen Plannine & Zoning Commission Meetine Minutes July 1 2008
LJ Erspamer opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Planning & Zoning
Commission in Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30 pm. Commissioners Stan
Gibbs, Dina Bloom, Jim DeFrancia, Michael Wampler and LJ Erspamer were
present. Cliff Weiss arrived at 5:10 pm. Brian Speck was excused. Staff in
attendance were Jim True, Special Counsel; Jennifer Phelan, Community
Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
COMMENTS
LJ Erspamer asked for the criteria that the transportation department used for
judging projects. Jennifer Phelan responded that she sent an email with the
transportation backgrounds and an emphasis on transit.
MINUTES
MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve the minutes from June 17, 2008
seconded by Mike Wampler. gill in favor, ~IPPROVED.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
LJ Erspamer said that he brokered the Beaumont Inn. for the hospital.
PUBLIC HEARING:
401 CASTLE CREEK ROAD, ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL
CONCEPTUAL PUD
LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing. Jennifer Phelan said the intent for
conceptual review was to allow for issues to be identified that require further
review. Staff recommended that the applicant provide more information on how the
proposed trends and needs for the hospital dictate the size of the building being
proposed.
John Sarpa, chairman of the board of the hospital, stated this development has been
a long time coming; the hospital is supported in part by a 4% mill ]ery. Sarpa said
that they were about 4 or 5 years behind the times for hospital updating because of
the financial problems in the past. Sarpa said that the other board members would
be happy to answer any questions; there was a great team of people and a great
group from the community.
Dave Ressler, CEO, said that he was excited about this process and it has been a
long time coming. Ressler said the facility provided extraordinary health care
because there was a tremendous staff involved in this process. The community
deserves a facility of the same quality and exceptional performance that the patients
already receive from staff and the technologies employed. Ressler said the facility
2
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Julv 1 2008
was built in 1977 and health care is very different now then it was when it was built;
patients were admitted for much longer periods of time and much of what is done at
the hospital is diagnostics and out patient services. Ressler said there were now CT,
and MRI scanners, cardiac rehab programs, nuclear medicine, etc. Ressler said the
waiting rooms were in the hallways with cross purposes all the time within the
facility, cross traffic of patients, which wasn't the dignified care that they wanted to
provide.
Ressler stated that they had to incorporate the contemporary standards of design and
function. Health Care is an evidence based program and practice industry focusing
on how medicine is provided in the highest quality and safest environment. Ressler
said the slope of the land allows the new phases of buildings to be nestled into the
land with very little impact and the project will also be LEEDS certified. There will
physician offices located on the campus with efficient access for the patients and for
the physicians to be able to see in-patients. Ressler said the architectural team sat
down with each clinical department to assess current and future needs for an optimal
facility; the master facilities plan inelud~ wh~ the hospital has been doing and not a
wish list for a grand scheme to become something that the hospital is not. Ressler
said there would be 4 phases and the first phase is almost complete (the Birth
Center.
Ressler said the community advisory committee has been essential with several
members in the audience; this group was a diverse representation of the community;
they now support the project. Ressler said the committee members have taken a lot
of time to volunteer to provide the information to keep the project on track. There
were also a series of neighborhood meetings to introduce the concepts to the
neighbors (Meadowood, Castle Creek Caucus, Senior Center and HHS).
Ressler introduced Russ Sedmak and Rich Wolf, hospital designers. Sedmak stated
the needs assessment showed the hospital was providing an exceptional level of
service within less than half of the square footage that they really should be
functioning within given current standards.
Ressler and Sedmak utilized power point projections to illustrate the current lack of
floor azea and to show newer conterhporary itdazds of other hospitals and the
current crowded office spaces at Aspen Valley. Sedmak said that the largest single
potential for dissatisfaction in any hospital is when patients have to share rooms
with another patient during their in-patient stay; evidence has shown that outcomes
and recovery times improve with patients that have private rooms and it is becoming
a standard throughout the country with the hospital association guidelines. Sedmak
noted that the emergency rooms would be equipped with walls and doors in each
room instead of cubicles divided with curtains for privacy and ample space to work
3
Aspen Plannine & Zonine Commission Meetin¢ Minutes July 1 2008
around the patient with ample equipment. Sedmak stated there were waiting areas
being added to have that space for family members. Sedmak said that currently
there was not enough room and separation between the waiting room and the
reception desks. The needs assessment showed the hospital is virtually half of what
it should be in the core service azeas. Sedmak aid that current standards for
operating rooms were about 600 square feet aiid the current 3 operating rooms were
about 400 square feet.
Sedmak said the site was 19 acres and illustrated the phases, additions and
renovations to the project. The second phase is an expansion and renovation to the
patient care unit to the north and to the east with a parking structure built into the
hillside. Phase 2 will also include a second floor constructed above the existing
patient care unit in the new part; this was the only part of the structure that could
accommodate a second floor. Sedmak said that the food service area will be moved
to the front, which would allow the sepazation of public and private traffic.
Sedmak said the Phase 3 portion would go where the current staff parking lot is
located. It is important that the imaging department be co-located with the
emergency department and adjacencent to surgery, to the intensive care unit and
labor and delivery. The ambulance traffic would be in the back relieving the
conflicts with traffic coming through the front,door. Sedmak said Phase 3 was the
only place where there was an allowance foran upper floor with primarily medical
office space coordinated with the officespac,~ of Phase 2. The buildings were being
built into the landscape and slides of the'pro~ect were used.
Sedmak said that Phase 4 was the completion of the patient facility and a main
entrance concourse as a curved shaped area on the bottom of the plan. This creates
a centralized out-patient admitting area and it creates access to out-patient clinics.
Sedmak said that they looked at the building from up above and superimposed the
images from Twin Ridge, Larkspur Lane and above. Stone was added to areas
where people could actually touch the building and non-reflective glass with a
mixed use of metal panels, stone and brick to break up the scale of the building.
Jim DeFrancia asked about sizing the rooms against a standard that was developed
by who. Sedmak responded that all patient care rooms are governed by guidelines
that are updated on a 3 year basis produced by an organization that is part of the
American Hospital Association and part the American Institute of Architects; those
guidelines were used for health care design everywhere in the country, Sedmak said
these guidelines were along the minimum rather than optimal sizes. DeFrancia
asked on the general sizing of the facility is fhat on the contemplation of a certain
population size or population demographic (older versus younger). Ressler replied
that they worked with the design team to come up with that number of 39-40 beds
4
Aspen Planning & Zonin¢ Commission Meetin¢ Minutes July 1 2008
and if there was a need for more beds they could move into the medical office space
on the top floor.
Stan Gibbs asked if the project were built on a blank site what would the size be.
Sedmak replied that he did not contemplate that but he would say that it would be
about 15-20% larger than what they were able to build here.
LJ Erspamer asked where the 2%z % growth figure came from. Ressler responded
that they looked back at the population statics from the chamber of the Aspen area.
Laura Kirk, DHM Design, utilized site plan drawings to show the building and an
overall concept map of the hospital including the 19 acres. Kirk said there was a
looped service area that allows fire and emergency circulation all around the
building. Kirk said that the circulation area was designed for RFTA buses to drop
off at the entry to the hospital and for people that need RFTA service after they have
completed their visit to the hospital to phone into RFTA and RFTA will meet them
and exit through the Doolittle Drive back to Castle Creek Road.
Kirk said that they needed to take care of storm water management on the site
within the meadow area by creating a series of dry ponds, which allows
sedimentation and removing the debris from the storm water before it exits the site.
Kirk stated this could be accomplished in a very natural way that works with the
meadow vegetation. They were working closely with the neighbors and the Parks
Department on the Nordic trail; the bike path remains and in some places it was
being improved and improved circulation of the area. Kirk said there were a series
of informal paths that will allow people to wander through the meadow with
benches for places to stop and enjoy the natu>a] open space. There were a couple of
places for healing gardens and moving the heJipad to the top of the roof.
Cliff Weiss asked if RFTA had been consulted about pulling into the entrance. Kirk
replied they have met with RFTA and it has been designed to meet the needs.
Weiss asked if the open space was gentrified or would it remain somewhat natural.
Kirk replied the landscape around the building itself was more intense but the
landscape in the meadow area was designed to have a natural appearance. Kirk said
the landscape pattern was sustainable not water intensive designed to compliment
the landscape.
LJ Erspamer asked if there was a scheduled drop off from RFTA. Kirk replied that
you tell the bus driver that you want to go to the hospital; the reason it wasn't a
scheduled drop off was because it added "x" amount of minutes to that route, which
was problematic for RFTA so they would do it on an "as needs basis".
~:
,~
,~.
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commissioh~ Meeting Minutes July 1 2008
Dina Bloom asked about the old Nordic trail. Kirk replied the old Nordic trail will
probably be kept and the new trail portion will come up through the meadow
providing a better buffer and more challenging grade change though the area. John
Schied, facilities management for the hospital, said they have had input from the
Parks Department and closest neighbors (Mr. Keleher and Mr. Goldsmith) and
walked the property and visualized how this could flow closer to the original
alignment.
Bloom asked how many years of construction for each phase. Sedmak replied that
Phase 1, the birth center, is now 14 months old and will be completed by the end of
August; a total of 16 months of construction time. Sedmak said phase 2 wilt be 24
to 28 months of construction time and will have its own series of phases; phase 3
will be similar to that and phase 4 can happen in incremental parts and pieces
however long it takes to retrofit that space with renovation. Kirk displayed 2
drawings that looked at the overall site and most of the improvements occur in
phase 2. Sedmak said the master plan itself was not a prescriptive set of drawings
that showed every brick and stick will look life this when it is done; there maybe
some adjustments at final with P&Z in terms of size, look and finish.
Gibbs asked if they were approving each phase as it goes along. Jennifer Phelan
replied that conceptually P&Z will be approving the whole master plan; the
applicant asked that each phase be individually approved at final.
Leslie Lamont, long range planner for the hospital, stated that at final review
another application was submitted; this application was conceptual for the entire
master plan. Lamont said their intent was for the final application for Phase 2 or
Phase 2 and 3 depending upon where they are in the design.
Weiss asked how much soil would be moved for the excavation for the parking
garage or otherwise. Sedmak replied at a cursory level it has and they plan to bring
a construction manager onto the team to figure out the logistics of moving all of that
material at final.
Public Comments: ``'
1. Ken Canfielo, community advisory co4imiittee, was impressed with the very
logical and professional process in a very satisfying experience. Canfielo said they
were extremely helpful to neighbors. Canfielo said that he looked forward to a
facility that matches the people in the hospital now.
2. Krystal Logan, Aspen Institute employee, stated that she was on the
community advisory committee; she said the hospital was in need of upgrading.
Logan was also impressed with the process and was in favor of the application.
6
Ashen Planning & Zonine Commission Meetine Minutes July 1, 2008
3. John Keleher, hospital neighbor, said that the hospital has been very generous
in their time and he also has met with Laura and Jason walking the Nordic trail and
moving it to the old alignment. Keleher said that they did not have a problem with
the project or the trail that has crossed his property.
,.
4. Cheryl Heffernan, nurse manager'in the new obstetrics/birth center, said it
was a great pleasure to work with Russ and his team and the patients are extremely
happy with the new unit.
5. Barry Mink, AVH board member, wanted to reassure the commission that the
medical staff, including doctors, nurses and staff, had no controversy.
Erspamer closed the public comments.
Erspamer asked if there would be extra radar or antennas for the helicopter pad.
Ressler replied there was only one pad so there should not be cross-traffic; a
helicopter transfer is initiated by the hospital; there is no fueling capability. Ressler
said that the helicopters do not generally go over the neighborhood. Erspamer
asked about ground source for heat.
MOTION.• Jim DeFrancia moved to continue the public hearing on the Aspen
Valley Hospital to July 15`x; seconded by Michael Wampler. All in favor,
APPROVED 5-0. ti
Leslie Lamont introduced the team: Dave Ressler, Russ Sedmak, Laura Kirk, John
Schied, Dr. Mink, Gideon Kaufman, Nina Eisenstat, Steve Shelley, Terry Collins,
Ginny Dyche, Cheryl and John Sarpa.
BOARD REPORTS
Cliff Weiss reported on the Lift One COWOP.
.~~ a. .
kie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
";
ASPEN PLANNING & ZOMNG COMMISSION MEETING -MINUTES -
JULY 1512008
application of the incentives. Wilke said that he was frustrated by the historic
process that allows these houses to get bigger.
