HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20090323CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
March 23, 2009
5:00 P.M.
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Scheduled Public Appearances
a) Proclamation -Shining Stars
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) Main Street Light Pole Banner Request -Aspen Institute/Aspen Music Festival
b) Appointment Election Commission Members
c) Resolution #17, 2009 -Contract Capital Project Planning Software
d) Resolution #18, 2009 -Support of Film Commission
e) Minutes -March 9, 2009
VII. First Reading of Ordinances
a) Ordinance #8, 2009 -Jewish Community Center at Silver Lining Ranch SPA
Amendment P.H. 4/27
VIII. Public Hearings
a) Ordinance #5, 2009 -SPA Amendment Pitkin County Jail
b) Ordinance #6, 2009 -Growth Management Aspen Ambulance District
IX. Action Items
X. Executive Session
XI. Adjournment
Next Regular Meeting April 13, 2009
COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M.
Vla
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
DATE: March 16, 2009
RE: Request to Use Main Street Light Poles -Aspen Music Festival & School
and Aspen Institute
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The Aspen Music Festival & School and the Aspen
Institute request approval to place their banners on lamp posts along Main Street longer
than the allowed 28 (14 plus 14) days this summer; the banners would be up June 25 to
August 23`d. See attached letter from the AMFS and Institute. This is one banner to
celebrate both organizations anniversary.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Banners are allowed on the Main Street Light
Poles for significant anniversaries up to 14 days. Council directed staff to amend the sign
code to address banners on Main Street light poles. The sign code amendment is being
worked on but will not be in front of Council before this summer season.
DISCUSSION: This summer is the 60`n anniversary for both the Aspen Music Festival
and School and the Aspen Institute. Both institutions have applied to have joint
anniversary banners on Main Street light poles, 14 days for the Music Festival and 14
days for the Institute, a total of 28 days. This is a significant anniversary, which does not
need Council approval. However, the AMFS and Institute have requested an extension to
allow the banners to be up for the length of their summer programs, until August 23,
which does request Council approval.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends allowing banners celebrating the 60`n
anniversary of the Music Festival and the Institute to be on the Main Street light poles
from June 25 through August 23`d. We can think of no other organizations that would be
requesting banner space during that time.
ALTERNATIVES: If Council denies this request for extended time to have banner on
light posts along Main Street, they will still be able to put banners on the light poles for
the allowed 14 plus 14 (28) days
PROPOSED MOTION: By approving the consent calendar, Council is approving
banners on light posts along Main street celebrating the 60`n anniversary of Aspen Music
Festival and School and the Aspen Institute from June 25`n to August 23`d
THE ASPEI~1 TNSTITL~TE
September 30, 2008
To the members of the Aspen City Council:
We are writing to request approval for the Aspen Music Festival and School and the Aspen
Institute to hang banners on the light poles in Aspen's commercial core next summer,
commemorating our twin organizations' sixtieth anniversaries. This notable year will feature
programming that revisits and revitalizes the ideals of Walter and Elizabeth Paepcke, who
launched the Festival and the Institute at the 1949 Goethe Bicentennial Convocation. We are
looking at wording along the lines of "Celebrating 60 years of art and ideas in Aspen."
The Aspen Music Festival and School has long been the cornerstone of Aspen's summer
economy, as well as a vital community partner~ffering more than 400 events (sixty-five
percent of which are free). Offerings include free events for children, free lawn seating, free
music in local schools, and popular discount passes for locals and others. Each summer there are
100,000 concert-visits and about half of all summer visitors to Aspen attend the AMFS.
The Aspen Institute's mission is twofold: to foster values-based leadership, encouraging
individuals to reflect on the ideals and ideas that define a good society, and to provide a neutral
and balanced venue for discussing and acting on critical issues. In 2004 a strategic decision was
made to focus future growth in public programs and leadership initiatives to increase its reach,
bring in new participants and supporters, and integrate a disparate set of programs.
Just as the Paepckes explored the ideals of art, intellect, and humanitarianism at the original
Goethe Bicentennial, the 2009 AMFS and AI seasons will do the same. Musical works of
thanksgiving, dedication, and offering will outline the music program, along with a focus on
Beethoven and works celebrating Goethe. Jointly, the Festival and Institute will revive the Aspen
Gold Medal in the Humanities (our intention is to offer it to Jose Antonio Abreu, founder of El
Sistema in Venezuela, a social welfare program that uses music to keep underprivileged children
away from crime and delinquency) and the Albert Schweitzer Prize (awarded with the
international Albert Schweitzer Fellowship to Yo-Yo Ma, for his work on the Silk Road Project).
As we seek to continue bringing everyone into this exploration, we would like to do all that we
can to inform Aspen's visitors and locals alike about our missions. This anniversary is also a
good opportunity to spotlight the cultural and intellectual aspect of Aspen that sets it apart from
other ski towns. A heightened presence within the town's commercial core is an ideal way to do
these things. Many thanks for considering our request.
Alan Fletcher Amy Margerum
Aspen Music Festival and School Aspen Institute
THE ~,SPEN IN5`TITI.JTE
March 4, 2009
To the members of the Aspen City Council:
We at the Aspen Music Festival and School and Aspen Institute would like to thank you for
approving our request to hang banners on light poles in Aspen's commercial core next summer
to commemorate the sixtieth anniversary of the 1949 Goethe Bicentennial Convocation, which
then launched the Festival and the Institute.
Our banners have been approved to hang 28 days, and we are requesting an extension to run the
length of the Music Festival's season and most of the Institute's events -June 25-August 23.
Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to hearing from you.
Regards,
,,%~v'""'~ ' /./mil
l l//l/_j/~ ~ `~l
Alan Fletcher Amy Ma rum
Aspen Music Festival and School Aspen Institute
v~b
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
RE: Appointment of Election Commission
DATE: March 16, 2009
The Charter requires an election commission be appointed by Council in the first
July following a regular city election. The city's election commission was not appointed
after the last regular election (2007). I feel it is important to have an election commission
appointed for this spring election. I contacted the head of the Republican and Democratic
party for nominations suggestions. The city's elections are non-partisan and traditionally
I have requested Council to appoint a Republican and a Democrat. The persons listed
below were nominated or suggested by their parties and both have agreed to serve on the
Election Commission
Elizabeth Milias -Republican
Christopher Bryan -Democrat
I have included the duties of the Election Commission from the Aspen Home
Rule Charter.
Section 2.4. Election commission.
An election commission is hereby created, consisting of the city clerk and two (2)
qualified and registered electors of the city, who during their term of office shall not be
city officers or employees or candidates or nominees for elective city office. These two
(2) members shall be appointed by the council in the first July following a regulaz city
election for a term of two (2) years, and shall serve without compensation. The city clerk
shall be chairman. The election commission shall have chazge of all activities and duties
required of it by statute and this Charter relating to the conduct of elections in the city. In
any case where election procedure is in doubt, the election commission shall prescribe the
procedure to be followed.
The commission shall provide procedures to establish proof of residency
qualification where residency is in question. Upon a showing for good cause, the
commission may require proof of residency by any person registered to vote or
attempting to register to vote in the City of Aspen. Said person shall not be qualified to
vote in any municipal election until the commission is satisfied that he has presented
sufficient proof of residency as required by law or by ordinance adopted pursuant to this
Charter.
The election commission shall provide for ballots and sample ballots or voting
machines, for determination of the winner in the event of a tie vote, for canvass of
returns, and for issuance of appropriate certificates.
V{G
TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ASHLEY ERNEMANN, ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR
THRU: DON TAYLOR, FINANCE DIRECTOR
STEVE BARWICK, CITY MANAGER
DATE: MARCH 13, 2009
RE: CONTRACT FOR CAPITAL PROJECT PLANNING SOFTWARE
Request of Council:
Staff is requesting the authorization from Council to purchase and implement Capital Project Planning
Software and approval from Council for the Purchase Agreement with Keenology Corporation d/b/a
CIPPlanner Corporation. Please refer to attachment "A" for agreement. The Purchase Agreement has
been approved as to form by the City Attorney.
Previous Council Action:
Council has not previously reviewed the Capital Project Planning Software. However, the audits of
Burlingame recommended a better mechanism for tracking complex, multi-year capital projects. The
use of an integrated project management software program is a core component of the recommended
improvements.
Background:
As part of the City's on-going effort to improve services and reduce operating costs, staff has been
examining the possible implementation of a Capital Project Planning Software to manage capital
projects. The work product for this professional services contract will be an installed software package
that will allow users in various departments to track and manage capital projects and perform analysis. This
system will help manage the City's capital projects and ensure the efficient use of public funds.
Capital projects have been averaging $20 million a year and the City produces aten-year asset
management plan every budget process. The current ten-year capital plan includes over $125 million of
capital projects. Capital projects for the City can be large in scale and scope and take multiple years to
complete. Currently these projects are being managed with a variety of tools, without consistency
across Department or Fund. The City would like to have a single source for managing capital projects
that allows for centralized data collection and consistency in the quality of financial control. An
institutionalized and systematic process would also allow for data and knowledge retention and transfer
beyond a project cycle or a particular individual.
In January 2009, The Finance Department issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to provide for a capital
project management software system. The City received proposals from twelve software vendors.
Finance reviewed the proposals and selected the three most responsive vendors. A review committee
comprised of employees from Finance, IT, Engineering, Housing, Asset Management, Parks and Utilities
evaluated the three software packages. The review process included demonstrations from the three
vendors and well as interviews with references. A number of software features were evaluated,
including but not limited to, general system configuration, financial system interface capabilities,
reporting functions and project management. The evaluation established CIPPlanner as the
recommended software provider, as they presented the most comprehensive capital project
management software package.