MOTION: Stan Gibbs moved to approve Resolution #024, series of 2008,
recommending City Council approve the proposed subdivision at 600/612 West
Francis contingent on the landmark designation; seconded by Dina Bloom. Roll
call vote: Wampler, no; Speck, no; Gibbs, yes; Bloom, yes: Erspamer, yes.
APPROVED 3-2.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (07/01108):
401 CASTLE CREEK ROAD -ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL -
CONCEPTUAL PUD
LJ Erspamer opened the continued public hearing. Jennifer Phelan noted this was
the second in a series of 4 hearings on the Aspen Valley Hospital master plan; the
hospital was remodeling and expanding the facilities. Phelan stated tonight the
focus was on conceptual planned unit development; employee housing; site
improvements and noise analysis for the flight for life helicopter.
Phelan said that employee housing and employee generation were typically
handled at final. Phelan stated that the hospital was considered an essential public
facility and each operation was to be analyze~d'for employee needs, Volume
fluctuation at certain times of the year (seasdiiality) for the number of employees
needed at certain times of the year for the determination of employee generation.
Support services at the hospital did not fluctuate seasonally like housekeeping.
Phelan said another point of consideration was decompression, which some of the
main expansion and renovation of the building was to meet the current design
standards for hospital operations.
Phelan said proposed was 17,000 square feet of medical office space; 12,400
squaze feet of that was net leasable space, space considered to generate employees.
The applicant use mixed use zone district to determine the employee generation
rate for the medical office space at 3.7 per 1,000 square feet of net leasable area.
Phelan commented that another issue was that of credits for affordable housing;
there will have to be more work done of this issue. The hospital bought the
Beamount Inn to address affordable housing needs proactively and asked if this
could be used as credit. Phelan said this was a bit of a threshold question: does
P&Z think the applicant should receive credit for the existing employee housing.
Staff requested more information of the medical office space; the number of
offices and why that number was needed; employee generation for final and the
6
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING -MINUTES -
JL1LY 15.2008
employee housing credits for existing employee housing; employee generation
audit.
LJ Erspamer asked how the offices that already were in town have mitigated for
employees and to move out to the new medical offices on the hospital campus
were they paying for the replacement or were they paying for the new ones.
Phelan replied that if a development downtown with commercial and housing it is
calculated at the time of the development approval. Phelan said that when the
medical office was developed downtown the'';mitigation was required at that time
and that office moves out the new office that moves in it has already been
mitigated.
Stan Gibbs asked if they were going to have to mitigate for employee generation
office space. Phelan replied that the questions and fact finding begin a direction of
how each use needs to be mitigated.
Leslie Lamont, planner for applicant, said that they supported the staff
consideration of local offices in industry standards for employee generation in
mixed use commercial offices square footage zoning. Lamont said that figuring
out support services and decompression and increased efficiency was part of the
application process. Lamont said that there was almost 6,000 square feet of space
that was approved but never built and that was acknowledged by the city when it
was annexed into the city from the county. Lamont said that phase 1 would utilize
that 6,000 square feet; they were working with housing to figure out the numbers.
Lamont stated that they will present their strategy on employee generation numbers
and ask P&Z if the direction is the right wayi;:
Phelan said that drainage and trail locations were the next topics; parcel C could be
divided into 2 sections the south portion (open area) and the hospital expansion.
The drainage in the meadow were a series of basins, three, for storm water
drainage. Staff recommends no snow storage in the drainage ponds.
Phelan said the helipad will be on the southwest portion of the roof. Staffbelieved
the roof location was safer for the flight for life helicopter.
Gibbs asked why using the retention pond was not appropriate for snow storage.
Trish Aragon replied that using the trail to access the retention ponds was of
concern.
7
ASPEN PLANNING & 7,oNING COMMISSION MEETING -MINUTES -
JULY 15.2008
Leslie Lamont introduced the team Dave Ressler, Russ Sedmak, Rich Wolfe, Tom
Dunlop, Nick Adeh, Laura Kirk, Nina Eisenstat, Elaine Gerson, Steve Selby, Terry
Collins and Dr. Rodman.
Dave Ressler emphasized that this hospital expansion in general was not about a
change in direction but about what a conununity hospital does and continue to do
very well. Ressler said it was about decongestion of the facility for staff to provide
and accommodate the services. Ressler said that they were licensed as a 25 bed
facility and at build out they would be at 39 or 40. Ressler said that right now the
community demand on the services at peak time bumps up against 25 beds and
during the slack time is less than half of that. Ressler noted that each phase
impacts different departments. Ressler stated there were 44 housing units at
present.
Russ Sedmak provided some illustrations that compare the existing space
constraints to some of the contemporary standards in the healthcare process,
changes in technology, changes in levels of services, changes in the types of
services. Sedmak said there were a number of guidelines on how to design an
individual room, single rooms versus double room, ADA accessible standards,
life/safety codes add up to changing the required size of rooms and that was what
the hospital was facing creating pressure on the facility.
MOTION: Brian Speck moved to continue the meeting until 7:30 seconded by
Mike Wampler. All in favor, APPROVED.
Sedmak said that the core clinical services functions were driving the space needs
program to be considered in the fit of the building.
Ressler said that they have been trying to add medical office space to the hospital
campus for many years; current medical office space does not provide good patient
access and could be corrected with the addition of medical office space to the
campus. Dr. Rodman said that he would prefer to walk from his office to the
hospital and take care of patients with suppdrted medical office spaces. Erspamer
asked if the medical office spaces would be for sale. Ressler replied no, at this
time the hospital would lease the spaces to physicians.
Tom Dunlop provided his background with the City and County Environmental
Health. Dunlop stated that a normal conversation was about 55 to 60 decibels.
There were mobile sources and stationary sources and both were applied to the
hospital application. Dunlop said that aircraft were regulated by the FAA and not
the City noise ordinance; the heaviest St. Mary's helicopter was used to try to
8
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING -MINUTES -
JULY 15.2008
create the noise level at 15 and 30 feet above`tihe current ground level helipad.
Dunlop noted there were between 50 and 60`kelicopter flights a year. The findings
of the noise level study within 600 feet of the helipad were 81 decibels exposure
for 2 to 3 minutes.
Nick Adeh, Sopris Engineering, said the one philosophy was to Brick with the
sustainable project; the storm water management used 3 bio-retention cells (ponds)
that will be rotated dry vegetated cells, which the primary functions were to
receive the water, to remove the suspended solids, to reduce the concentrations and
allow for the plant species in and around it to absorb the contaminates to clean the
water and send good water quality into the ground.
MOTION.• Brian Speck moved to continue the meeting until 7.•45 pm seconded by
Dina Bloom. All in favor, APPROVED.
Mike Wampler excused himself at 7:30 pm.
Laura Kirk, DHM Design, submitted a revised site plan regarding the Nordic Trail
responding to neighborhood concerns and sta~f concerns. Kirk said that
Engineering and Parks Departments have given much appreciated help during this
process. Kirk said the irrigation for this site was provided by a ditch that starts at
the Water Treatment Plant.
Public Comments:
1. Dr. Kim Scheuer, a local family physician, stated that she supported staff
and they could better serve their patients with the new facility.
2. Frank Goldsmith, neighbor, supported this process and the hospital has been
great at soliciting the neighbors input and telling neighbors what was going on and
they were concerned about the neighborhood. Goldsmith said that currently when
the helicopter landed it was blocked out by the hospital; he asked how will it
impact them when it is on the roof. Tom Dunlop responded the hospital acts as a
reflective surface the way the helicopter ]ands now and reflects it up the hill and
bounces it back into the valley as well so bringing it up over 30 feet. Dunlop said
the noise was impacted by wind direction, inversions and orientation. Dunlop said
that the last 5 to 10 seconds of the helicopter'}anding is the loudest.
3. Elaine Gerson, counsel for the hospital and staff member, stated that she was
proactive in the employee issues. Gerson said as a practicing nurse it was always
beneficial and critical to the patients having the doctors close not several miles
away.
9
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING -MINUTES -
JULY 152008
Erspamer closed the public comments portion of the meeting.
Erspamer asked if the height met the code. Phelan replied that the application was
for a PUD in the Public Zone.
Gibbs asked if the medical office space might be converted to beds. Sedmak
replied that in anticipation of 20 years beyoni~,the medical office spaces were
designed so that space could be hospital. space; ~if necessary.
Bloom asked if there was an agreement on the snow storage. Aragon replied the
applicant was proposing to use the public recreation trail and she asked what was
the benefit to the public by allowing the applicant to use that trail for snow storage
operations.
John Colson, press, asked what was the commission feeling on the credits. Speck
replied that they were still looking at what paradigm it fit in and was there a new
formula.
MOTION: Brian Speck moved to continue 401 Castle Creek Road, Aspen Valley
Hospital, to August S`h seconded by Stan Gibbs. All in favor, APPROVED.
MOTION.• Brian Speck moved to adjourn at 7: SS seconded by Dina Bloom. All
in favor, APPROVED.
c(
,,'
ckie Lothian, eputy City Clerk ~'t
`` 10
Aspen Planning & Zonine Commission Meetine Minutes -August OS 2008
No public comments.
An email from Christine Quinn was submitted with a concern about parking.
LJ Erspamer asked if any fences were encroaching. Guthrie said that parking will
come off of the alley and the curb cit will be removed.
Weiss asked if there were any variances from code. Guthrie said that HPC granted
a setback variance from the mixed use zone district on the east side reducing from
5 feet to 2 feet and the rear yard setback was waived. John Muir recalled a 3 foot
setback. Weiss asked if the house on the east side was setback at all from the lot
line.
Gibbs said that if housing continues to allow people to pay cash-in-lieu for housing
we will see a lot of housing disappear and will continue to whittle away housing
units; this application adheres to the code. Weiss said that there was not an
affordable housing unit on site. Phelan said that the code has changed to have the
cash-in-lieu allow for payment. DeFrancia agreed with Stan. Muir responded that
the unit has not been occupied since Alice Brien has owned the property and it had
been partly occupied for 5 years prior to that and it was in terrible shape.
MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve Resolution #28, series 2008
recommending City Council approve the subdivision at 332 West Main; seconded
by Brian Speck. Roll call vote: Bloom, yes; Gibbs, yes; Weiss, yes; Speck, yes;
DeFrancia, yes; Erspamer, yes; Wampler, yes,; APPROVED 7-0.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (07/01/0; 07/15/08):
ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL FACILITIES MASTER PLAN,
CONCEPTUAL PUD
LJ Erspamer opened the continued public hearing on Aspen Valley Hospital
Conceptual PUD. Jennifer Phelan noted this was the third hearing reviewing the
proposed master plan for the remodel and expansion of the hospital site. Phelan
said that the meeting will include site access and traffic analysis subntted in the
conceptual application along with parking and easement issues. Phelan said that at
the next meeting on August 19`h there would be a resolution drafted.
Phelan said that the site access to the property was currently through the main
access at Castle Creek and Doolittle Drive; the master plan proposes a secondary
service access, a looped service road, that will have an entry point at Whitcomb
Terrace and loop around the hospital to take some of the traffic from the main
access and split up some of the traffic generated by the hospital. Phelan said that
4
~y
Aspen Plannine & Zonine Commission Meetin¢ Minutes - Aueust 05 2008
Castle Creek Road would have to be raised if this is accessed at Whitcomb
Terrace. Phelan said that there were improvements for the main entry to maintain
the current level of service for Castle Creek and to maintain that over time. Phelan
recommended between conceptual and final the applicant look at possibly a
different location for the service road or how to mitigate some of the impacts; is it
necessary to raise Castle Creek Road; is there an alternate solution that meets the
needs of the hospital; the recommendations of the traffic engineer to include a
larger area of improvements on the main entry and a detailed traffic impact
analysis be submitted at final and work with the city engineer.
Mike Wampler said that he did not understand raising the road; why can't the road
be approached from the other side instead of having to raise the road. Phelan
stated there was a concern about raising the road and grade and visual
requirements. Staff asked for an alternative 'solution that isn't as impactful and
look at that between conceptual and final. Leslie Lamont said that the proposal
that was in the application was at Whitcomb Terrace that does not work from a
safety perspective engineering standard because it was too steep coming down to
Castle Creek Road. Lamont said that there was concern from Parks and
Engineering for the dumping of snow in the first pond submitted in the first
proposal for the use of the trail to haul the snow to the first pond. Lamont said that
the neighbors and staff wanted Doolittle Drive improvements looked at as well
with regards to safety issues. LJ Erspamer asked if traffic flow was going to be
one way with one entrance and one exit. Gideon Kaufrnan asked that the drawings
be utilized to show the proposed entrance and existing entrance.
Alex Ariniello, LSC Transportation Consultants, said that he has been working on
this since the summer of 2006 with an employee survey. Ariniello utilized a power
point for the traffic study procedures, data collection, existing traffic, alternate
mode use, trip generation, trip distribution, trip assignment, project background
traffic, tota12030 traffic, roadway level of service, roadway level of service 2008,
roadway level of service 2030, site access improvements, parking demand, travel
demand management and Aspen Valley Hospital study update. Ariniello said the
traffic study includes an "A" to "F" grading; "A" being the best and "F" the worst
and it was based on the delay at the intersection. Cliff Weiss asked if there was a
mitigation plan for ambulances through the round about. Ariniello said that a two
lane round about would allow for cars to pull over to the right for an ambulance to
get through. Erspamer asked if Mich Walker could attend the next meeting on the
ambulance issue. Weiss said that he wanted to hear from city streets department;
he asked if the round about was city. Phelan replied chat it was a state highway.
Ariniello said that the intersection was operating at level "B".
5
Aspen Plannine & Zonin¢ Commission Meetin¢ Minutes - Aueust 05.2008
Ariniello said that they were still working or` bite new access point would have
good levels of service as well as the i;xisting'access. Ariniello said there would be
aright tum lane at the new access; they were looking at the Doolittle and Castle
Creek intersection for the bus stop and passenger loading area.
Ariniello said that they surveyed the employees and staff on parking and projected
the demand into the future. Ariniello said that the typical parking demand rate is
3.5 parked vehicles per 1,000 square feet they estimated patient stations pazking
spaces at .75 pazked vehicles per each patient station. Stan Gibbs asked where the
numbers for medical office come from. Ariniello replied it comes from national
rates for medical office. Weiss asked if the number included guests and supplies.
Ariniello replied yes. Gibbs asked if this report takes into account winter
conditions. Ariniello answered there were traffic counters throughout the year on
State Highway 82.
Wampler asked if they weren't increasing the services at the hospital except for the
medical offices why were the traffic number$.increasing; where were these
numbers coming from. Ariniello responded ~t~ey were increasing the squaze
footage for the current offices, check-in area and hospital rooms. Lamont said that
the medical office spaces are calculated from what traffic count is generated,
parking demand and employee generation perspective. Lamont said that Ariniello
looked at straight engineering manual standards that say for "x" square feet of
patient stations that are added they generate "x" much traffic and they haven't gone
back in and factored in the decompression argument with pazking and traffic
generation.. John Sarpa said that this was pretty conservative even with the traffic
issues in this city. Gideon Kaufman agreed that these numbers were calculated at a
higher rate.
Erspamer asked if the bus ridership would improve if there was a direct bus route
to the hospital and back. Ariniello replied that from the survey a direct route
would improve bus ridership.
Bobbie Berkley, public, said that as it is now you go to the doctors office and then
to the hospital and then back to the doctor's gffice; the medical offices in the
hospital would remove cazs from coming into:town.
,r h
Erspamer complimented Alex Ariniello as'being the best traffic consultant that he
has encountered and the complimented the hospital for using him.
Erspamer asked for an explanation on the numbers that exceeded the noise level of
the helicopter from Tom Dunlop's report and the touchdowns.
6
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -August 05 2008
Phelan said that parking was the next item; currently there were 175 surface at
grade parking spaces in the two general areas on the site and the applicant was
proposing a total of 339 parking spaces in a parking garage with two accesses and
surface parking. The parking garage took advantage of the typography that slips
away and should fit into the site better and not protrude out of the site with the
parking structure. Phelan said that the parking estimate was based on an old
proposal of 29,000 square feet and the current proposal was 17,000 square feet.
Staff requested that the parking be re-evaluated at the final application so that there
wasn't more parking provided than necessary. Lamont said that the MLS space
was still shifting around. Weiss said that he had not seen much in the way of
diagrams of the parking structure; he asked if that would be seen only at final.
Richard Wolfe replied that he had elevations to address that; it was shown on the
elevations and they would have a better presentation at final. Wolfe stated that the
parking structure was half buried as the grade falls away it reveals itself to the
north for the full two stories that it is and they were proposing to drape it in a metal
skin to erase the typical standard precast beam and column appearance. Sarpa said
that you will only see the parking structure for a split second driving up to the
hospital.
Erspamer asked the floor heights and the heights of the building. Rich Wolfe said
that when the building was constructed in the 1970s it was about 70,000 square
feet and has resided in this growing residential neighborhood. Wolfe said there
were screens of trees and shrubbery and thetwo story addition to the east will
continue to benefit from the screening of th~~tlcottonwood stand along Castle Creek
Road. Wolfe utilized the elevation drawings to show the building itself and the
material palette of red brick, buff and red sandstone. Wolfe showed the new
service road curving around and the basement level is exposed, which has the
greatest dimension. Erspamer asked if the mechanical would be on the side of the
building. John Schied replied there would be some rooftop air handling units with
a screen of these units. Leslie Lamont said the 2 story element was 30 feet 6
inches to the top of the parapet and the 3 story height was at 49 feet 6 inches and
the height of the parking structure at the north end was 29 feet and the stair tower
was 34 feet. Lamont said that the heights were the maximum.
Jennifer Phelan noted on page 7 of the memo was a portion of the site plan to show
the easements that were currently on the site; there was a 100 foot easement
paralleling Castle Creek Road from the property line when the plat was originally
recorded. 1'he Nordic Trail has its own separate easement and so do the utilities
and the pedesMan trail. Phelan said the parking garage structure would encroach
into this existing easement so the easement:~teeds to be removed and she would go
to other departments for review.
7
Asaen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -August O5, 2008
Lamont said that in 1992 the hospital sought an amendment to their 1989 Master
Plan that was approved as part of this amendment the hospital proposed three 2
story townhomes for hospital housing and they did not comply with the housing
guidelines so therefore would not count towards the mitigation. Lamont said that
was why this parcel shows up platted and the county had a setback requirement of
100 feet from all significant roads and that 100 foot easement did not get platted
until 1996. Lamont said that they think that this 100 foot easement was a mistake
and they wanted a bike trail easement and the PMH parcel was required in 1992.
Lamont said that when they re-plat the property they will clean up the plat.
Kaufman said that one of the reasons that the hospital was doing the overall Master
Plan was to plan the whole property and not piecemeal.
Wolfe using slides reviewed the new OB addition and where the service road will
be coming through; the new patient wing of phase 2 and the parking structure.
Wolfe showed the view from across Meadowwood Drive to where the Nordic Trail
crosses over. Weiss voiced concern about the parking structure.
Chuck Frias, public, said that he was involved with the community advisory
committee and they have done a great job addressing issues and the applicants
have met with Measdowwood. Frias said that lighting was an important issue to be
addressed and the landscape screen would help. Frias supported everything.
Bobbie Berkley, public, said that they have done a good job involving the entire
neighborhood with site plans and site tours throughout the process.
Phelan recapped the last three meetings for the resolution; conceptually the size,
architecture, design and use were okay. The parking garage needed more detail
for the final review and so did the lighting for~the parking garage. The parameters
were okay for the growth management with regard to employee generation to
include what the hospital will generate with volume, support services,
decompression and increased efficiency. For the medical office space staff
recommended an audit of other offices and the use of credits was okay; work with
Parks Department and the neighbors with regards to the finalization of the Nordic
Trail location. Staff recommended further review/study on the detention ponds be
required for snow storage, in particular vehicular use was not permitted on trails,
so an alternative solution for access or snow storage needs to be considered.
MOTION.• Stan Gibbs moved to extend the meeting unti17:10; seconded by Brian
Speck. All in favor, APPROVED.
8
i
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission 1kleeting Minutes -August 05.2008
Phelan continued that reconsideration of the service road be undertaken to look at
the raising of Castle Creek with a less impactful solution. Include a greater study
area for improvements to the main access including the RFTA bus stop, the
crossing and the pedestrian trail to be brought in for final. There needs to be a
detailed transportation impact analysis with a broader scope and re-evaluate the
parking needs with further study with more information at final. Work with other
departments on the 100 foot easement to mitigate any potential impacts to the trail
and more history on the affordable housing parcel to remove that from the final
plat.
Alica Miller, public, works for the hospital stated that there were car pools for the
employees and they continue to look at that.
Jim Timberlin, public, employee of the hospital, stated that he worked with the
transportation committee and said the van would be running 7 days a week
beginning in Glenwood Springs to the hospital.
na
MOTION.• Mike Wampler moved to continue the meeting for the Aspen Valley
Hospital Master Plan Conceptual PUD to August 19`x; seconded by Brian Speck.
All in favor, APPROVED.
Adjourned at 7:10 pm.
i
ckie Lothian, Deputy ity Clerk
,i ~.
9
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting -Minutes -August 19 2008
LJ Erspamer opened the regulaz meeting in Sister Cities meeting room at 4:30 pm.
Commissioners Cliff Weiss, Mike Wampler, Stan Gibbs, Dina Bloom, LJ
Erspamer and Jim DeFrancia were present. Brain Speck was excused. Staff
present were Jim True, Special Council; Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community
Development Director; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
COMMENTS
Jennifer Phelan stated there was a special meeting next week on the ZG Master
Plan and Lift One.
MINUTES
MOTION.' Cl Weiss made a correction to the minutes on page 2 "because the
studies report said that roads could handle" and moved to approve the minutes
from July 22, 2008; seconded by Mike Wampler. All in favor, APPROVED.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Dina Bloom said that a friend expressed her views against the hospital but it does
not impair her judgment and she asked them not to talk about it.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL MASTER FACILITIES PLAN 401 CASTLE
CREEK ROAD CONCEPTUAL PUD
LJ Erspamer opened the continued conceptual PUD for the Aspen Valley Hospital.
Jennifer Phelan noted this was Master Facilities Plan with Resolution #23 to
approve the conceptual Master Plan'far the lcsspital.
Phelan said that there were changes to the resolution to include in the title Aspen
Valley Hospital Master Facilities Plan; page 2 delete the ser~ise before loop
service road; add Master Facilities Plan to the 4`s paragraph and #3a replace ereate
n3ixi~num with minimize. Page 3e the applicant shall continue to work with staff
on the improvements associated with development of the service road and on g add
"Any proposed options will be reviewed with RFTA, Parks and Engineering." The
change to Section 3: Engineering would add "as it relates to project
improvements." Phelan said the last change there would not be any school land
dedication fees on Section 11 to add "as applicable."
LJ Erspamer asked if the applicant was comfortable with the size and design of the
parking garage and that you anticipate in the future. Russ Sedmak replied that the
parking structure because of the location built into an existing embankment and
separated from Castle Creek Road by the existing bike path and walking path and
vegetation will be fairly well screened. Sedmak said the portion of the building
2
x;
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting -Minutes -August 19, 2008
that will not be completely screened because there will be vehicular access to that
portion of the garage will be designed in a way to appear not as massive in terms of
the type of materials; there will be a metallic screen on the building that allows it
to look like more of a trellis. Sedmak said it will appear much softer than a typical
parking structure and will be resolved in final.
Cliff Weiss said that his concern was a cement structure that will be the first of its
kind in this valley and there may be other ways to mitigate, he recognizes that you
are going to have a trellis or some form of screen, which has a good deal to do with
lighting as well but there's not much in the way big cement monolithic structures
in this valley. Weiss said that it would be landscaped into the side and more
mitigation is needed. Sedmak said the raw appearance of concrete was in a
different way, either by color or texture, skinning the building where it is exposed,
excreta
Erspamer said that you were going to audit other medical offices for employee
generation, is that in Aspen. Phelan replied that she anticipated that it would be in
this vicinity. Erspamer said that on 3d the last sentence "An alternative solution
for access to the ponds or for snow storage needs to be considered" he asked if that
was the same as shall be considered. Erspamer asked if staff was directing the
applicant. Phelan answered that vehicular use of the trail system was not allowed
except for emergencies so the suggestion is to look at that area for further study.
Dave Ressler stated the hospital has strategic needs for housing that will drive the
process for adding additional units and inventory. Ressler said that they have been
in discussions with the city about Burlingame but there were also a number of
other things as well. Ressler said that when prices were known and the specifics
were made clear and there is further discussion on how that might impact the
mitigation requirements.