CIPPlanner is a member of the American Public Works Association (APWA) National and Local Chapters
and based on APWA Management Practices, CIPAce'" complies with over 90% of criteria set forth in
those practices. Additionally CIPAce'" is 1003'o in compliance with the Capital Project Monitoring and
Maintenance Best Practices defined by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA).
CIPPlanner's products and practices follow those of the two most influential associations for Cities,
Counties and Local Government Agencies.
CIPPlanner Corporation is the marketing arm for the CIPAce'" product line. DigiCentury, the
development arm of CIPPlanner'" Corporation, was founded in 1998 as an IT consultancy with its
software being deployed in various organizations such as the Wall Street Journal, Coca Cola, U.S. News
and World Report and NextStudent. CIPPlanner'" Corporation is headquartered in Santa Clara,
California (Silicon Valley) with presence in Sacramento, CA, Phoenix, Arizona, Wake Forest, North
Carolina and Guangzhou, China (Software Development Center). CIPPlanner'" Corporation is an
Enterprise Application Software company whose products and technologies evolved from development
programs originating from DigiCentury's consulting engagements. The products offered by CIPPlanner •"
Corporation are Governmental-off-the-Shelf (GOYS) solutions designed specifically for Capital Program
Management (CPM) for the Government Sector.
CIPPlanner's involvement with capital budgeting and CPM began in 2001 with the development of a
customized solution for the City of Fremont, California which was then delivered in 2002. This product
has now evolved into the flagship product currently known as CIPAce'"'. This comprehensive GOYS
Enterprise Software was designed embedding best practices identified from research of more than two
hundred Capital Improvement and Maintenance Programs of a variety of local government agencies.
CIPPlanner Corporation will be the sole provider of product and services far this project. Currently,
CIPAce'" has been deployed in over 20 cities/agencies serving populations as small as 16,500 to cities
and counties as large and complex as San Francisco, CA and Pima County, AZ.
Discussion:
The City is implementing a Capital Improvement Project management system that enables the City to
develop a long range capital improvement plan and to provide management information to project
managers through completion of the project. CIPPlanner's software system is a web-based enterprise
class software application called CIPAce that enables agencies to manage their entire capital program
and capital projects from planning and implementation to completion and report writing managed by a
single database.
The software will support the organization of the information by City defined hierarchal levels. It will
have flexible templates to assist users in project cost development. The system for developing the
Capital Improvement Plan will include the ability for all users to submit capital project requests and shall
collect all data and information required to rank and evaluate projects and to create a Capital
Improvement Plan document. The system will allow for systematic evaluation of all potential projects at
the same time. It will maintain multi-year cost information for projects that span more than one fiscal
year and maintain data on projects that are not approved in the capital budget. The system will have
definable work flow capabilities to automate the approval process of the projects included in the plan.
The system will interface with the Cit~/s financial system, downloading cost information for the projects.
The system will provide tools, or support third party tools such as "Microsoft Project", for managers to
administer their project budgets. The system will provide document management and retention for all
documents related to a specific project. The software will serve as a public relations and economic
development tool with easy access to information and financial data.
Financial/Budget Impacts:
For procurement of equipment and software, staff is recommending appropriating approximately
$143,700 for installation and $17,200 for hardware. In addition, approximately $25,000 will be needed
annually for maintenance and support. The installation costs will be incurred in 2009. Funds needed to
install the software would come from Finance and by being billed out to capital projects and the annual
maintenance and support would be billed out to capital projects. Cost detail:
Purchase the Software
• Five Concurrent Licenses $ 97,100
• Tyler EDEN Integration $ 10,000
• Platform Fee $ 15,000
• Configuration Analysis $ 3,500
• Vendor Travel $ 8,000
• Maintenance $ 10,089
• Hardware 17 211
TOTAL FIRST YEAR: $ 160,900
• Maintenance $ 20,178
• Server (includes replacement cost every 5 years) 4 500
ALL OTHER YEARS: $ 24,678
FIVE YEAR COST (rounded): $260,000
Vendor travel expenses will be capped and include the costs for two individuals to travel to Aspen for
four visits for installation and training. The purchase of a perpetual license is the recommended course
of action because of the cost benefit.
Environmental Impacts:
There are no environmental impacts associated with this software.
Recommended Action:
Staff is recommending the purchase of the Capital Project Planning Software. Funds needed to install
the software would come from Finance and by being billed out to capital projects and the annual
maintenance and support would be billed out to capital projects.
The annualized cost of this software purchase is approximately $52,000. This amounts to
approximately 03% of the City's annual capital project budget.
Alternatives:
The alternative would be to continue to manage projects with a variety of tools, without consistency
across Department or Fund.
Manager's Comments:
Pik
Attachment "A" Purchase Agreement
RESOLUTION # I
(Series of 2009)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, AND CIP PLANNER CORPORATION SETTING
FORTH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REGARDING CAPITAL PROJECT
PLANNING SOFTWARE 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 CIP Planner Corporation, 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 CIP Planner Corporation regarding
Capital Project Planning Software 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 March 23, 2009.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
~PL~NNER
CIPAceTM Software Agreement
This AGREEMENT is made by and between KeenologyTM Corporation dba CIPPlannerTM
Corporation (hereinafter "LICENSOR") whose principal place of business is located in 2075
De La Cruz, Suite 115, Santa Clara, CA95050, and The City of Aspen, CO, 130 South
Galena Street, Asnen, CO 81611 (hereinafter "LICENSEE"). This AGREEMENT is
composed of the following Appendices:
Appendix A Standard Sofrware License Agreement
Appendix B Statement of Work
Appendix C Pricing and Payment Terms
Appendix D Softwaze Support and Maintenance Agreement
This AGREEMENT and all attached appendices hereto represents the entire Agreement
between the LICENSEE and LICENSOR and supersedes all prior communications,
negotiations, representations or Agreements, either written or oral. This AGREEMENT may
be amended only by written instrument signed by both LICENSEE and LICENSOR
KeenologyTM Corporation
by (Authorized Representative):
)~
LICENSEE: City of Aspen, CO
by (Authorized Representative):
Name: ~'1l~'1~ zf-l~~ Name:
Title: \T~ D~~~°~
Date: ~l~ws ~ l3 , ~e, u"~
Title:
Date:
Address:
City Hall, 130 Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Page ii
Appendix A: Standard Software License Agreement
This Agreement (hereinafter "LICENSE AREEMENT") is made by and between
KeenologyTM Corporation dba CIPPlannerTM Corporation (hereinafter "LICENSOR") whose
priricipal place of business is located in 2075 De La Cruz, Suite 115, Santa Clara, CA95050,
and the City of Aspen, CO, 130 Galena Street, Aspen, CO, 81611 (hereinafter
"LICENSEE"), whose address is set forth at the end of this LICENSE AREEMENT. This
LICENSE AGREEMENT shall be effective on the date it is executed by the last party to
execute it (hereinafter "LICENSE EFFECTIVE DATE").
Grant of License:
LICENSOR hereby grants you anon-exclusive and non-transferable right to use CIPAceTM
Software, including help manual (online version), updates and bug fixes, provided all
maintenance fees are current, and any additional modules licensed separately, which are
specified in detail in the Statement of Work (hereinafter collectively "SOFTWARE"), solely
for LICENSEE's own internal business purposes, subject to the terms and conditions of this
LICENSE AGREEMENT. All rights not expressly granted to you are reserved by
LICENSOR (and its affiliates if applicable).
LICENSEE may not access the SOFTWARE if LICENSEE is a direct competitor of
KeenologyTM Corporation, except with KeenologyTM Corporation's prior written consent. In
addition, LICENSEE may not access the SOFTWARE for purposes of monitoring CIPAceTM
Software for, but not limited to, availability, performance or functionality for any
competitive purpose.
LICENSEE shall not (i) license, sublicense; sell, resell, transfer, assign, distribute or
otherwise commercially exploit or make available to any third party CIPAceTM or the
Content in any way; (ii) modify or make derivative works based upon CIPAceTM or the
Content; (iii) create Internet "links" to CIPAceTM or "frame" or "mirror" any Content on any
other server or wireless or Internet-based device; or (iv) reverse engineer or access CIPAceTM
in order to (a) build a competitive product or service, (b) build a product using similar ideas,
features, functions or graphics of CIPAceTM or (c) copy any ideas, features, functions or
graphics of CIPAceTM
LICENSEE may use CIPAceTM only for LICENSEE'S internal business purposes and shall
not: (i) send Spam or otherwise duplicative or unsolicited messages in violation of applicable
laws; (ii) send or store infringing, obscene, threatening, libelous, or otherwise unlawful or
tortious material, including material harmful to children or violative of third party privacy
rights; (iii) send or store material containing software viruses, worms, Trojan horses or other
harmful computer code, files, scripts, agents or programs; (iv) interfere with or disrupt the
Proprietary and Confidential to CIPPIannerT^' Cocpora[ion
Page iii
integrity or performance of CIPAceTM or the data contained therein; or (v) attempt to gain
unauthorized access to CIPAceTM or its related systems or networks.
2. Term of License:
Subject to LICENSEE'S payment of the applicable fee in the Aypendix C: Pricing and
Payment Terms, LICENSOR grants LICENSEE a nonexclusive and nontransferable right to
use the softwaze. The Software may be installed on multiple computers and its use is limited
to the LICENSEE. It may not be used by any third party on LICENSEE'S behalf. This term
is also subject to the Grant of License above and subject to the Termination clause below.