,i
Public Comments:
1. Bob Pervis said that he was a member of the citizen advisory committee and
his observation was that the citizens have not been bashful that have been part of
that membership in pressing the staff and board regarding the scope, scale, cost, off'
site impacts, function of the appropriateness for the 21 ~` century standards and care.
Pervis stated empathy for P&Z as he was a Planning Commissioner in Snowmass
Village and was previously a member of the town council. Pervis said that he was
quite comfortable that this project was well grounded with a credible presentation
of intentions and background.
Aspen 1'lannine & Zoning Commission Meetips -Minutes - AutYust 19 2008
2. Todd Bartlette, director of swgicai services, stated there was a need for the
project; 31 years ago the treatment course'for surgical patient was quite different
then it is today. At that point patients would usually come in the night before the
swgery and it would be 2-3 nights after surgery before they would get home; today
with the advancements and medication, patients are in and out the same day.
Barilette said the hospital was never designed for this outpatient or day surgery and
the outpatient area is quite tiny, which causes problems with patient flow and
desperately need space. It will be a better service for the public and Aspen locally
to have our project completed.
3. Debbie Braun, ACItA, stated that she also was a member of the citizen
advisory committee for the hospital; she said it was a pleaswe working on the
advisory committee. Braun said that hospital was so receptive to all of the
feedback and the project was moving in the right direction. Braun supported the
project.
Jim DeFrancia stated that the hospital was doing a terrific job on this application.
Dina Bloom also agreed that they did a good job listening to everyone.
Michael Wampler said that he was okay with everything.
Stan Gibbs stated that it was a great first step.
Erspamer said that the committee broke the ground for the city review process.
MOTION: Michael Wampler moved to approve Resolution #23, with comments
as noted and discussed and recommend City Council approve the Aspen Palley
Hospital Facilities Master Plan; seconded by Dina Bloom. Roll call vote:
DeFrancia, yes; Weiss, yes; Gibbs, yes; Bloom, Wampler, yes; Erspamer, yes. All
in favor, APPROVED 6-Q.
Board Reports:
LJ Erspamer said the task forces should be limited to 12 people.
~;~~
Cliff Weiss reported on the Lift One that there were 27 people on the task force.
Adjourned at 5:30 pm.
~.
ackie Loth an, Deputy City Clerk
4
~~~.
~ ~ ~
i `~
~ ~
I
~~~J
-~ ~~,
i
1 ~
~ t._.i~
~'.i../
~ ~ ~~~~
.,,.
.>
i
U
F-
J
Q
H
a
u)
O
r
~ ~
Z U
7
O Z
z
~ ¢
a
O W
~~
Q
~~
~t~. bt .
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director lJ'~Y`vl
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy DirectotV~
RE: Wright Appeal (Williams Ranch Subdivision)
MEETING
DATE: January 12, 2009
GENERAL BACKGROUND
In August of 2008, after meeting and working with members of the Williams Ranch
homeowner's association (HOA), the Community Development Director issued and
administrative decision (Exhibit 1) with regard `to the Williams Ranch Subdivision. The
determination was issued to clazify what land use code and dimensional requirements are
applicable to the subdivision. The owners of two properties (Gary and Jena Wright as well as
Gary Kelly) filed a notice of appeal (Exhibit 2) once the decision was issued and was
subsequently scheduled before the City Council.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
Once an appeal is scheduled, the review body hears the appeal at a public meeting. Based solely
upon the record established by the original decision, the City Council shall consider whether:
1) There was a denial of due process; or,
2) The administrative body exceeded its jurisdiction; or,
3) The administrative body abused its discretion.
These standards ask whether the Director's actions were ethical. The City's code states that the
decision or determination made by the administrative officer shall not be reversed or modified
unless there is a positive finding on one of these criteria (Please see Exhibit 3 for the entire code
section 26.316.030, Appeal procedures). The appellants have not cited which criterion was met
with the determination made by staff.
i~
DETAILED SUMMARY:
The administrative decision was issued as a result of an initial inquiry fielded by staff with
regard to a proposed addition to the Wright residence. A representative for Mr. Wright first met
with staff to gather information on the dimensional standards (such as maximum height,
minimum setbacks and maximum floor azea) associated with the lot. Staff originally confirmed
the underlying zone district as Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development (AH/PUD). The
current AH/PUD section of the land use code states that "dimensional requirements are
established by adoption of a final PUD development plan." The ordinance approving the
Williams Ranch project (Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994) did not memorialize most of the
dimensional standards for the subdivision making it unclear what if anything could be built on
Mr. Wright's lot. After this preliminary reseazch, staff began having discussions with members
of the HOA to determine what steps should be taken next. Originally, staff had discussed
memorializing dimensional standazds through a PUD Amendment; however, additional research
showed that the AH zone district had previously contained zone district dimensional standards
and an administrative decision was issued stating that the former AH zone district dimensions
remained in effect..
Research showed that prior to the current AH/PUD zone district regulations, the original
Affordable Housing (AH) zone district was established in 1989 and included dimensional
standards, rather than standards being established through a PUD plan. Staff was able to
determine what dimensional standards were in place at the time of the subdivision's approval. As
the current zone district standards for the AH/PUD zone do not include dimensional standards,
staff determined that the subdivision cou-d rely on the Affordable Housing zone district
standazds in effect at the time of the subdivision's approval (see Exhibit A, located within
Exhibit 1 of this memo).
In the administrative decision, staff also determined that the subdivision's vested rights had
expired in 1997 and current regulations of the city are applicable to new development within the
subdivision. Specifically related to this appeal, staff determined that slope reduction (where
allowable floor azea is reduced by the presence of steep slopes on a lot) and the current
inclusions and exemptions for the calculation of floor azea are applicable to development within
the subdivision. Depending on the topography of individual lots within the subdivision, the
maximum allowable floor area allowed may be reduced (by no greater than 25%). Additionally,
inclusions and exclusions in the calculation of floor area have changed since the subdivision's
approval. Three hundred seventy-five square feet of garage space is exempt from floor azea
calculations rather than five hundred square feet as was the case in the past.
STANDARDS OF REVIEW:
1. Due Process -With respect to due process,.staf~Worked with both Mr. Wright and members
of the Williams Ranch homeowner's association (HOA) to determine the subdivision's
dimensional standazds.
Meetings with members of the (HOA) occurred on and off again in 2008. At one of the last
meetings in which the Mr. Wright participated in, the administrative decision was provided and
staff suggested the Appellant, interested in building an addition, do an initial slope analysis to
determine if the current regulation would impact his proposal. Staff is not sure if this analysis
was ever undertaken. Staff also suggested the HOA consider submitting a PUD Amendment if
changes to the approvals were desired.
As required by the Land Use Code, the appellants were provided notice of tonight's meeting via
registered mail and all other affected parties were noticed by publication in the newspaper, as
required. Assuming tonight's meeting does not contain any procedural flaws; staff believes that
proper due process has been provided to the appellants.
2. Jurisdiction -The Director's jurisdiction to interpret the Land Use Code is established in
Chapter 26.210 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. This Chapter outlines the jurisdiction,
authority, and duties allocated to the Community Development Director. One of the Director's
duties outlined in the Chapter reads: "To render interpretations of this Title or the boundaries of
-~ `. 2
duties outlined in the Chapter reads: "To render interpretations of this Title or the boundaries of
the Oj~cial Zone District Map pursuant to Chapter 26.306. " Staff believes this language is clear
and it does not appear that the applicant is questioning this provision of the code.
3. Discretion -With respect to abuse of the Director's discretion, the Director did need to use
his discretion in rendering the decision. The question is whether the Director abused that
discretion or acted unethically. ~ ~js~-
Once a development's statutory vested rights have expired, any proposed development must
meet adopted standards of the city. Regulations change over time and new development is
subject to such changes. As noted in section 26.308.010 D., Expiration of Vested Rights, "afrer
expiration (of a vested right), a development order remains valid......but shall be subject to any
changes in the Land Use Code that have been adopted since the developments original
approval." The approvals for Williams Ranch continue to be valid and homeowners in the
subdivision can continue to rely on the AH zone district dimensional standazds in place at the
time of approval. There have been changes to the land use code since 1994. Upon the expiration
of the development's statutory vested rights in 1997, new development must conform to those
changes. This includes slope reduction and the manner in which floor area is calculated.
TWO RESOLUTIONS:
Attached are two Resolutions. One finds that the Director acted correctly and affirms the
determination. The second finds that the Director exceeded his jurisdiction, abused his authority,
or failed to provide due process and reverses the determination.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff believes the Director's determination was rendered ethically and that no abuse of authority
or exceeding of jurisdiction occurred. Staff recommends City Council uphold the Director's
determination by adopting the proposed Resolution affirming the determination. If the
City Council finds the Director did not act correctly, City Council will need to render a new
determination. This may be more or less restrictive that the determination rendered by the
Director.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
RECOMMENDED MOTION: (all metiOnS must be made in the pO5ltlve)
"I move to approve Resolution No. Series of 2009, [affirming or reversing] the
Community Development Director's determination regarding dimensional requirements subject
to lots within the Williams Ranch Subdivision."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exxig[T 1 -Administrative Decision
EXHIBIT 2- Submitted Appeal s `~
ExxisiT 3 -Land Use Code Chapter 26.316, Appeals
3
RESOLUTION N0. _, (Affirming Interpretation)
(SERIES OF 2006)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AFFIRMING AN
AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION REGARDING DIMENSIONAL
STANDARDS FOR THE WILLIAMS RANCH SUBDIVISION.
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director issued an administrative
decision regarding dimensional standards applicable to the Williams Ranch subdivision;
and,
WHEREAS, the Director rendered a decision and a property owner, Gary
Wright, on behalf of himself, his wife, and Gary Kelly, believes the Director exceeded his
jurisdiction and abused his discretion and sought an appeal based on such grounds; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Chapter 26.316, may affirm an
interpretation of the Land Use Code made by the Community Development Director or
reverse or modify the interpretation upon a finding that there was a denial of due process,
exceeding of jurisdiction, or abuse of authority in rendering the interpretation; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has taken and considered written and verbal
testimony from Gary Wright on behalf of himself and other appellants as well as the
Community Development Director, and as a result has found that the Director provided
due process and neither exceeded his jurisdiction or abused his authority in rendering the
interpretation; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and
is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfaze.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council affirms the
Community Development Director's Administrative Decision regarding dimensional
standazds applicable to the Williams Ranch subdivision.
This Resolution shall not affect any existing;;litigation and shall not operate as an
abatement of any action or proceeding know pendjpg 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.
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 Aspen City Council at its regular meeting on , 2009.
Resolution No. ,Series of 2009. Page 1
k
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
John Worcester, City Attorney
Michael C.Ireland, Mayor
Resolution No. ,Series of 2009. Page 2
RESOLUTION N0. _, (Reversing Interpretation)
(SERIES OF 2009)
~~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AN
APPEAL AND REVERSING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION REGARDING
DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE WILLIAMS RANCH SUBDIVISION.
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director issued an administrative
decision regarding dimensional standards applicable to the Williams Ranch subdivision;
and,
WHEREAS, the Director rendered a decision and a property owner, Gary
Wright, on behalf of himself, his wife, and Gary Kelly, believes the Director exceeded his
jurisdiction and abused his discretion and sought an appeal based on such grounds; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Chapter 26.316, may affirm an
interpretation of the Land Use Code made by the Community Development Director or
reverse or modify the interpretation upon a finding that there was a denial of due process,
exceeding of jarisdiction, or abuse of authority in rendering the interpretation; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has taken and considered written and verbal
testimony from Gary Wright on behalf of himself and other appellants as well as the
Community Development Director, and as a, result has found that the Director either
exceeded his jurisdiction or abused his authprity~}n rendering the interpretation; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and
is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approves the appeal of
the Community Development Director's decision regarding dimensional standards
applicable to the Williams Ranch subdivision and reverses the decision as follows:
Section 1:
A. Certain provisions of Section 26.575.020 C., Lot Area, shall not apply to the
calculation of Floor Area for lots within the Williams Ranch subdivision.
Specifically, the subdivision shall not be subject to slope reduction in the
calculation of lot area. The following language shall not be applicable to the
subdivision:
"when calculating floor area ratio, lot areas shall include only areas with a slope
of less than twenty percent (20%). In addition, half (.50) of lot areas with a slope
of twenty to thirty percent (20-30%) mary~ be counted towards floor area ratio;
areas with slopes of greater than thirty percent (30%) shall be excluded. The total
reduction in FAR attributable to slope reduction for a given site shall not exceed
twenty-five percent (25%)."
Resolution No. ,Series of 2009. Page 1
~,,
B. The provisions of Section 26.575.020 A3, Garages, shall not apply to the
calculation of Floor Area for lots within the Williams Ranch subdivision. Instead,
garage, carport and storage areas shall be limited to a five hundred (500) square
foot exemption.
Section 2•
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an
abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances
repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded
under such prior ordinances.
Section 3•
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this 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 Aspen City Council at its regular meeting on , 2009.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
John Worcester, City Attorney
Resolution No. ,Series of 2009. Page 2
~-~h~cr ~
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
NRISDICTION:
APPLICABLE ORDINANCE:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
WRITTEN BY:
APPROVED BY:
City of Aspen
Ordinance 59 (Series 1989)
August 1, 2008
Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Director
Chris Bendon,
Community Development Director
COPIES TO:
John Worcester, City Attorney
SUMMARY
This administrative decision is being issued in response to several inquiries that staff has
entertained with regard to the Williams Ranch subdivision (approved in 1994) and its
original approvals. In sum:
The ordinance approving Wil]iams Ranch subdivision (No. 52, series 2004)
regulates density, accessory dwelling units and height.
Ordinance No. 59 (Series of 1989) regulates dimensional standards such as
Minimum Setbacks and Floor Area.
• New development is subject to regulations in the City of Aspen's Land Use Code
that are of general applicability.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this administrative decision is to interpret the ordinances and clarify the
dimensional requirements applicable to the Williams Ranch subdivision which is located
in the Affordable Housing (AH) zone district and has a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) overlay. This clarification is needed because the AH zone district standards have
changed over time.
BACKGROUND
In 1989, Ordinance No. 59 (Series of 1989) (hereinafter "AH Ordinance") adopted an
Affordable Housing zone district (Exhibit B) as a new zone district to the City of Aspen's
land use code. Staff further researched subsequent ordinances to verify whether any later
code amendments affected the content of the AH Ordinance prior to the Williams Ranch
subdivision being approved. Three ordinances were found that amended the AH
Ordinance: Ordinance No. 22 (Series of 1992) amended the Floor Area allowance for a
9,000 square feet or greater ]ot, Ordinance No. 68 (Series of 1993) amended Conditional
Uses permitted in the zone district, and Ordinance No. 12 (Series of 1994) affected
Page 1 of 4
permitted uses and dimensional requirements (Exhibit C). Other than the AH Ordinance,
only the final ordinance noted affected the Williams Ranch subdivision.
Ordinance No. 52 (Series of 1994) is an ordinance that granted subdivision, Planned Unit
Development, GMQS Exemption and Vested Rights for the Williams Ranch Project
(Exhibit D). The approval allowed for the construction of thirty-five (35) deed restricted
affordable housing units (Williams Ranch subdivision) and fifteen (15) free-market lots
(Silverlode subdivision). A PUD is site specific and certain dimensional requirements are
permitted to be varied, although the underlying zone district dimensional standards are to
be used as a guide. Any approved dimensional variations are memorialized in the
ordinance approving the development. In the case of Ordinance No. 52 (hereinafter
"Williams Ranch Ordinance"), the following sections reference and memorialize certain
dimensional standazds or requirements:
• Sub-section l.l.f, "Pitkin County's definition for calculating height and
determining natural grade shall be used for this project."
• Sub-section 1.8., "All other lots are subject to the 25 foot height limitation of the
City of Aspen, and are calculated using Pitkin County's definition for height."
• Sub-section 1.15., "No accessory dwelling units are permitted to be constructed in
any of the Williams Ranch residences."
• The overall ordinance approved thirty-five affordable housing units.
Since the passage of the Williams Ranch Ordinance, amendments to the AH zone district
have occurred. For instance, the AH zone district is now called the Affordable
Housing/Planned Unit Development (AH/PUD) zone district and the dimensional
requirements for the subject zone district are established through the adoption of a final
PUD. In the case of the Williams Ranch approval, only certain dimensional standards
were memorialized in the ordinance because the Affordable Housing zone district in 1994
had set dimensional standazds.
DISCUSSION
It is staff's interpretation that the properties within the Williams Ranch subdivision may
utilize the Affordable Housing zone district regulations in effect at the time of their
approval inclusive of Ordinance No. 59 (Series of 1989) and Ordinance No. 12 (Series of
1994) unless the Williams Ranch Ordinance supersedes these requirements. However,
the subdivision's vested rights expired in 1997 and any contemporary regulations of the
land use code that affect development such as lighting, fencing, calculations and
measurements, and slope reduction are applicable to any new development in the
subdivision as these regulations aze of general applicability. To exempt the subdivision
from any regulations of general applicability, the PUD must be amended by the City
Council. Staff has discussed this process with representatives of the homeowner's
association of the Williams Ranch subdisvion.
Two other azeas with regazd to the PUD should also be clazified. Although the underlying
zone district allows for a greater potential density than the thirty-five (35) affordable
housing units that exists, the Williams Ranch Ordinance restricts the subdivision to
Page 2 of 4
thirty-five units. An amendment to the PUD is required to increase the density. Another
area of clarification is with regard to the type of unit the affordable housing units are
considered and the resulting Floor Area scale to be used in calculating Floor Area. Each
dwelling unit is located upon an individual lot. As noted in Exhibit A, single-family
dwellings may have a zero (0) side yard setback. A number of dwelling units share a
common lot line and need to be considered either two single-family residences or a
duplex. Since each dwelling unit is located upon its own lot and can have a zero (0) side
yard setback, each affordable housing unit is considered asingle-family (or detached
residence) for floor area calculations.
APPEAL OF DECISION
As with any administrative decision by the Community Development Director, an
applicant has the ability to appeal this decision to the Aspen City Council. This can be
done in conjunction with a land use request before City Council or as a separate agenda
item.
26.316.030(A) APPEAL PROCEDURES
Any person with a right to appeal an adverse decision or determination shall initiate an
appeal by filing a notice of appeal on a form prescribed by the Community Development
Director. The notice of appeal shall be filed with the Community Development Director
and with the City office or department rendering the decision or determination within
fourteen (14) days of the date of the decision or determination being appealed. Failure to
file such notice of appeal within the prescribed time shall constitute a waiver of any
rights under this Title to appeal any decision or determination.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A - Summary of Dimensional Standards
Exhibit B - Ordinance No. 59 (Series of 1989)
Exhibit C -Ordinance No. 12 (Series of 1994)
Exhibit D -Ordinance No. 52 (Series of 1994)
Page 3 of 4
Exhibit `A'
Summary of Dimensional Requirements:
Dimensional Standard Re uirement Notes
Minimum Lot Size 3,000 sq. fr. Ordinance No. 12 (Series of
1994). Based upon `fathering'
lot eater than 27,000 s . ft.
Minimum Lot Area Per 3,000 sq. ft. Ordinance No. 12 (Series of
Dwelling Unit 1994). Based upon `fathering'
lot reater than 27,000 s . ft.
Minimum Lot Width 30 feet Ordinance No. 59 (Series of
1989)
Minimum Front Yard Principal Building: ] 0 feet Ordinance No. 59 (Series of
Accesso Buildin : 15 feet 1989
Minimum Side Yard 0 ft. for each side yard with a Ordinance No. 59 (Series of
total of 15 ft. for both side 1989)
yards. Minimum of 5' for
yards which are contiguous to
any other zone district other
than the affordable housing
zone district.
Minimum Rear Yard Principal Building: 10 feet Ordinance No. 59 (Series of
Accesso Buildin : 5 feet 1989
Maximum Height 25 feet Ordinance No. 52 (Series of
1994). Measured per Pitkin
County code
Minimum distance between Sfeet Ordinance No. 59 (Series of
Buildin s 1989)
Floor Area 3,000-6,000 = 2,400 sq. ft. of Ordinance No. 59 (Series of
floor area, plus 28 sq. ft. of 1989)
floor area for each additional
100 sq. ft. in lot area up to a
maximum of 3,240 sq. ft. of
floor area.
6,000-9,000=3,240 sq. ft. of
floor area, plus 14 sq. fr. of
floor area for each additional
100 sq. ft. in lot area up to a
maximum of 3,660 sq. ft. of
floor area.
Note: This is provided as a summary reference only and does not create a vested right. Please
refer to original ordinances for actual language. In the case of any discrepancies between the
summary and the ordinance language, the ordinance language prevails. Regulations may change
over time and affect the validi of this summa
Page 4 of 4
~~~
ORDINANCE NO. 59
(SERIES OF 1989)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AMENDING CHAPTER 24,
ARTICLE 5, DIVISION 2 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE TO CREATE A NEW
SECTION 5-206, AFFORDABLE HOUSING (AH) ZONE DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council (hereinafter "the Council")
has received the recommendations of the Aspen Planning and Zoninq
Commission with respect to amendments to the requirements for the
creation of an Affordable Housing (AH) zone district; and
WHEREAS, the Council recognizes that the Aspen Planning and
Zoninq Commission has held a public hearing for the creation of
this zone district on March 28, June 13, July 11 and July 25,
1989; and
WHEREAS, the Council is aware that in order to accomplish
their affordable housing goals a zoning tool such as the
Affordable Housing zone is essential;
WHEREAS, the Council has held public work sessions on the
Affordable Housing zone on June 8 and August 14, 1989; and
WHEREAS, both the Council and the Planning and Zoning
Commission recognize the importance of affordable housing to
preserving the fabric of the Community; and
WHEREAS, in 1987, the draft Affordable Housing Production
Plan identifies a 250 unit affordable housing shortfall; and
WHEREAS, the Affordable Housing zone district is part of the
City's implementation strategy for the Affordable Housing
Production Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BX THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
That Article 5, Division 2 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations
be amended- by the creation of a new Section 5-208, Affordable
Housing (AH) zone district which shall read as follows, and the
renumbering of all subsequent .sections in this Division
accordingly:
Sec. 5-208 Affordable Housing (AH1
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Affordable Housing (AH)
Zone District is to provide for the use of land for the
production of low, moderate and middle income
affordable housing and Resident Occupied Units. The
zone district also permits a limited component of free
market units to off-set the cost of developing
affordable housing. It is contemplated that land may
also be subdivided in connection with a development
plan. The Affordable Housing (AH) Zone District is
intended for residential use primarily by permanent
residents of the Community. Recreational and
institutional uses customarily found in proximity to
residential uses are included as conditional uses.
Lands in the Affordable Housing (AH) Zone District
should be scattered throughout the City to ensure a mix
of housing types, including those which are affordable
by its working residents; at the same time the
Affordable Housing (AH) Zone District can protect the
2
City's neighborhoods from rezoning pressures that other
non-community oriented zone districts may produce.
Further, lands in the Affordable Housing (AH} Zone
District should be located within walking distance of
the center of the City, or on transit routes.
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of
right in the Affordable Housing (AHj Zone District.
1. Residential uses restricted to low, moderate and
middle income affordable housing guidelines and
resident occupied units must comprise at least 70
percent of the unit mix, of the development. Free
market development may comprise up to 3o percent
of the unit mix, and 40 percent of the bedroom mix
of the development. Residential uses may be
comprised of single-family, duplex and multi-
family dwelling units;
2. Home occupations; and
3. Accessory buildings and uses.
C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as
conditional uses in the Affordable Housing (AH) Zone
District, subject to the standards and procedures
established in Art. 7, Div. 3.
- 3
1. open use recreation site;
2. Day care center;
3. Satellite dish antennae; and
4. Dormitory
D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional
requirements shall apply to all permitted and condi-
tional uses in the Affordable Housing (AH) Zone
District.
i. Minimum lot size (sq.ft.): 4,-969 3,000
2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (sq.ft.):
Detached residential dwelling: 3,000
Duplex: 3;&69-1', 500
For multi-family dwellings on a lot of 27,000
sq. ft. or less or for lots of 43,560 s.f. or
less when approved by special review pursuant
to Art. 7, Div. 4, the following sq. ft.
requirements apply:
studio: 300
1 bedroom: 400
2 bedroom: 900
3 bedroom: 1,200
Units with more than 3 bedrooms: one (1)
bedroom per 400 square feet of lot area.
Far multi-family dwellings on a lot of more
4
than 27,000 sq. ft. (except when varied by
Special Review) the following sq. ft.
requirements apply:
studio: 1,000
1 bedroom: 1,250
2 bedroom: 2,100
3 bedroom: 3,630
Units with more than 3 bedrooms: one {1}
bedroom per 1,000 square feet of lot
area.