Intellectual Property Notice:
LICENSOR alone shall own all right, title and interest, including all related Intellectual
Property Rights, in and to the Software, Documentation and all copies (in whole or part), any
suggestions, ideas, enhancement requests, feedback, recommendations and other information
prodded by LICENSEE or any other party relating to CIPAceTM. The Software including
Documentation is proprietary and is protected by copyright, patent and/or trade secret law.
All proprietary notices incorporated in or fixed to the softwaze including the Documentation
shall be duplicated by LICENSEE on all copies or extracts thereof and shall not be altered,
removed or obliterated. LICENSEE'S use of the softwaze and associated documentation is
subject to the applicable copyright and patent laws and the express rights and restrictions of
this LICENSE AREEMENT
This LICENSE AGREEMENT is not a sale and does not convey to you any rights of
ownership in or related to CIPAceTM and the Intellectual Property Rights owned by
CIPPlannerTM Corporation. The CIPPlannerTM Corporation name, the CIPPlannerTM
Corporation logo, and the product names associated with CIPAceTM are trademarks of
CIPPlanner Corporation, and no right or license is granted to use them.
4. Restrictions:
LICENSEE may not remove any copyright, trademazk, or other proprietary notices from the
softwaze. LICENSEE may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Software.
Except as expressly provided under these license terms, nothing herein shall be construed as
granting LICENSEE any license or other right, by implication or otherwise, under any patent,
copyright, trademark, trade secret or other proprietary right of LICENSOR or its corporate
parent. LICENSEE may not continue to use the softwaze upon expiration or termination of
LICENSEE'S license rights.
5. Responsibilities:
Proprietary and Confidential to CIPPIannerT"' Corporation
C' n Page iv
You aze responsible for all activity occurring under your use of the Softwaze and shall abide
by all applicable local, state, national and foreign laws, treaties and regulations in connection
with your use of CIPAceTM, including those related to data privacy, international
communications and the transmission of technical or personal data. You shall: (i) notify
LICENSOR immediately of any unauthorized use of the Softwaze or any other known or
suspected breach of security; (ii) report to LICENSOR immediately and use reasonable
efforts to stop immediately any copying or distribution of Softwaze that is known or
suspected by you or your users; and (iii) not impersonate another CIPPlannerTM Corporation
user or provide false identity information to gain access to or use CIPAceTM
LICENSOR does not own any data, information or material that you submit to CIPAceTM in
the course of using CIPAceTM ("Customer Data"). LICENSEE, not LICENSOR, shall have
sole responsibility for the accuracy, quality, integrity, legality, reliability, appropriateness,
and intellectual property ownership or right to use of all Customer Data, and LICENSOR
shall not be responsible or liable for the deletion, correction, destruction, damage, loss or
failure to store any Customer Data. LICENSOR reserves the right to withhold, suppress
and/or discard the License without notice for any breach, including, without limitation, your
non-payment. Upon termination for cause, your right to access or use CIPAceTM immediately
ceases, and LICENSOR shall have no obligation to maintain your License Key.
6. Warranties and liabilities:
LICENSOR represents and warrants that it will provide the Software in a manner consistent
with general industry standards reasonably applicable to the provision thereof and that the
Software will perform substantially in accordance with LICENSOR's User Manual
documentation under normal use and circumstances.
LICENSOR warrants and represents to LICENSEE that:
For a period of Ninety (90) days from the date of installing the Softwaze in
LICENSEE'S production server, the Software will substantially conform to the
documentation provided for the version of Softwaze licensed under normal use and
circumstances and that the LICENSOR will provide the Software in a manner
consistent with general industry standazds reasonably applicable to the provision
thereof.
• The Software media shall be free of defects.
LICENSEE'S sole remedy in the event of nonconformity of the Software at LICENSOR's
option will replace the defective Software or refund the amount paid for the defective
Software.
LICENSEE represents and warrants that LICENSEE does not provide any false information
to gain access to the Software.
Proprietary and Confidential to CIPPIannerTM Coryoration
CIP '
Page v
NO OTHER WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WITH RESPECT TO
THE SOFTWARE, DOCUMENTATION OR SERVICES TO BE SUPPLIED
HEREUNDER; INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR NON-
INFRINGEMENT. NO WARRANTY IS MADE REGARDING THE RESULTS TO BE
OBTAINED FROM ANY SOFTWARE OR SERVICES OR THAT ALL ERRORS IN THE
SOFTWARE WILL BE CORRECTED, OR THAT THE SOFTWARE'S
FUNCTIONALITY WILL MEET LICENSEE'S REQUIREMENTS. LICENSEE
acknowledges its responsibility to regularly back-up data and to adequately test prior to
deployment each production version of the Software in a configuration that reasonably
simulates LICENSEE'S planned production environment.
THE TOTAL LIABILITY, IF ANY, OF LICENSOR OR ITS PARENT AND AFFILIATES
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LIABILITY ARISING OUT OF CONTRACT,
TORT, BREACH OF WARRANTY, CLAIMS BY THIRD PARTIES OR OTHERWISE,
SHALL NOT IN ANY EVENT EXCEED THE FEES PAID BY LICENSEE FOR THE
SOFTWARE OR SERVICES WHICH GIVE RISE TO THE CLAIM. NEITHER
LICENSOR NOR ITS PARENENT AND AFFILIATES SHALL BE LIABLE FOR LOSS
OF PROFITS, LOSS OR INACCURACY OF .DATA, OR INDIRECT, SPECIAL,
INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF SUCH PARTY HAS BEEN
ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
Termination:
Either Party may terminate this LICENSE AGREEMENT immediately upon written notice
for the material breach of the other Party, which material breach has remained uncured for a
period of thirty (30) days from the date of delivery of written notice thereof to the breaching
Party. LICENSOR may also terminate this LICENSE AGREEMENT, any licenses granted
and. any related services performed hereunder immediately for a breach of its Intellectual
property rights and LICENSEE'S default of payment to LICENSOR.
Assignment; Change in Control:
This LICENSE AGREEMENT may not be assigned by you without the prior written
approval of LICENSOR but may be assigned without LICENSEE'S consent by
CIPPlanneriM Corporation to (i) a parent or subsidiary, (ii) an acquirer of assets, or (iii) a
successor by merger. Any purported assignment in violation of this section shall be void.
Any actual or proposed change in control of LICENSEE that results or would result in a
direct competitor of LICENSOR and its affiliates or parent directly or indirectly owning or
controlling 50% or more of LICENSEE shall entitle LICENSOR to terminate this LICENSE
AGREEMENT for cause immediately upon written notice.
9. Export Controls:
Proprietary and Confidential to CIPPIannerT^' Corporation
Page vi
LICENSEE is responsible for compliance with all applicable export or re-exports control
laws and regulations if LICENSEE exports this software.
10. General:
This LICENSE AGREEMENT shall be construed, interpreted and applied in accordance
with the laws of the State of California, without regard to the principles of conflicts of laws.
This LICENSE AGREEMENT constitutes the entire agreement between LICENSOR and
LICENSEE, and supersedes any other communications or advertising relating to the
software.
IF YOU ARE ENTERING INTO THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF A
COMPANY OR OTHER LEGAL ENTITY, YOU REPRESENT THAT YOU HAVE THE
AUTHORITY TO BIND SUCH ENTITY TO THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, IN
WHICH CASE THE TERMS "YOU" OR "YOUR" SHALL REFER TO SUCH ENTITY.
LICENSOR
by (Authorized Representative):
L
LICENSEE: men, CO
by (Authorized Representative):
Name: ~i~~Zl-l~bc
Title: y ~ Q t- ~ ~~'l'~iotJS
Date: ~ ~ G~ t 3 , ~ ~~
Name:
Title:
Date:
Address:
City Hall, 130 Galena Street
As en CO 81611
Pmprie[ary and Confidential [o CIPPIannerT"' Corporation
Page vii
Appendix B: Statement of Work
Introduction
CIPPlannerTM Corporation will deploy and implement its CIPAceTM Enterprise Software
Application for -the City of Aspen, CO_130 Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611_(hereinafter
"LICENSEE"). This Statement of Work (hereinafter "SOW") defines the scope of the
Sofwaze and the related Implementation and Training Services (hereinafter "SERVICES") to
be delivered to LICENSEE. Upon acceptance by both LICENSEE and_CIPPlannerTM
Corporation, any changes or modifications to this SOW will follow the Change Control
Process (hereinafter "CCP") as defined in attachment I of this SOW. All approved Change
Orders will become attachments to the original approved SOW, which will then form the
new baseline upon which future changes will be measured.
Licensing License is for 5 Concurrent Licenses
CIPPlannerTM Corporation offers license of its CIPAceTM Enterprise Software Application to
LICENSEE in accordance with the CIPPlannerTM LICENSE AGREEMENT. The licenses
purchased by LICENSEE are listed as below.