3. Minimum lot width (ft.):-4e 30
4. Minimum front yard (ft.}:
principal building: 10
accessory building: 15
5. Minimum side yard (ft.): The minimum side yard for
single-family and duplex dwellings is 0 ft. for
each side yard; 15 ft. total minimum for both side
yards. (Minimum side yard shall be 5' for yards
which are continous to any zone district other
than Affordable Housing.)
The minimum side yard for multi-family dwellings
shall be 5 feet.
6. Minimum rear yard (ft.}:
principal building: to
accessory building: 5
7. Maximum height (ft.): 25; increasable up to 30' by
5
special review pursuant to Art. 7, DiV.4.
8. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot
(ft.): 5
9. Percent of open space required for building site:
to be established by special review pursuant to
Art. 7, Div. 4; open space may be used for off-
street parking by special review, pursuant to
Art.7, Div. 4.
10. External floor area ratio (applies to conforming
and nonconforming lots of record).
DETACHED RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS
Lot Size Allowable
_„(SO.Ft.I SO. Ft.
0- 3,000 58 80 sq.ft, of floor area for
each 100 sq.ft. in lot area,
up to a maximum of },-596 2,400
sq.ft. of floor area.
3,000- 6,000 },_596 2,400 sq.ft. of floor
area, plus &e 26 sq.ft. of
floor area for each additional
100 sq.ft. in lot area, up to
a maximum of ~,,-~69 3,240
sq.ft. of floor area.
6
6,000- 9,000 ~,,-1~g9 3,240 sq.ft. of floor
area, plus ~@ 14 sq.ft. of
floor area for each additional
100 sq. ft. in lot area, up to
a maximum of 8,-4@A 3,660
sq.ft. of floor area.
9,000+ 2,-49@ 3,660 sq.ft. of floor
area.
DUPLEX
Lot Size Allowable
(SO_Ft.) SO.Ft
0- 3,000 ~9 90 sq.ft. of floor area for
each 100 sq.ft. in lot area,
up to a maximum of ~,-&69 2,700
sq.ft. of floor area.
3,000- 6,000 ~;&9@ 2,700 sq.ft. of floor
area, plus 30 sq.ft. of floor
area for each additional 100
sq.ft. in lot area, up to a
maximum of ~,-7-BB 3, 600 sq. ft.
of floor area.
6,000- 9,000 ~,,-~&@ 3,600 sq.ft. of floor
7
area, plus 28 16 sq,ft. of
floor area for each additional
100 sq.ft. in lot area, up to
a maximum of }-388 4,080
sq.ft. of floor area.
.,,
9,000+ 3~,-398 4,080 sq.ft. of floor
area.
MULTI-FAMILY
Allowable
Lot Size SO.Ft.
0- 27,000 s.f 1.1:1
27,001 s.f- 43,560 s.f .36;1, increasable to 1:1
by special review,
pursuant to Art. 7,
Div. 4.
43,561 s.f- 3 acres .36:1
> 3 acres- 6 acres .33:1
> 6 acres- 9 acres .30:1
> 9 acres- 18 acres .27:1
>18 acres ,24:1
11. Internal floor area ratio: no requirement
8
E. off-street narking requirement. The following off-
street parking spaces shall be provided for each use in
the Affordable Housing (AH) Zone District.
1. Residential uses: established by special review
pursuant to Art. 7, Div. 4. The maximum number of
parking spaces required shall not exceed 1
space/bedroom or 2 spaces/dwelling unit whichever
is less.
2. All other: N/A.
Section 2. Article 8,8-104 (C)(1) Growth Management Quota
Systems Exemptions by City Council of Chapter 24
of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, are hereby amended to read as follows:
°8-104 (C)(1)(e) Affordable Housing Zone District°
The development of no more than fourteen (14) free
market dwelling units for entire City in one
calendar year.
Section 3.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or
unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such
portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent
provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
9
Section 4.
Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to affect any
right, duty or liability under any ordinance in effect prior to
the effective date of this ordinance, and the same shall be
continued and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 5. (~/
A pu~b/lic hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the /'
day of ~'(L~-~~~ 1989, at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council
Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days
prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published once
in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by
t/he City Council of the City of Aspen on the //~~ day of
z .e,~ 1989.
/~ ~ ~ `-J~
'~ ~ll~ Z
William L. Stir ing, Mayor
ATTE T:
Kathryn S Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ~~~ day
of ~ (~'1-6-Ct-2-'/ 1989 . ~, '//~~
William L. Stirling, Mayor
ATT ST:
4
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
ah.zone.ord.cc.lst.read2
l0
~~hg~`c~
N ORDINANCE N0. 12
(SERIES OF 199
AN ORDZNANCS OF TH8 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, ASENDING
CSAPTER 24 OF TH8 HONICIPAL CODE, LAND II68 REGULATIONS, BY AlSENDING
SECTION 24-5-206.2 TO REDIICE TH8 lIINZNUM LOT SIZE FOR SINGLS-
FAMILY AND DUPLES DWELLING UNITS TO 1,500 SQUARE F88T PER DWELLING
UDTIT ON PARCELS L888 THAN 27, 000 BQIIARE FRET IN TH8 AFFORDABLE
HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, Section 24-7-1103 of the Municipal Code provides that
amendments to Chapter 24 of the Code, to wit, "Land Use
Regulations", shall be reviewed and recommended for approval by the
Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission
at public hearing, and then approved, approved with conditions, or
disapproved by the City Council at public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director did receive from the Aspen
Pitkin County Housing Authority ("Applicant"} and has reviewed and
recommended for approval a text amendment to Chapter 24 associated
with the development of affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the
proposal and did conduct a public hearing thereon on March 1, 1994;
and
WHEREAS, upon review and consideration of the text amendment,
agency and public comment thereon, and those applicable standards
as contained in Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, to wit, Division
li of Article 7 (Text Amendments), the Planning and Zoning
Commission has recommended approval of the text amendment
recommended by the Planning Director pursuant to procedure as
authorized by Section 24-6-205 (A)(5) of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen city Council has reviewed and considered
i
the text amendment under the applicable provisions of the Municipal
Coda as identified herein, has reviewed and considered those
recommendations and approvals as granted by the Planning and Zoning
Commission, and has taken and considered public comment at public
hearing; and
WSBREAB, the City Council finds that the text amendment meets
or exceeds all applicable development standards and is consistent
with-the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and
WH8RSA8, the City Council finds that this ordinance furthers
and is necessary for public health, safety, and welfare; and
WN8R8AS, the City Council finds that the proposed text
amendment will allow and promote better site design, encourage
small, family-oriented affordable housing, promote housing
proposals that reflect surrounding neighborhood characteristics and'
will be consistent with the public welfare and the purposes .and
intent of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code.
NOW TBSRSBORB 88 IT ORDAINED BY THB CITY CODNCIL OF THE CITY 08
ABPBN COLORADO:
Section is
Pursuant to section 24-7-1102 of the Municipal Code, the City
Council finds as follows in regard to the text amendment:
1. The proposed text amendments as set forth are not in conflict
with the provisions of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code or the
Aspen Area Community Plan.
2. The proposed text amendments will not adversely impact traffic
generation or road safety when taken into consideration with
the other aspects of the Municipal Code.
3. The proposed text amendment will promote the public interest
and character of the City of Aspen.
~:
2
8eCt1031 2'
Section 5-206.2 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the City of
Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended, which new text shall read as
follows:
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as
of right in the Affordable Housinq (AH) zone district.
1. Residential uses restricted to the
affordable housing income and category
guidelines, as defined by the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and
adopted, by Council in effect at the time
of approval, and resident occupied units,
as defined by the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority and adopted by Council
in effect at the time of approval, must
comprise at least seventy (70) percent of
the unit mix, of the development. Free
market development may comprise up to
thirty (30) percent of the unit mix, and
forty (40) percent of the bedroom mix of
the development. Residential uses may be
comprised of single-family, duplex and
multi-family dwelling units;
The following changes are proposed for Section 24-5-206.2 D.:
D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional
requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional
uses in the Affordable Housing (AH) zone district.
1. Minimum lot size (square feet) on a lot of 27,000
square feet or less: 1,500
2. Minimum iot size (square feet) on a lot greater than
27,000 square feet: 3,000
3. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet):
Detached and duplex residential
dwelling on a lot of 27,000 square
feet or less: 1,500
Detached and duplex residential dwelling on a
lot greater than 27,000 square feet:
Detached residential dwelling: 3,000
Duplex: 1,500
3
Bastion 3s
This Ordinance shall not effect 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.
seatioa ~:
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 5s
public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on they-S day of
1994 at 5:00 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City
all, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) 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.
IMTRODiJCED, SEED AMD ORDERED YIIBLISSED as provided by law,
(.~~ b.~~y~t~he~jCity Council of the City of Aspen on the o~' day of
li ~l~r 1994.
John Bennett, Mayor
ea /
Kathryn Koah, C ty Clerk
/1_ FINELLY, adopted, passed and approved this =?S day of
1994. ~7
7
John B matt, Mayor
Ett is
Kathryn Koch, Citp Clerk
' ~ 4
a79E~aw a-7~~s r-'-~~__;_ ~a,:,i~a9i9s V7C:~r?,~- r-~c i nr- :ii REC noc
SILVIFt PRVIS F'ITF'.IN COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER 55.~nm
ORDINANCE NO. joZ
(SERIES OF 1994)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN GRANTING FINAL REVIEW
FOR SUBDIVISION, PUD, GMQS EXEMPTION,
AND VESTED RIGHTS FOR THE AILLIAMS RANCH PROJECT TO CONSTRUCT
35 DEED RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AND
15 FREE MARKET LOT ON A PARCEL LOCATED IN SECTION 7,
TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST OF THE 6TH PM
WHEREAS, the Smuggler Consolidated Mines Corporation
("Applicant"), represented by Tom Stevens and Gary Wright,
submitted an application to the Planning Office requesting approval
of the Williams Ranch development which consists of 35 deed
restricted affordable housing units, 15 free market lots, Planned
Unit Development, Subdivision, Rezoning, GMQS Exemption,
Annexation, 8040 Greenline Review, and Special Review; and
WHEREAS, the Williams Ranch property is located immediately
adjacent to the City of Aspen in the AF-1 zone district of Pitkin
County; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant did file on December 12, 1991 with the
City Clerk of the City of Aspen a Petition for Annexation to annex
the subject property to the City of Aspen, and
WHEREAS, on January 13, 1992, City Council did adopt
Resolution No. 4, Series of 1992, finding substantial compliance
with Section 31-12-107(1), C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution No. 12, Series of
1992, at its regular meeting on March 23, 1994, did find and
determine, following a public hearing, said Petition for Annexation
to be in substantial compliance with ^31-12-104 and 31-12-105,
C.R.S, and
f
379604 A-775 P-823 03/09/95 0^c:03P PG ^c OF 11
. WHEREAS, the Applicant and the City of Aspen have consented
to that certain Annexation Agreement dated _, 1994; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered the
Applicant's request at a public hearing on September 13, 1994, at
which time the Commission recommended approval to City Council for
the Subdivision, Rezoning, PUD, GMQS Exemption, and Annexation.
The Commission also granted 8040 Greenline review and Special
Review for parking and open space, subject to conditions in
Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 94- ; and
WHEREAS, the Commission voted 4-0 to recommend approval of
this project to City Council; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-7-1004 Subdivision, Section
24-7-901 Planned Unit Development, and Section 24-8-104 GMQS
Exemption, City Council may approve the Applicant's request; and
WHEREAS, City Council considered the Applicant's request at
a duly noticed public hearing on November 14, 1994 at which time
Council determined that this project complies with the applicable
requirements of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, City Council has found that a multi-year development
allotment for one free market unit pursuant to Section 24-8-103 (D)
is appropriate to accommodate this project; and
WHEREAS, the approvals granted herein are specifically
conditioned upon City Council approval of said Petition for
Annexation by Ordinance duly adopted.
NOR, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
2
::79624 E~-7%S P-Ar".'4 23/29/95 2ce2sF~ F~6 :, [JF it
` Section 1: Pursuant to Section 24-7-1004 Subdivision, Section 24-
7-901 Planned Unit Development, and Section 24-8-104 GMQS
Exemption, City Council does hereby approve the applicant's request
subject to the terms and conditions of said Annexation Agreement
and upon adoption by the City Council of an Annexation ordinance
annexing the subject property to the City of Aspen; and subject
further to the following conditions:
1. The Zoning Enforcement Officer has recommended the following
conditions of approval that shall be adhered to by the
applicant:
a. Building envelopes on the free market lots shall contain
all development and disturbance proposed for those lots.
Natural vegetation shall be maintained outside the
designated building envelopes. This condition shall be
noted on the Final Plat.
b. No development shall be permitted to encroach into any
easement areas identified on the Final Plat. This
condition shall be noted on the Final Plat.
c. Prior to the development of each lot, a separate
topographical and boundary survey with corner monuments
shall be prepared by a registered land surveyor and
submitted with the building permit.
d. The free market units shall provide one parking space
per bedroom.
e. Allowed floor area square footages shall be based on the
lot areas identified on the Final Plat.
f. Pitkin County's definition for calculating height and
determining natural grade shall be used far this project.
g. Lots 3 - 15 have received a PUD variance for the front
yard that addresses the requirement of Section 24-3-101
Yard (A){5), which permits driveways or cut slabs greater
than 30 inches below grade within the required yards.
h. All heights and FAR calculations shall be verified when
3
379604 B-775 P-825 ~3/m9/95 02:03P PG 4 OF it
working drawings are submitted to the Building Department
for building permit review. The drawings included in the
application packet do not contain adequate detail for
this level of review.
2. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions
regarding pedestrian areas:
a. The Final Plat shall identify pedestrian easements on all
lots that are adjacent to roads.
b. Hard surface pedestrian walking areas shall be placed on
one side of all roads within the subdivision and along
one side of the main access road across Mollie Gibson
park to Smuggler Mountain Road.
c. All hard surface pedestrian walking areas shall be
maintained in a suitable walking condition on a year
round basis.
d. The Covenants and approvals shall specify whether the
Homeowner's Associations or individual property owners
are responsible for snow removal and maintenance of these
walkways.
3. The applicant shall complete an ACSD Collection System
agreement, and shall comply with ACSD Rules, Regulations, and
Spec ifications, prior to the issuance of any building permits.
4. The following conditions of approval from the Environmental
Heal th Department, shall be adhered to by the applicant:
a. The applicant shall adhere to the fugitive dust control
plan filed in the Environmental Health Department.
b. The applicant shall file a fireplace/woodstove permit for
each structure with the Environmental Health Department,
prior to the issuance of any building permits.
c. Construction hours shall be limited to 7:OOam to 10:0opm
to minimize construction noise on neighboring properties.
5. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions as
they relate to the Housing Office:
a. The applicant may choose the first time purchasers of the
affordable housing units, as long as each purchaser
complies with the Aspen/Pitkin County.Housinq Guidelines
and each purchaser has been approved by the APCHA.
b: All resale affordable housing units shall come under the
jurisdiction of the APCHA and its guidelines.
4
37960aF H-775 P-8..'6 H?,{H9/95 +Z~c:H~F~ PG 5
GF 1z
c. The Master Deed Restriction shall be filed and approved
lay the Housing Office within 180 days of City Council
approval of the project.
d. Ten of the Resident Occupied "RO" units shall comply with
the RO requirement for the City of Aspen in the 1994
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office 1994 Affordable
Housing Guidelines. The remaining five RO units shall
meet all the requirements of the Housing Guidelines,
except there will be no asset or income limitations for
these residents.
6. The turnaround at the intersection of Freesilver Road and
Williams Ranch Drive shall be redesigned subject to approval
of the City Engineer and the Fire Chief. Alternately, the
applicant shall install residential sprinkler systems in all
residential units.
7. Lots 1 - Z5 shall have a residential sprinkler system
installed and these shall be indicated on the building permit
drawings.
8. Development on Lot 15 is limited to eighteen feet in height
(plus five feet to the mid-point), as calculated by Pitkin
County's Land Use Code. All other lots are subject to the 25
foot height limitation of the City of Aspen, and are
calculated using Pitkin County's definition for height.
9. The water pump serving the upper lots shall have adequate
records of pump maintenance and servicing available for
inspection by the Fire Marshall.
10. The emergency access road shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide
and maintained in a passable condition on a year round basis..
The improvements agreement, declarations, and covenants shall
specify that snow removal will be provided by the Homeowner's
Associations for the emergency access road.
11. The allowable floor area for the free market parcels shall not
exceed 90e of what is permitted in the AH zone district. If
the proposed floor area for any free market parcel is over 80%
of the permitted floor area for the AH zone district, then a
complete 8040 Greenline Review by the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall be required prior to the issuance of any
building permits for that lot. In the 8040 Greenline Review
process, particular attention shall be focussed 'on
requirements 7 and 8, which provide for the preservation of
the mountain as a scenic resource and design to blend into the
open character of the mountain.
12. Lots 1 - 15 shall have an engineer evaluate the site
5
374604 8-775 G-8c7 03/04/45 02:@3P G'G 6 I]F 11
conditions to recommend foundation design, prior to building
permit review on each parcel.
13. A licensed engineer shall submit a report addressing the
foundation design for the affordable housing units, prior to
the issuance of any building permits.
14. As discussed in the referral comments dated August 24, 1994
from the Engineering Department, the applicant shall comply
with the following:
a. The free market units shall be required to provide for
on-site stormwater detention, prior to the issuance of
any building permits.
b. Soil erosion controls and the debris interceptor shall
be indicated on the Final Plat drawings. Construction
drawings for each phase of work shall be designed by a
licensed engineer and indicate appropriate runoff control
measures. The plans shall be submitted and approved by
the Engineering Department, prior to any earthmovinq
activities.
c. The applicant shall dedicate public right-of-way or an
easement for Spruce Street along the north property
boundary on Lots 1 - 4 and provide a seven foot easement
for snow storage along these lots.
d. All access roads shall be a minimum of 20 foot driving
width. This also applies to the "driveway" called
Williams Court.
e. The "grass over paver blocks" or similar system for the
emergency access lane off Spruce Street shall be designed
and engineered to handle emergency response vehicle
loads. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Fire Marshall, prior to the issuance of any building
permits.
f. The applicant shall submit construction drawings and
specifications, stamped by a registered engineer, and
obtain written permission from Engineering prior to any
road work, utility construction, or grading/drainage
construction.
g. Prior to signing the Final Plat, the applicant shall
submit a letter by a registered engineer stating that the
road designs meet the requirements of Section 24-7-
1004(C)(4)(a)(10) and (13).
h. The Final Plat shall indicate a 20 mph speed limit signs
to be installed by the applicant as identified in the
6
37960ir P-775 F'-8~8 ~?,/~i9/95 4~2:~3F' F'G 7 OF li
Traffic Report.
i. In addition to the required 100 foot diameter turnaround
for the intersection of Freesilver Road and Williams
Ranch Drive, a seven foot buffer shall be designed
outside this turnaround that will be for drainage, snow
storage space plus a five foot pedestrian path. This
shall be identified on the Final Plat,
j. An easement for the snow storage areas within the
development shall be indicated on the Final Plat.
k. The applicant shall provide three single globe antique
street lights for this project, one at the intersection
of Williams Drive and Teal Court, one at the
intersection/turnaround of Williams Ranch Drive and
Freesilver Road, and one at the intersection of Williams
Ranch Drive and Freesilver Road. Intermediate, low level
street lighting shall be provided between intersections.
Design, style and location of these lights shall be
approved by the City Engineer.
1. All utilities, except natural gas, shall be stubbed out
to the property lines prior to paving the access roads.
m. Any property monuments removed or disturbed during
construction (including landscaping) shall be reset by
' a land surveyor.
n. Prior to Final Plat approval, property corner monuments
shall be set on the external boundaries of the
subdivision.
o. The Final Plat and subdivision agreement shall include
a note specifying that trash storage and recycle areas
will be located on private property and not within access
and utility easements.
p. The Final Plat must meet the requirements of Section 24-
7-1004(D) of the Municipal Code. The Plat shall also
include certificates of plat approval for utility
location and easement width by all utility companies and
approval by all easement holders on the property.
q. The "Final Plat" will consist of all boundary,
certificate, site, engineering, and architectural
drawings approved by the City. A11 sheets containing
engineered drawings must be stamped by a registered
engineer.
r. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement
districts which may be formed for the purpose of
7
374604 8-775 p-8c9 03/09/95 O2:O3p RG 8 OF 11
-. - --_ --
constructing improvements in the adjacent Smuggler area
public rights-of-way.
s. The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080)
for design considerations of development within public
rights-of-way, parks department (920-5120) for vegetation
species, and shall obtain permits for any work or
development, including landscaping, within public rights-
of-way from the city street department (920-5130).
t. Guest parking areas shall be delineated on the Final Plat
and all pull in parking spaces shall be redesigned to
comply with the requirements of the Municipal Code.
15. No accessory dwelling units are permitted to be constructed
in any of the Williams Ranch residences.
16. As stated in the Parks Department referral comments dated
September 7, 1994, the applicant shall comply .with the
following:
a. The applicant shall obtain an easement from the ditch
owners for the proposed trail along Salvation Ditch.
Specific information regarding trail standards and
materials shall be included in the application. The
applicant should dedicate this as a public easement.
b. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the
applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan that
identifies trees six inches in diameter and over.
Landscaping in any right-of-way should also be included
on the landscape plan. The Parks Department will review
and approve the final landscape plan to be recorded with
the Final Plat documents.
c. The applicant shall comply with Ordinance 37 Series of
1991 as it relates to irrigation methods.
17. The applicant shall pay the $157,360 park development impact
fee prior to the issuance of any building permits, unless the
applicant provides a cost breakdown of the park improvements
as specified Section 24-5-608.
18. The Final Plans shall indicate a small ditch water feature
along the Salvation Ditch alignment to maintain the historic
character of this area.
19. The applicant shall provide a Final Plat and Subdivision
Improvement Agreement, satisfactory to the City Attorney,
Engineer and Planning Office, detailing the costs of all
proposed public improvements within 180 days of City Council
review. The guarantee of these improvements shall be in place
_" 8
3796~b4 B-775 ~'-B„7 O3/V.~9/95 O2:k3P F'G 9 OF 11
before the issuance of any building permits. All public
improvements shall be completed, in place and accepted by the
appropriate agency before issuance of any Certificate of
Occupancy's.
20. The applicant shall explore restricting residential
development on the remaining 30 acres in Pitkin County, with
the exception of a night watchman's quarters, not to exceed
1,500 square feet in floor area.
21. The City Engineer shall pursue a text amendment to allow
variations of subdivision design standards as set forth in
Section 24-7-1004(C)(4) of the Aspen Municipal Code.
22. Only Lot 5 shall have access via Spruce Street.
23. Prior to the- commencement of any construction activities on
this property, the applicant shall receive final Annexation
and Rezoning approvals from the City of Aspen.
24. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations made by
Bruce Collins in his geologic report dated January 19, 1994.
25. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and public meetings shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended
by other conditions.
26. The applicant shall grant a Public Recreation Easement to the
City of Aspen for the open space parcel adjacent to Salvation
Ditch.
27. The applicant agrees not to seek any variances to the 25-foot
height limit for structures, as based upon the Pitkin County
regulation pertaining to the measurement of building heights.
Section 2: Pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, City Council does hereby grant the Applicant vested rights
for the Williams Ranch Subdivision site development plan as
follows:
1. The rights granted by the site specific development plan
approved by this Ordinance shall remain vested for three ,(3)
years from the date of final adoption specified below.
However, any failure to abide by the terms and conditions
attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said
9
379604 R-775 G-832 03/09/95 O2:03G F'G 20 OF 22
vested property rights. Failure to timely and properly record
all plats and agreements as specified herein or in the
Municipal Code shall also result in the forfeiture of said
vested rights.
2. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of
referendum and judicial review.
3. Nothing in the approvals provided by this Ordinance shall
exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent
reviews and/or approvals required by this Ordinance or the
general rules, regulations or ordinances of the City provided
that such reviews or approvals are not inconsistent with the
approval granted and vested herein.
4. The establishment herein of a vested property right shall not
preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which
are general in nature and are applicable to all properties
subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen, including
but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and
mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site
development approval, the developer shall abide by any and all
such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical
codes, unless, an exemption therefrom is granted in writing.
Section 3: The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to
be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City
of Aspen, no later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption
hereof. Such notice shall be given in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval
of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a
vested property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68,
Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following
described property:-
The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said
notice.