Module Group
Standard Portfolio Planning
Advanced Planning
Standard Fund I Budgeting
Advanced Fund /Budgeting
Standard Reporting
Advanced Reporting
Standard Utilities
Advanced Utilities
Module
Pro'ect Sco in
Pro'ect Rankin
Pro'ect Filterin
Pro osal M mt
Multi le Scenarios
Fund Mana ement
Fund Allocation
Ca ital Bud et M mt
Line Item Promotion Bud etin
Fund Grou M mt
Standard Re ortin
Custom Re ortin
Anal tics
User Mana ement
Standard Classifications
User Access Confi
Standard Utilities
Custom Field M mt
Advanced Classification
Smart Text M mt
RFP
Required
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Proprietary and Confidential [o CIPPIannerT^' Corporation
C' ~ ~ ~ Page viii
Project Management
Advanced Project
Management
Documentation Mgmt
Workflow Engine
Project Hierarchy
Audit Trail
Schedule & Resource
Pro ect Dashboard
Project Financials
Risks and Issues
Purchase Order Mana ement
Contract Mana ement
Documentation M mt
Workflow En ine
Project Hierarch
3rd Part Inte ration Conn
MS Pro ect Inte ration
GIS
GIS Inte ration Char e
T ler Eden Financials
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Schedule
The implementation rollout will commence upon Notification to Proceed (NTP) from
LICENSEE. Implementation is scheduled to be concluded by June 30, 2009 assuming an
NTP is received by CIPPlannerTM no later than March 27, 2009 and that there are no
unforeseen events that would adversely impact the schedule provided.
CIPAceTM will issue an implementation schedule based on the initial understanding of the
implementation requirements by LICENSEE and CIPPlannerTM. Any modifications to the
schedule must be approved by both CIPPlannerTM and LICENSEE. Any new schedules will
then ovemde the standard project schedule.
Software Configuration
Softwaze Configuration enables CIPPlannerTM to configure the CIPAceTM application to be
consistent with the desired business processes and environment as defined by LICENSEE, of
to the extent as allowed by the built-in configurability of CIPAceTM Softwaze without
requiring software code changes. Depending on the project needs, one to three configuration
setup analysis meetings may be held between LICENSEE and CIPPlannerTM to define
configuration setting of CIPAceTM Software. Software Configuration meetings will define
the configuration of the following:
• smart texts, which are nomenclatures of the Software
• custom fields
Proprietary and Confidential [o CIPPIannerT"' Corporation
Page ix
• classifications
• standazd dropdown boxes
• user roles and responsibilities in terms of the data that each role needs to manage and
view and the underlying processes associated with it reporting needs
key user profiles including such things as name, position, contact information and
email addresses
• business rules and metrics to be measured. This would include workflow, approval
cycles, alerts (ie: schedule, cost, modifications, etc.), key performance indicators
(KPIs).
• standazdized LICENSEE reports required that are not provided in the CIPAceTM
application
• reports within the Library of the CIPAceTM Software that require modification
• other customization features under the utility menu of the CIPAceTM Software
CIPPIannerTM will to the best of its ability configure CIPAceTM to be consistent with the
documentation based upon the existing softwaze's configurability. Configuration or change
requirement that will require source code changes of the Software will not be covered under
Softwaze Configuration. With the exceptions of those listed under Pre-approved
Customization section of this document, these changes will go through the Change Control
Process to implement. Requirements that go through the CCP will be evaluated by
CIPPlannerTM for cost and schedule impact to implement CIPAceTM Software.
As apre-requisite to the first software configuration setup analysis meeting:
• CIPAceTM Software implementation teams at both LICENSEE and CIPPlannerTM's
organizations aze formed;
• LICENSEE will receive basic training on CIPAceTM Software;
• LICENSEE will gain access to a trial, standard off-the-shell CIPAceTM Softwaze;
• LICENSEE will provide Capital Improvement Program (hereinafter "CIP") business
process documentation and diagrams.
During a software configuration setup analysis meeting, LICENSEE will describe the roles
and responsibilities and key processes in managing CIP; CIPPlannerTM project manager will
demonstrate how CIPAceTM Software may be utilized in managing the processes described.
During such interactions, configuration decisions aze made and possible gaps between actual
process and softwaze functionalities are documented for further analysis.
Please notice that LICENSEE may choose to configure the above items using built-in
softwaze management features after accepting the CIPAceTM Software instead of configuring
them during the Software implementation process.
Migration of data
Proprietary and Confidential [o C1PPIannerT"' Corporation
Page x
Migration of data utilizing a single compatible electronic source (template to be provided)
will include transferring the historical CIP Planning data and financial data into the
CIPAceTM application. This will be completed prior to final deployment of the application
and will be done for all departments/divisions identified for application rollout.
LICENSEE will provide historical data to CIPPlannerTM for migration into the CIPAceTM. If
data aze provided in a format in compliance with the template provided by CIPPlannerTM
CIPPlannerTM will migrate data once for LICENSEE as part of the standard softwaze
implementation service. If LICENSEE provides additional versions of the data for
CIPPlannerTM to migrate, the effort may be quoted by CIPPlannerTM and presented to the
LICENSEE for consideration.
If data are provided in a format other than that stipulated by CIPPlannerTM, the effort may be
quoted by CIPPlannerTM and presented to the LICENSEE for consideration.
Upon completion of the migration, LICENSEE will go through a data validation and user
acceptance test prior to "Go Live" for accuracy and completeness.
Reports
Other than the standard reports included in CIPAceTM Software, CIPPlannerTM will emulate
the specific existing LICENSEE reports as listed below: CIPPlannerTM will provide
emulation of up to 5 Custom Reports.
List report sample and spec here:
Additional reports will be processed through the Change Control Procedure. The effort will
be quoted by CIPPlannerTM and presented to the LICENSEE for consideration.
Third Party System Integration
CIPPlannerTM will provide the following Integration services for any agreed upon third party
applications:
• System architecture analysis
Development of a Requirements Specification
^ Develop and implement integration with third party applications
The following third party applications will be integrated with CIPAceTM Software:
List third party system integration and scope here:
Tyler Eden Financial
Proprietary and Conflden[ial m CIPPIannerT"' Corporation
Page xi
Scope:
The data exchange mechanism -one-way, two-way, or batch etc.
Automatic or manual Data elements to be exchanged for the integration.
Pre-approved Customization
CIPPlanner1M agrees to make the following customizations of CIPAceTM Software without
any additional cost impact on LICENSEE:
There are no known customizations at this time
Testing
CIPPlannerT"' will set up a CIPAceTM testing/training Environment for the purpose of data
migration integrity testing, user acceptance testing and training.
Any CIPAceTM testing/training environments will be removed after the launch of the
CIPAceT'" production environment. CIPPlannerT"' will not be responsible for any data in the
testing/training environments.
Training
Training will be provided in conjunction with the production system rollout. Please choose
one of the training methods below:
(__) Training will be segmented for all user groups based on the functional focus (Total-
User-Training). Total user training will not exceed two (2) days with up to two (2)
CIPPlannerTM consultants provided.
(~ In lieu of the Total User Training, Train-the-Trainer (TTT) training will also be
provided to designated Super Administrators. Total training for the trainer will not exceed
two (2) days with up to two (2) CIPPlannerTM consultants provided.
(__) A combination ofTotal-User-Training and TTT will be provided to LICENSEE. Total
training will not exceed two (2) days with up to two (2) CIPPlannerTM consultants provided.
LICENSEE will attend the defined Training Program which may include:
Walk-through demo of CIPAceTM
^ Online training
Proprietary and Confidential [o CIPPIannerT'" Corporation
Page xii
^ Onsite training
LICENSEE's Super Administrator(s) will develop standard operating procedures and
specific training/user manuals for each functional user group that fits the LICENSEE'S
specific organizational needs. When completed, the Super Administrator(s) will then be
responsible for conducting training for each user group following the standard operating
procedures and user manuals for that user group. CIPPlannerTM representative(s) will be
available at additional cost to present in providing support and assistance in such training
sessions.
Deliverables
Deliverables for implementation will be as defined and will be delivered consistent with the
rollout schedule. Deliverables include the following:
Software
CIPPlannerTM grants LICENSEE anon-exclusive, non-transferable right to use the
CIPAceTM Software based on licenses purchased by LICENSEE.
Documentation
• Configuration Analysis Document
• Requirements Analysis Report
• System Integration Specification
• Standard training and User Manuals
Documentation will be provided in electronic format.
User Acceptance Test Scripts
The completion of the User Acceptance Tests signals the acceptance of the CIPAceTM
software application by LICENSEE. CIPPlannerTM Corporation is responsible for the
repair of functionality due to any critical or non-critical tests. Successful completion is
defined as the 100% passing of all critical User Acceptance Test scripts as defined by
CIPPlannerTM Corporation and accepted by LICENSEE.
Help Files
Help files will be provided with the CIPAceTM software application. They will be
accessed via the application web browser. Help files will be editable by designated
LICENSEE users.
Proprietary and Confidential to CIPPlannerTM Corporation
Page xiii
Client Responsibilities
LICENSEE will participate as well as provide adequate resources as required in support of
the implementation of the CIPAceT'" software.
Approvals
CIPPIannerTM Corporation
by (authorized representative):
Name /Title Signature Date
Name /Title Signature Date
Name /Title Signature Date
City of Aspen, Colorado
Fill in LICENSEE'S legal name here
by (authorized representative):
Name /Title Signature Date
Name /Title Signature Date
Name /Title Signature Date
Proprietary and Confidential to CIPPIannerT"' Corporation
Page xiv
Appendix C: Pricing and Payment Terms
Please refer to the Proposal made to the LICENSEE by CIPPlannerT"' Corporation dated
March 5, 2009 for specific details (Attachment I). Following is the summary information:
I. Pricing is based on 5 Concurrent Licenses
LICENSEE shall compensate LICENSOR for softwaze products purchased
which are specified in the License Agreement (Appendix A) and the Statement
of Work (Appendix B) as follows:
Softwaee Licensing:
Licensing for the CIPAceT"' Software to be deployed for the
LICENSEE shall be in accordance with the Statement of Work
(Appendix B).