Section 4: This ordinance shall not become effective unless and
until the City Council approves the Petition for Annexation by duly
enacted ordinance annexing the subject property to the City of
10
379604 Z-775 F'-8~.'P 03/09/9:3 0~:03F~ PG 11 OF 11
Aspen.
Section 5: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the
day of , 1994 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council
Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. Fifteen (15) days
prior to the hearing a public notice of the hearing shall be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of
Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PIIBLISHED as provided by Ala"we, by
the City Council of the City of Aspen on the ~ day of ~euiw~c,~_
1994. •~~
~ ~~
Joh Bennett, Mayor
` ATTEST: '
` ~' A .~.. ~'':~
`~~/_ ,~ FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this -°e~~F day of
/J~F~ , 19 9 4 .
C~
John~'ennett, Mayor
~`
g oE~1.cc.ah.vT~ranch.£iaal
<ry('a•ft•~p0
~~ 11
~~8~ z
APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
Appellant: Homeowners from Williams Ranch Subdivision
Date: Monday, i8 August 2008
Appeal from: Administrative Decision re: Dimensional Requirements, etc.
Contact Information:
Gary and Jena Wright
zoo SilverLode Drive
Aspen, Colorado
Mailing address:
7i5 West Main Street, Suite 2oi
Aspen, Colorado 8i6u
Telephone: 925-5625
Facsimile: 925-5663
APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
Appellant: Homeowners from Williams Ranch Subdivision
Date: Monday, i8 August zoo8
Appeal from: Administrative Decision re: Dimensional Requirements, etc.
The Williams Ranch homeowners involved with this project wish to thank Jennifer and
Chris for the time and hard work they did on ascertaining applicable zoning and building
requirements for Williams Ranch.
Introduction:
Williams Ranch and Silverl.ode subdivisions were the result of more than five years of
planning and reviews with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Department of
Justice, the State Mine Land Reclamation Division (as it was called then), Pitkin County, and
the City of Aspen.
Williams Ranch was, beginning in 1989, one of the first projects developed under the
then new AH Zone concept. After getting approximately thirteen acres of the Superfund
Operable Unit 2 Study Area determined to be free from heavy metals and particularly lead, by
the EPA and the Department of Justice, the developer entered into a consent decree with the
United States. Thereafter, the developer sought and obtained a subdivision from Pitkin County
and annexed those thirteen acres into the City of Aspen with the zoning of AH.
After going through numerous planning meetings as well as conceptual approval from
City Planning & Zoning and City Counsel, and then detailed submission and final review
approval, again with Planning & Zoning and City Counsel, the developer was granted approval
for i5 free market lots, subject to constructing thirty-five deed restricted homes. No cash
subsidies were provided and, in addition to building the thirty-five homes, the developer also
built the Molly Gibson Park.
In the late t98os and early t99os, the concept of an AH (affordable housing) zone
district was a relatively new one. The PUD evidenced by Ordinance No. 59 (Series 1989) and
Ordinance No. 52 (Series of 1994) and the underlying requirements were specifically designed
for and tailored to this project. Here, this project's topography, number of units, and the site
plan that identified both deed restricted and free market lots were the result of many hours of
work and collaboration among City staff, APCHA staff, hopeful local homeowners, the
contractor and the developer.
Page t of 4
Appeal of Administrative Decision
Appellant: Homeowners from Williams Ranch Subdivision
Date: Monday, 18 August zoo8
Additionally, this project was one of the first to have both what was then called a
Category 5 that had at that particular time higher income and asset allowances and the
experiment of five lots that were called RO that had no asset or income limitations, but did have
the requirement that the owners be full-time employees in Pitkin County.
Dimensional requirements for all thirty-five deed restricted homes are specified in
Ordinance No. 59 (Series 1989) and set out in Exhibit A to this Appeal, which exhibit was
prepared by Ms. Phelan and marked "draft 6/t~/o8." Note that Exhibit A was prepared with
the benefit of the plans for building permits issued for the construction of the homes as
maintained by the City of Aspen.
Issues on Appeal:
There are two issues with the interpretation of the applicable limitations on the size of
additions to the existing homes as set forth in the Administrative Decision.
i. Floor area allowed by the Ordinance No. g9, Series 1989 should not be
subject to slope reduction.
z. Exempt floor area allowed by the PUD should not be reduced.
Discussion:
t. The floor area allowed by the P.U.D. should not be subiect to Slone reduction.
Imposition of Slope Reduction. The homeowners believe that because the dimensional
requirements and floor areas were specifically planned for the Williams Ranch deed restricted
homes, and Staff, P&Z and City Counsel all considered the topography of the site in establishing
the standards set forth in Ordinance No. 59 (Series 1989), those dimensional requirements should
not be reduced by any slope reduction formula.
Page 2 of 4
Appeal of Administrative Decision
Appellant: Homeowners from Williams Ranch Subdivision
Date: Monday, r8 August 2008
Slope reduction serves to reduce development and increase development costs. Here,
development will be effectively limited by the current expense of construction and the ten
percent (10%) limitation for expenses that can be added onto the maximum resale price. Having
to provide a slope reduction survey and slope reduction calculation is also an unduly burdensome
expense for a deed restricted home. Also, with the ten percent (10%) limitation on expenses for
approved improvements that can be recovered on resale as enforced by the APCHA, the amount
that can be spent and recovered will serve to minimize additional development.
Development in the form of small additions to the deed restricted homes at Williams
Ranch will ultimately benefit future homeowners. Today, the deed restricted homes at Williams
Ranch are very popular because of the combination of their proximity to town and to public
transportation, in addition to the purchase cost for the size and amenities of the homes.. Compare
for example to North Forty where several home resale prices have exceed $1,000,000.
2. The exempt floor area allowed by the P.U.D. should not be reduced.
The homes that have garages were designed with a five hundred (Soo) square foot
exemption from the square footage that counts against the overall allowance. The homeowners
believe that this size exemption should be allowed to continue. The as-built garages from the
original construction were allowed to be five hundred (Soo) square feet without counting
against maximum allowable size. The reviewing City Counsel and P&Z were of the opinion that
additional garage size was a good idea to allow for storage and to keep boats, bicycles,
motorcycles, etc. from ending in the front or back yards, etc.
~. Summary.
The PUD for the deed restricted homes constructed at Williams Ranch went through a
four-step process of conceptual review by P&Z and City Counsel, and detailed and final
submission, again by P&Z and City Counsel. Staff provided input throughout the multi-year
process. The PUD was carefully reviewed and considered topography, siting, architectural style,
size, location of homes, mixture of Cat 2 through RO, just to mention a few of the relevant
criteria that support maintaining the PUD dimensional requirements and square footage
exemptions established by Ordinance No. 59 (Series 1989).
Page 3 of 4
Appeal of Administrative Decision
Appellant: Homeowners from Williams Ranch Subdivision
Date: Monday, i8 August 2008
Relief Requested:
The homeowner appellants from Williams Ranch request that City Counsel grant this
appeal by modifying the Administrative Decision to maintain the dimensional requirements set
forth in Ordinance No. 59 (Series of 1989), establish that such requirements are not limited by
any vested rights limitation and are not subject to slope reduction. Additionally the
homeowners request that up to five hundred (500) square feet of garage space shall continue to
not count against allowed dimensional limitations.
The homeowners suggest that City Council codify the granting of this appeal by
authorizing the recording of Exhibit A as setting the dimensional requirements for Williams
Ranch.
Contact Information:
Gary and Jena Wright
715 West Main Street, Suite 2oi
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Telephone: 925-5625
Facsimile: 925-5663
Page 4 of 4
DDRESS
OT NO.
OT SIZE
(SQ. FT.)
BLD.
PERMIT
MAX
FLOOR
AREA FIOOR
AREA
BASED
ON ORD.
NO 59
(1989)'
BLD.
PERMIT
USED
FLOOR
AREA
340 SILVERLODE DR 1 5,732 6305.20 3164.96 2340.50
320 SILVERLODE DR 2 5,766 3174.48 3174.48 2122.02
149 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 3 4,311 2767.08 2767.08 2035.31
300 SILVERLODE DR 4 6,029 3248.12 3244.06 2294.75
137 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 5 4,551 2834.28 2834.28 2250.26
280 SILVERLODE DR 6 7,896 3770.88 3505.44 2444.29
115 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 7 5,064 2977.92 2977.92 2035.31
101 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 8 6,058 3256.24 3248.12 2238.60
87 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 9 6,455 3583.00 3583.7 2490.72
260 SILVERLODE DR 10 6,768 3455.04 3347.52 2613.57
240 SILVERLODE DR 11 8,392 3909.76 3574.88 2681.98
220 SILVERLODE DR 12 5,347 3057.16 3057.16 2024.09
420 SILVERLODE DR 13 6,422 ? 3299.08 ?
410 SILVERLODE DR 14 6,504 3381.12 3310.56 ?
400 SILVERLODE DR 15 6,691 3433.48 3336.74 ?
390SILVERLODEDR 16 3,293 ? 2482.04 ?'
380 SILVERLODE DR 17 3,001 7 2400.28 7
370 SILVERLODE DR 18 3,849 2637.72 2637.72 ?
360 SILVERLODE DR 19 3,626 2575.28 2575.28 7
160 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 20 3,040 2411.20 2411.2 1028.72
150 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 21 3,022 2406 2406.16 756
140 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 22 5,377 2637.72 3065.56 1184.11
130 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 23 3,229 2464.10 2464.12 917.59
120 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 24 3,086 2424.08 2424.06 1103.00
110 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 25 3,007 2401.96 2401.96 708.73
100 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 26 4,909 2934.52 2934.52 1138.14
80 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 27 6,549 3316.00 3316.86 1409.84
70 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 28 3,293 2428.00 2482.04 906.83
60 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 29 5,795 3182.60 3182.6 1925.19
50 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 30 3,778 2617.00 2617.84 657.36
40 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 31 4,116 2712.00 2712.48 917.69
27 WILLIAMS RANCH CT 32 8,107 3829.96 3534.98 980.32
23 WILLIAMS RANCH CT 33 4,577 2807.40 2841.56 889.73
15 WILLIAMS RANCH CT 34 4,985 2955.00 2955.8 884.00
11 WILLIAMS RANCH CT 35 5 125 2995.00 2995 1144.00
Notes: 'Slope Reduction is not accounted for in this calculation
^a~a~~.
nhZ-~, ~I- ~rcw.
p~ ~
u~~
-~cr' a~r~l~`o ~a
CSUv~c~ ~ti~~~
/v~'~N . l•~ W'~dl~'ln
W/
/V~InI. Frn~'C Y~
{~~ ~
M~n1. ~'~c~c=Y~
~'/ S
M i n1. QTY' `~+~D
~'
nnk~ ~~~~
a~~~~~~~
EXHIBIT
a
e
~~T- ~
Chapter 26.316
APPEALS
Sections:
26.316.010 Appeals, purpose statement.
26.316.020 Authority.
26.316.030 Appeal procedures.
26.316.010 Appeals, purpose statement.
The purpose of this Chapter is to establish the authority of the Board of Adjustment, Growth
Management Commission, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and City Council to heaz and decide
certain appeals and to set forth the procedures for said appeals. (Ord. No. 17-2002 § 2 (part), 2002)
26.316.020 Authority.
A. Board of Adjustment The Board of Adjustment shall have the authority to heaz and decide the
following appeals:
1. The denial of a vaziance pursuant to Chapter 26.314 by the Planning and Zoning Commission
or Historic Preservation Commission.
B. City CounciG The City Council shall have the authority to hear and decide the following appeals:
An interpretation to the text of this title or the boundazies of the zone district map by the
Community Development Director in accordance with Chapter 26.306. An appeal ofthis nature
shall be a public meeting.
2. Any action by the Historic Preservation Commission in approving, approving with conditions,
or disapproving a development application for development in an "H,", Historic Overlay
District pursuant to Chapter 26.415. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting.
3. The scoring determination of the Community Development Director pursuant to Chapter
26.470. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting.
4. The allocation of Growth Management Allotments by the Planning and Zoning Commission
pursuant to Chapter 26.470. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting.
5. Any other appeal for which specific authority is not granted to another boazd or commission as
established by this title. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting.
C. Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall have the
authority to heaz and decide an appeal from an adverse determination by the Community Development
Director on an application for exemption pursuant to the growth management quota system in
accordance with Section 26.470.060(D).
City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007.
Part 300, Page 35