Licensing Fee:
$ 112,100.00
Software Support and Maintenance:
Support and Maintenance shall be provided by the LICENSOR in
accordance with the Support and Maintenance Contract contained
herein (Appendix D). Support and Maintenance fee shall be calculated
based on 18% of the Licensing Fee plus any customizations and
integrations performed by the LICENSOR at the request of the
LICENSEE. The Support and Maintenance fee for the first year is
deferred until January 1, 2010 at which time it will be due in full.
Travel:
Estimate three 3 trips NTE $_7,000.00
LICENSEE will be billed at actual cost of the trips not to exceed the
above amount.
Training:
Two ~ days Onsite Training and four ~ hours online training are
included as part of the software implementation. Additional training
may be provided at the prevailing rate at the time plus applicable travel
expenses. The current rate is $150.00 per man hour. The format for
training is defined in the attached Statement of Work (Appendix B).
Proprietary and ConSden[ial [o CIPPIannerTM Corporation
Page xv
Supplemental Services:
These services shall be defined in the Statement of Work (Appendix
B), and cost shall be billed at actual cost at the prevailing rate at the
time. The current rate is $150.00 per man hour.
Services
Software Implementation $ Incl
Configuration Analysis $ 3,500.00
Tyler Eden Integration (NTE) $ 10,000.00
Total Services $ 13,500.00
Total License, Services and Travel $132,600.00
Change Order:
The costs of implementing the Change Order and its financial impact
on the Licensing Fee and the corresponding Support and Maintenance
Fee will be evaluated by LICENSOR on a case by case basis when it
occurs. Quotes shall be provided to LICENSEE afrer LICENSOR's
evaluation and approval of the Change Order.
Any expenditure for services or products rendered above and beyond identified
amounts set forth above must be renegotiated between the parties and approved
by LICENSEE and LICENSOR.
II. Payment Terms
A. LICENSOR:
On a monthly basis, unless otherwise agreed to by LICENSOR and the
LICENSEE, LICENSOR shall submit an invoice to the LICENSEE requesting
payment for travel expense reimbursement and any supplemental services
specified in Statement of Work (Appendix B) and Change Order which payment
terms aze not specified set forth above, due hereunder. Invoices shall be
submitted to the LICENSEE with address of
B. LICENSEE:
LICENSEE shall list the invoice number(s) on the payment.
C. Time for Payment:
Proprietary and Confidential to CIPPIannerT"' Corporation
~PLJ.~NNER
Page xvi
The LICENSEE shall make payment to LICENSOR of all sums properly
invoiced as provided in Paragraph I set forth above, based on the terms defined
as follows:
Softwaze Licensing Fees:
Twenty five percent (25%) of the total licensing fee is due upon the
LICNESE AREEMENT is signed. Fifty Percent (50%) shall be due
upon completion of migration of data, and the remaining twenty five
percent (25%) upon sofrwaze acceptance in the production server of the
LICENSEE.
Support and Maintenance Fees:
Annual Support and Maintenance Fees for the first year is due on
January 1, 2010 for the full amount. Subsequent yeazs' Support and
Maintenance Fees shall be due upon this anniversary date of the
subsequent years.
Travel Expense Reimbursement:
Full amount is due within fifteen 15 days of receipt of the invoice.
Training:
Subsequent training not included with the installation is due in the full
amount upon the commencement of such training.
Change Order Fees:
Fify percent (50%) is due upon the approval of the Change Order. The
remaining fifty percent (50%) is due upon installation of the Change
Order in LICENSEE'S production server.
Supplemental Services:
Fifty percent (50%) is due upon the acceptance of the service order or
contract, whichever is earlier. The remaining fifty percent (50%) is due
upon the completion of the service, which is defined in the Statement of
Work (Appendix B).
D. Interest for overdue payment:
1.5% interest per month (18% annually) shall be charged to all overdue
invoices.
Proprietary and Confidential to CIPPIannerT"' Corporation
Page xvii
Appendix D: Software Support and Maintenance Contract
This Softwaze Support and Maintenance Contract (hereinafter "CONTRACT") is made by
and between KeenologyTM Corporation dba CIPPIannerTM Corporation (hereinafter
"LICENSOR") whose principal place of business is located in 2075 De La Cruz, Suite 115,
Santa Clara, CA95050, and Aspen, Colorado, 130 Galena Street, Aspen CO 81611
(hereinafter "LICENSEE"), whose address is set forth at the end of this CONTRACT.
This CONTRACT shall be effective upon installation of the software product into
LICENSEE's production server (hereafter "Support and Maintenance Effective Date").
1. Softwaze Support and Maintenance to be provided
1.1. For the CIPAceTM Software that is specified in the License Agreement dated on
this _ day of , 20
1.2. Advice and assistance through telephone support are available during normal
working hours (8:00 AM to 5:00 PM PST) Monday to Friday excluding statutory
holidays.
1.3. Support is available by phone at 408-213-0135 or email at
supportnn CIPPlannerTM.com. This support is provided to the LICENSEE on a "best
efforts" basis, and may include suggestions for short term "work azound" solutions,
and/or the provision of modifications to the software or documentation as deemed
appropriate. by CIPFlannerTM. This support does not provide support cover for any
hazdwaze (i.e. computers, sample makers etc.) or third-party Softwaze products
supplied by any other third parties. It is the customer's sole responsibility to take
steps to source the necessary cover for such items.
1.4. Program upgrades to the Softwaze and documentation licensed under the Software
License Agreement will be furnished on request or when released by CIPPlannerTM
CIPPlannerTM's policy is to utilize the Internet for software distribution and
installation support. Users requiring media will be responsible for both media and
shipping costs. Users who require onsite installation service by a CIPPlannerTM
technician will be responsible for the technician's travel expenses and travel time to
be charged at the prevailing rate of the time.
1.5. Software minor upgrades, patch releases and installation assistances to all
versions of CIPAceTM Software are made available at no additional cost, other than
as described above, to users with a current Support and Maintenance Contract.
2. LICENSEE Obligations
All materials supplied under this CONTRACT aze supplied under the same terms and
conditions as contained in LICENSOR's Software License Agreement (Appendix A) and aze
to be used for the sole purpose of upgrading existing systems for which the LICENSEE has a
valid Softwaze Support and Maintenance Contract.
Proprietary and Confidential [o CIPPIannerTM Corporation
Page zviii
3. Duration and Consideration
3.1. The duration of this CONTRACT shall be for a period of twelve months from the
Support and Maintenance Effective Date. Unless notified otherwise, LICENSOR
will automatically extend the CONTRACT every year for one additional yeaz and
invoice the LICENSEE accordingly. In the event of a revised fee LICENSOR will
inform the LICENSEE not less than thirty (30) days before renewal is due.
3.2. This CONTRACT may be terminated by the LICENSEE subject to the following
provisions. LICENSEE must notify LICENSOR of intention not to renew no less
than thirty (30) days before the annual renewal date.
3.3. If the LICENSEE fails to remit charges due to LICENSOR by the due date,
LICENSOR's obligations to the LICENSEE under the terms of this CONTRACT
cease immediately.
3.4. If this CONTRACT lapses, as in 3.3. above, LICENSOR reserves the right to
charge a fee for the reinstatement of the CONTRACT. The fee for this will be
payment of all overdue maintenance and an additional charge based on 10% of the
current Support and Maintenance CONTRACT list price.
4. Price and Terms of CONTRACT
The price for the Support and Maintenance service is 18 % of the license fee that is
specified on the Appendix C: Pricing and Payment Terms. Payment for Maintenance and
Support is due annually on the anniversary date of the CONTRACT.
Change Order that impacts the number of license and / or involves programming by
LICENSOR which may include but not limited to softwaze customization, custom reports
and software integration shall be included in the basis for calculating the Support and
Maintenance fee. The Support and Maintenance fee for the Change Order portion is
effective upon the softwaze of the Change Order is installed in the production server of the
LICENSEE.
5. Limitation of Liability
In no event will LICENSOR be liable for any damages, including loss of profits, or any other
direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages, arising from the use of, or the inability
to use, the software.
If LICENSEE violates the clauses in the License Agreement, and if LICENSEE makes any
changes to the CIPAceTM Software including but not limited to programming and database
codes of CIPAceTM Software, this Support and Maintenance Contract between LICENSOR
and LICENSEE will become void. LICENSOR will not be held responsible for fixing any
Proprietary and Confidential [o CIPPIannerT"' Corporation
Page xix
bugs or software problems that are caused by such violation and changes. LICENSEE will
be responsible for paying the outstanding Support and Maintenance fees to LICENSOR up to
the termination notification date issued by LICENSOR.
6. Governing Laws
This CONTRACT will be governed by the Laws of the State of California, USA.
7. Correspondence
Any materials or communications sent to the LICENSEE by LICENSOR under this
CONTRACT will be sent by first class letter post, Internet Email or facsimile.
LICENSOR
by (Authorized Representative):
LICENSEE: City of Aspen, Colorado
by (Authorized Representative):
Name: ~l`~1~~ ~Ht~i~Cc
Title: ~.~ ~i7~-__ ~l7 ~l\~15c~
Date: M 0.Y ~%1~ l 3 i~ D I
Name:
Title:
Date:
Address:
City of Aspen, CO
City Hall, 130 Galena Street
Aspen, CO 816] 1
Proprietary and Confidential to CIPPIannerT^r Corporation
v1a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: The Colorado Film Commission
THRU: City Manager's Office
DATE OF MEMO: March 18, 2009
MEETING DATE: March 23, 2009
RE: Support of HB1010 Concerning the Promotion of Colorado as a Location for Film
Production Activities
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: In response to a request from the Colorado Film Commission, staff
recommends that council approve the attached resolution in support of HB 1010 Concerning the
Promotion of Colorado as a Location for Film Production Activities. The bill would create a film
production tax credit, which would serve as an incentive for production companies to film in
Colorado. Aspen is the second-most popular location for filming in Colorado, behind Denver.
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution # ~, 2009
Page I of 1
RESOLUTION # ~~/
(Series of 2009)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN
SUPPORTING HB 1010 CONCERNING THE PROMOTION OF
COLORADO AS A LOCATION FOR FILM PRODUCTION
ACTIVITIES.
WHEREAS, The City of Aspen is the second-most popular filming location in Colorado
and considers the film industry a part of our economy; and
WHEREAS, HB 09-1010 will create higher than average paying jobs quickly as soon as
legislation is in effect with more than 500 direct jobs and over 700 indirect jobs in the
first year; and
WHEREAS, It is critical that Colorado invest in avenues that can bring in more business,
creating more jobs, while being revenue neutral and bringing new money to Colorado
projected at $1.3 billion over 5 years; and
WHEREAS, Colorado currently loses out on tens of millions of dollars in business every
year because we don't have a sufficient film incentive program while places like
Wyoming, Utah, Montana, Louisiana and New Mexico are reaping the benefits; and
WHEREAS, States that have implemented this type of rebate have seen immediate
results, with New Mexico seeing production spending increase from $71 million in 2005
to $142 million in 2007; and
WHEREAS, The proposed Colorado legislation is very conservative with virtually no
risk at 10% incentive; and
WHEREAS, This program offers filmmakers a 10% rebate on qualified expenses, after
the money is spent in Colorado and not before; and
WHEREAS, Film production impacts both the Front Range and rural Colorado,
according to a 2008 study by the University of Colorado Leeds School Business Research
Division, film production had an economic impact in 75% of Colorado's 64 counties,
including Pitkin County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL does
hereby affirm support for HB1010 Concerning the Promotion of Colorado as a Location
for Film Production Activities.
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 March 23, 2009.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
HB09-1010
Colorado Legislat 1~'i Fiscal Note
ST CAL
'ACT
Drafting Number: LLS 09-0461 Date: February 3, 2009
Prime Sponsor(s): Rep. Massey; McGihon Bill Status: House Finance
Sen. Gibbs; Spence Fiscal Analyst: Harry Zeid (303-86611753)
TITLE: CONCERNING THE PROMOTION OF COLORADO AS A LOCATION FOR FILM
PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES.
Fiscal Impact Summary FY 2008-2009 FY 2009-2010 FY 2010-2011
State Revenue up to up to up to
General Fund ($5,000,000) ($10,000,000) ($10,000,000)
Cash Funds
Colorado Office of Film, Television, and Gifts, Grants, Gigs, Grants,
Media Operational Account Cash Fund and Donations and Donations
State Transfers or Diversions
Transfer from the Film Incentives Cash Fund to
the Colorado Office of Film, Television, and
Media Operational Account Cash Fund* (Fund Balance Transfer)
Diversion from the General Fund to the
Colorado Office of Film, Television, and See the State Transfers or
Media Operational Account Cash Fund** Diversions section
State Expenditures
General Fund*** $55,852
Cash Funds
Colorado Office of Film, Television, and
Media Operational Account Cash Fund 580,008 540,008
FTE Position Change 0.0 FTE 6.0 FTE 6.0 FTE
Effective Date: Upon signature of the Governor.
Appropriation Summary for FY 2009-2010: See the State Appropriations section.
Local Government Impact: See the Local Government Impact section.
* The bill transfers the fund balance of the Film Incentives Cash Fund as ofJu[y /, 2009 to the Colorado
Office of Film, Television, and Media Operational Account Cash Fund. The year-end balance has not
been estimated.
** See the State Transfers and Diversions section for an explanation of the bill's elimination of the current
law diversion of limited gaming fund moneys to the Film Incentives Cash Fund, and the alternative
diversion of moneys to the Colorado Office of Film, Television, and Media Operational Account Cash
Fund, as authorized in the bill.
** * This amount may be funded byline item in the FY 2009-l0 Long Bill for programming costs in the Department
of Revenue for 2009 legislation.
Page 2
Febmary 3, 2009
Summary of Legislation
HB09-1010
HB09-1010 creates the Colorado Office of Film, Television, and Media (office) within the
Colorado Office of Economic Development in the Governor's Office. Duties include marketing
Colorado as a destination for making movie films and other related activities; coordinating efforts
among production companies and government agencies; conducting educational seminars;
administering the Colorado film production tax credit; and issuing income tax credit certificates.
No later than January 30, 2010, and each January 30 thereafter through 2015, the office must report
to the Finance Committees of the General Assembly regarding all credit certificates issued.
The Colorado film production tax credit is established for income tax years commencing on
or after January 1, 2009, but prior to January 1, 2014. Before principal photography begins on a film
in Colorado, applications for the credit will be submitted to the office for review and conditional
approval. The credit shall be an amount determined by the office, subject to the following
guidelines:
• the credit shall be up to 20 percent of a production company's total qualified
expenditures. Qualified expenditures include payments made by a production company
operating in Colorado to a business in Colorado in connection with a film produced in
the state, plus payroll expenditures that exceed $250,000. Expenditures in excess of
$3 million per employee or contractor are excluded ;and
• the aggregate sum of credits annually approved by the office, including credits carried
forward, shall not exceed $10 million in any income tax year.
If the tax credit issued by the office exceeds the taxpayer's income tax due for the taxable
year, the excess credit may be carried forward for up to three years, or the taxpayer may transfer all
or a portion of the credit to one or more taxpayers in amounts of at least $5,000 per taxpayer. No
later than November 30, 2009, and each November 30 through 2015, the office must provide the
Deparhnent of Revenue with an electronic report that identifies the taxpayers receiving a credit.
The bill creates the Colorado Office of Film, Television, and Media Operational Account
Cash Fund (COFTMOA Cash Fund) in the State Treasury. The fund is to consist of moneys
appropriated by the General Assembly; gifts, grants, and donations from private or public sources;
and a transfer of the fund balance of the Film Incentives Cash Fund as of July 1, 2009. For
FY 2009-10 and each fiscal year thereafter, the bill diverts $600,000 (adjusted for inflation) of
Limited Gaming Fund moneys that would otherwise be transferred to the General Fund to the
COFTMOA Cash Fund. At the same time, the diversion provided by current law of gaming moneys
to the Film Incentives Cash Fund is eliminated.
Page 3
February 3, 2009
State Revenue
HB09-1010
For income tax years commencing on or after January 1, 2009, but prior to January 1, 2014,
the bill provides for up to $10 million per year in income tax credits to production companies based
on qualified expenditures. Since the tax credit is effective January 1, 2009, the credit will reduce
General Fund revenue by up to $5 million in the current fiscal year, FY 2008-09 (for one-half
year on an accrual accounting basis), and by up to $10 million in FY 2009-10, and each year
thereafter through FY 2012-13. Since the credit is only valid through the end of 2013, the Genera]
Fund revenue reduction in FY 2013-14 will not be more than $5 million for the remaining one-half
fiscal year.
The state income tax credit will provide an additional incentive for film companies to
conduct business in the state. However, since the degree to which jobs maybe created expressly due
to the bill is unknown, the fiscal impact stated above does not incorporate increased revenue from
potential job creation or production activity. To the extent that the tax credit is the sole determining
reason that film production occurs in the state, sales and income tax revenue from those jobs would
serve to partially offset the estimated loss in state revenue. An estimate of indirect state revenue and
the need for additional state services for businesses and the families of employees whose jobs are
created as a result of the tax credit is beyond the scope of the fiscal note.
State Transfers and Diversions
Background. Based on the December 2008 Legislative Council Staff revenue forecast,
revenue will be insufficient to increase General Fund appropriations by the 6 percent limit during
FY 2008-09 and FY 2009-10. As a result, funding for certain programs, which is triggered only
when the 6 percent limit is reached, will not be available. These programs include film incentives,
new jobs incentives, tourism promotion, and funding for the State Council on the Arts. They would
have received a combined total of $26.6 million in gaming revenue at the end of FY 2008-09. Of
this amount, the Film Incentives Cash Fund would have received $654,000 on June 30, 2009. These
moneys were to be used in the current Colorado Film Incentive Program fora 10 percent cash rebate
on certain film production costs. It should be noted that a portion of federal moneys received by
Colorado through the federal stimulus package may help "prop up" the General Fund for FY 2008-09
and FY 2009-10 to potentially allow for a full or partial funding of these incentive programs.
HB09-10107mpact Beginning with FY 2009-10 and each fiscal year thereafter, the bill
replaces the current ]aw diversion to the Film Incentives Cash Fund with a similar diversion to the
COFTMOA Cash Fund. Assuming that the 6 percent appropriations growth limit were to have been
reached, the bill would have diverted $600,000 to the COFTMOA Cash Fund in FY 2009-10. This
amount is to be adjusted annually by the percentage change in the Denver Metropolitan Area
Consumer Price Index. This diversion will not occur unless the 6 percent appropriations limit is
fully funded.
Page 4 HB09-1010
February 3, 2009
HB09-1010 also transfers any moneys remaining in the Film Incentives Cash Fund on
July 1, 2009, to the COFTMOA Cash Fund. An estimate of the year-end balance (June 30, 2009)
in the Film Incentives Cash Fund is not known at this time, partly because the year-end diversion of
gaming revenue to the fund may not happen given the current General Fund revenue situation.
State Expenditures
Based on the December 2008 Legislative Council Staffrevenue forecast, there is insufficient
revenue in the General Fund to allow General Fund appropriations to increase by the maximum
allowable growth rate of 6 percent in FY 2008-09 or FY 2009-10. By reducing General Fund
revenue, this bill will reduce the amount of money available for General Fund appropriations in
FY 2008-09 by $5 million and in FY 2009-10 by $10 million.
Governor's Office. As shown in Table 1, the Governor's Office will require $580,008 and
6.0 FTE in FY 2009-10, and $540,008 and 6.0 FTE in FY 2010-I1 to fulfill the responsibilities
of the Colorado Office of Film, Television, and Media.
Tablel. Expenditures Under HB09-1010
Cost Components FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11
Personal Services $349,308 $349,308
FTE 6.0 FTE 6.0 FTE
Operating Expenses 47,200 47,200
Marketing and Education 93,500 93,500
Travel and Trade Shows 50,000 50,000
Capital Outlay 40,000 0
TOTAL $580,008 $540,008
The Colorado Office of Film, Television, and Media will market Colorado as a destination
for film making, provide assistance to production companies, provide permitting and coordinating
assistance to production companies and state and local government agencies, issue tax credit
certificates, administer the tax credits, and offer educational seminars to promote film in Colorado.
Based on these duties, the office requires a total of 6.0 FTE, including a division director, assistant
director, locations coordinator, education/marketing coordinator, administrative assistant, film
incentive fund administrator, and an accounting technician. Many of these individuals currently
work for the Colorado Film Commission to encourage film companies to operate in Colorado. This
bill makes them state employees. As the marketing agent of the state, the office will be involved in
trade shows, film festival sponsorships, production of promotional videos and brochures, and
maintenance of a website that promotes Colorado as a destination for films, television shows,
commercials, still photography, music videos, and emerging mass media projects.
Page 5 HB09-1010
February 3, 2009
Department of Revenue. The Department of Revenue requires $55,852 General Fund in
FY 2009-10 to add a new line and new accounting item on several income tax forms, as well as
changes to the CITA/GenTax System. This will require 616 hours of computer programming
(Information Technology Professional III at $38.63 per hour), plus 160 hours ofcontracted computer
programming (at $200 per hour). Finally, contracted services for $56 in data entry requirements will
be necessary. These costs maybe funded by line item in the FY 2009-10 Long Bill for programming
costs in the Department of Revenue for 2009 legislation.
Expenditures Not Included
Pursuant to a Joint Budget Committee policy, certain costs associated with this bill are
addressed through the annual budget process and centrally appropriated in the Long Bill or
supplemental appropriations bills, rather than in this bill. The centrally appropriated costs subject
to this policy are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Expenditures Not Included Under HB09-1010*
Cast Components -Governor's Office FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11
Employee Insurance (Health, Life, Dental, and Shor[-term Disability) $41,076 $41,076
Supplemental Employee Retirement Payments 10,173 12,990
Leased Space 29,730 29,730
TOTAL $80,979 $83,796
"More information is available at: http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/lcsstaff/1009/comsched/Common Policies1009.pdf
Local Government Impact
To the extent that new film activity is conducted in the state, local governments will benefit
from increased sales tax revenue on taxable purchases made by the industry and their employees.
State Appropriations
The Governor's Office requires a cash funds appropriation of $580,008 and 6.0 FTE for
FY 2009-10 from the Colorado Office of Film, Television, and Media Operational Account Cash
Fund to implement the bill. Based on current state revenue estimates, it appears unlikely that the
COFTMOA Cash Fund will have sufficient revenue to cover the required appropriation from the
sources identified in the bill.
Departments Contacted
Revenue Law Governor's Office State Treasurer
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ~~~
FROM: Jason Lasser, Special Projects Planner J~
RE: Aspen Jewish Community Center at the Silver Lining Ranch
Consolidated SPA Amendment, Growth Management Review
ls~ Reading of Ordinance No.~, Series of 2009
Second Reading scheduled for Apri127, 2009.
MEMO DATE: March 16, 2009
MEETING DATE: March 23, 2009
APPLICANT /OWNER:
The Jewish Resource Center Chabad of
Aspen.
REPRESENTATIVE:
Alan Richman, Alan Richman Planning
Services
LOCATION:
Lot 5, Stillwater Ranch, commonly known as
the Silver Lining Ranch - 1490 Ute Avenue -
Parcel ID # 2737-184-06-805
CURRENT ZONING:
Academic (A) zone district with a Specially
Planned Area (SPA) overlay, and
Conservation (C) with a Specially Planned
Area (SPA) overlay
SUMMARY:
The Applicant requests conversion of the
Silver Lining Ranch, anon-profit facility to
help kids with cancer and similar afflictions,
into a Jewish Community Center. Minor
physical changes are needed to accommodate
this new use including the addition of an
affordable housing cabin. The changes require
an SPA Amendment, and Growth
Management approvals.
•
a
Photo: The Silver Lining Ranch -Academic zone district
shown at left /Conservation zone district shown at right -
separated by the high water line.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the
Jewish Community Center application, with conditions.
1
REQUEST OF THE CITY COUNCIL: The City Council will be reviewing the following land use
actions for the conversion of the Silver Lining Ranch to a Jewish Community Center:
• Specially Planned Area (SPA) -Consolidated Review (Section 26.440.040 B) to allow
for the conversion to a Jewish Community Center, the affordable housing cabin, parking,
and associated landscaping modifications. The application shall be approved, approved
with conditions or denied by the City Council.
• Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility (Section 26.470.090.4(x),
The Community Development Director has determined the Jewish Community Center to
be an Essential Public Facility, according to the adopted definition. The application shall
be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the City Council.
A Specially Planned Area (SPA) is a process in which a site specific development plan is created by
allowing the variation of the underlying zone district's land uses and dimensional requirements. The
parcel currently exists with an SPA overlay. Based upon the new proposal the site specific
development must be amended to allow the additional development.
The Growth Management Review is to determine the number of employees generated by the use and
to asses the appropriate affordable housing mitigation. The City Council may waive or partially
waive these requirements.
BACKGROUND:
The Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen recently entered into a contract to purchase Lot 5,
Stillwater Ranch, commonly known as the Silver Lining Ranch, located at 1490 Ute Avenue. The
Stillwater Ranch Subdivision/PUD (Planned Unit Development) was approved by the Board of
County Commissioners pursuant to Resolution 94-233.
In 1996, the owner of Lot 5, the Little Star Foundation, submitted a petition to annex the property to
the City of Aspen. The Aspen City Council adopted Ordinance 10, Series of 1997 annexing the
property to the City of Aspen, and Ordinance 11, Series of 1997, zoning Lot 5
Academic/Conservation/SPA, approving the Conceptual/Final SPA plan and granting a GMQS
exemption for an essential public facility. The approvals allowed for the operation of anon-profit kids
camp for children with cancer, directed by Andrea Jaeger, commonly known as the Silver Lining
Ranch.
The Little Staz Foundation operated programs at the Silver Lining Ranch from 1999, when the
building was completed, until 2006. The property has had limited occupancy since that time, and the
Foundation has been trying to sell for the last two years so that the proceeds can be used to fund its
charitable mission.
In 2007, the Foundation applied to the City of Aspen to either "de-annex" (disconnect) or rezone to its
former single-family residential use. The City Council denied both requests, viewing the non-
profit/institutional use of the property as an important community value, and was not willing to
2
sacrifice the use to convert to a single family residence and miss an opportunity of providing a place
for a community facility.
PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS /PROPOSED CHANGES
Dimensional Standard Approved SPA Plan Proposed
Dimension Dimensions
Minimum Lot Size 6 acres no change
Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit 2 acres per unit no change
Minimum Lot Width 200 feet no change
Minimum Front Yard Setback 30 feet no change
Minimum Side Yard Setback 20 feet Amend building
envelope to
accommodate
revised arkin
Minimum Reaz Yard Setback 20 feet no change
Maximum Height 28 feet (Measured to the mid- no change
point of the roof on all sides o
the building, except for the
east-facing elevation, which
was limited to 32.5 to the mid
oint of the roof
Minimum Distance Between Principal and No Requirement no change
Accessory Buildin s
Percent of Open Space Required for Building Site As shown on site plan (30%) Add small cabin
Floor Area Ratio Allowable floor area shall not Add 700 sq. ft. for
exceed 14,000 square feet the affordable
housin cabin
Off-Street Parking 3 garage spaces, 10 outdoor 3 garage spaces, 20
spaces outdoors aces
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The applicant is proposing to amend the SPA (in a consolidated review) in order to convert the existing
Silver Lining Ranch into a Jewish Community Center. The applicant proposes few changes to the
property. The existing building will be remodeled, but only on the interior - no exterior changes are
proposed. Minor changes to the site plan are proposed including; the addition of a small affordable
housing cabin located northwest of the existing building, adding parking to the west edge (the Aspen
Club common lot line), modifying the vehiculaz entry/exit loop and landscape improvements, and
adding a ten (10) foot wide sidewalk connecting the property to Ute Avenue.
The applicant is requesting minor changes to the dimensional requirements in the SPA for the
property. The building envelope would need to be amended to allow for the new pazking along the
west edge of the property (as shown on the site plan), and the maximum allowable floor area is
proposed to be amended to allow for the addition of a small affordable housing cabin -approximately
700 square feet (please see the chart above).
The applicant is proposing to amend the SPA in order to add to the permitted uses for the property in
the Academic (A) zone district. The requested uses aze: Arts, Cultural, and Civic Uses; and Affordable
housing for employees of the Arts, Cultural and Civic Uses. The proposed activities in the Jewish
Community Center include; apre-school, Hebrew school, adult education, religious services, and
special events (please see the summary of activities in the chart below).
Si1MMARY OF ACTiViTIES AT THE JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER
Activity Time Period Frequency Attendance Proposed TDM*
measures
Pre-School Sam to 3pm 5 days per week 35-40 children Pick-up and drop off
at Koch Lumber Yard
Pazk
Hebrew 3:30pm to 5pm 2 days per week 8-10 children Aspen Club & Cross
School Town Shuttle
Teen Program 6pm to 8pm 1 night per 20-25 persons Aspen Club & Cross
month Town Shuttle
Adult 10:30am to 11:30 am 1 day per week 5-10 persons Aspen Club & Cross
Education 7:30pm to 9pm 1 night per 15-20 persons Town Shuttle
week
Religious Friday around sundown every week 10-20 persons No special
services Saturday gam to Noon 10-40 ersons measures**
Special events Evenings and weekends 5-10 events per more than 50, less Pick-up and drop off
year than 200 per at Rio Grande
event Parking Garage and
Little Nel] Hotel
Affordable Year round 3 units on-site 5.75 employees Bicycles will be
Housing provided. Car sharing
with Aspen Club
employees?
*Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
* *A significant percentage of the persons who attend religious services in the congregation are observant Jews and will
not drive a car or take a shuttle to services. These persons can be expected to walk to and from the facility.
***Schedule and frequency of activities shown in this table are based on current plans and may vary slightly.
Substantial changes to the schedule or frequency of activities, as determined by the Community Development Director,
may require an amendment to be submitted to this application.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REVIEW:
During the Planning and Zoning Commission review, several questions were raised. Following is a
brief summary of these questions and the relevant information:
1) Provide the minutes from the 2007 determination from the City Council (May 14, 2007
hearing) regarding the de-annexation request and denial.
Minutes aze provided as Exhibit G. A motion to approve the de-annexation of the
Silver Lining Ranch from the City of Aspen did not carry at the May 14, 2007
heazing. The City Council denied the request citing the non-profit/institutional use of
the property as an important community value.
4
2) Who funds the Cross Town shuttle? Are there `vouchers' for the off-season? What is
the Aspen Club's role in the Cross Town shuttle?
• According to the Transportation Department, the Aspen Club has, in the past,
contributed to the Cross Town shuttle service monetarily. Please see the attached
memos and letters associated with the Aspen Club contribution to the Cross Town
Shuttle -Exhibit H
• The Cross Town shuttle is a seasonal service, with winter and summer service only.
In the off-season, adial-a-ride service is provided through High Mountain Taxi,
currently funded by the City of Aspen.
• From 1999 through 2003, the Aspen Club contributed to the funding of the Cross
Town shuttle. In December, 2003 after review from the City of Aspen
Transportation Department, the Aspen Club initiated its own shuttle service, and was
allowed to stop the contribution to the Cross Town shuttle.
• The City Council will discuss the potential for partial funding by the applicant of the
Cross Town Shuttle at a March 16, 2009 work session. Direction from this meeting
will be incorporated into the second reading packet.
3) Is the Fire Department okay with the access to the existing hydrant and location of the
new path?
• The Fire Marshall has reviewed the proposed site plan and has determined that the
proposal is in compliance, and that the proposed condition around the existing
hydrant is acceptable.
4) Are (private) gates allowed in the City of Aspen?
• Gated entrances to private property are not prohibited in the City of Aspen provided
that they meet the requirements of the Aspen Fire Department. The existing gate on
the property has been reviewed by the Fire Marshal and is in compliance.
STAFF COMMENTS:
SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA -CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
A Specially Planned Area (SPA) is a process in which a site specific development plan is created
which encourages flexibility and innovation in the development of land and promotes objectives
outlined in the Aspen Area Community Plan by allowing the variation of the underlying zone
district's land uses and dimensional requirements for the benefit of the public. The parcel currently
exists with an SPA overlay. Based upon the new proposal the site specific development must be
amended to allow the additional development.
In the Arts, Culture, and Education section in the AACP, the first and last goals are to "encourage
collaboration in Arts, Culture, and Education" and to "ensure the provision of public facilities and
5
services to sustain art, culture, and education in the community. "The creation of affordable housing
meets a Housing section goal to "reinforce and enhance a healthy social balance for our community
and enhance the character and charm of Aspen. "
Staff recommends the City Council amend the SPA to allow for the addition of a small cabin -
approximately 700 square feet -for the creation of an affordable housing unit.
Staff recommends amending the SPA to add to the permitted uses for the property in the Academic (A)
zone district to allow Arts, Cultural, and Civic Uses and Affordable housing for employees of the Arts,
Cultural and Civic Uses to promote and encourage diversity and education in the community.
Staff, based on the previous determination for the Specially Planned Area for the Stillwater Ranch in
Ordinance 11, Series of 1997, and recommends that the proposed conversion to the Jewish
Community Center be approved.
The Land Use Code states; "the dimensional requirements which shall apply to all permitted and
conditional uses in the Academic (A) zone district shall be set by the adoption of a conceptual
development plan and final development plan, pursuant to Chapter 26.440, specially planned area. "
Staff finds that the proposal meets the requirements of the underlying Academic (A) zone district, is
compatible, and enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of
land use, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space.
See Exhibit A for additional SPA review criteria and Staff ftndings
GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM:
With Ordinance 11, Series of 1997 (Exhibit #7 of the application -Exhibit D), the City Council
granted final approval of the Stillwater Ranch Specially Planned Area (SPA), which also granted a
Growth Management exemption for an Essential Public Facility. The Jewish Community Center was
reviewed and approved as an essential public facility in Ordinance No. 36, Series of 2006 (Exhibit
#8 in the application -Exhibit D). As the Jewish Community Center and the Stillwater Ranch have
been determined to be essential public facilities in the past, it is logical to continue to consider the
relocated center an essential public facility.
When determined to be "an essential public facility, upon recommendation from the Planning and
Zoning Commission" "the City Council may assess, waive or partially waive affordable housing
mitigation requirements as is deemed appropriate and warranted for the purposes of promoting civic
uses and in consideration of broader community goals".
Pursuant to Section 26.470.100, Calculations, "each Essential Public Facility proposal shall be
evaluated for actual employee generation". The applicant proposes providing housing for 5.75
employees, a mitigation of approximately 60% for the 9-10 employees that will be generated. In the
employee analysis provided with the application (see page 20 of the application -Exhibit D) a
calculation from the Land Use Code using 1.75 employees for each one-bedroom unit and 2.25
employees for each two-bedroom unit would equal 5.75 for the proposed on-site affordable housing.
APCHA Staff recommends that the applicant submit an employee audit prior to building permit
issuance and two years after issuance of C.O. the form and methodology of the audit shall be
6
reviewed by APCHA and be consistent for both audits. The applicant shall provide mitigation for any
increase in employees unless otherwise waived by City Council.
Staff finds that the proposal meets the requirements of "a facility which serves an essential public
purpose is available for use by, or benefit of, the general public and serves the need of the
community". The City Council shall review the essential public facility to determine the rate for
affordable housing mitigation.
The applicant is not seeking a "waiver" of the affordable housing requirement, but is proposing to
house 5.75 employees on-site (1.75 employees for (2) one-bedroom units and 2.25 employees for the
two-bedroom unit). Approximately 9 to 10 fzrll time employees (FTE's) are expected to be generated;
therefore, approximately 60% (5.75/9.5=0.6) of the affordable housing demand will be mitigated by
the applicant.
Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1997 granted a GMQS exemption for a non profit entity for the Kids
Stuff Foundation, which qualified as an essential public facility. In 2006, Ordinance 36 was
approved, determining that "9.63 FTE's shall be generated by the Jewish Community Center (at the
435 W. Main street location), and established mitigation for 4.25 employees (three category 2 rental
affordable housing units). It is important to note that the new request to convert the existing facility
(which was allowed to waive the mitigation) is proposing to provide mitigation for affordable
housing rather than request a waiver.
Staff, based on the previous determination in Ordinance 11, Series of 1997, recommends that the
proposed affordable housing mitigation of 60% (5.75 employees) be accepted and approved
See Exhibit B for additional GMQS review criteria and Staff findings
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the application for a consolidated Specially Planned
Area (SPA) Amendment and GMQS review for an essential public facility to convert the Silver
Lining Ranch into a Jewish Community Center, including the addition of a small affordable housing
cabin and associated parking and site planning changes.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN TAE AFFIRMITIVE):
"I move to approve Ordinance No.~, Series of 2009, upon first reading."
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A -Specially Planned Area (SPA) -review standazds and Staff findings
EXHIBIT B -GMQS -review criteria and Staff findings
ExataiT C - DRC Comments
7
ExttlelT D -Application
ExHISIT E -Supplemental Drawing -Site Plan
ExrtlslT F -Letters from neighbors
ExrtIBIT G -Minutes from May 14, 2007 City Council, de-annexation of Silver Lining Ranch
ExrtlalT H -Cross Town /Aspen Club shuttle documents
EXHIBIT I -Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes from the 1 /20/09 and 2/17/09 Public
Hearin>s
ORDINANCE NO.~,
(SERIES OF 2009)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A
CONSOLIDATED SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA (SPA) AMENDMENT AND
GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW AS AN ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY FOR
THE CONVERSION OF THE SILVER LINING RANCH INTO A JEWISH
COMMUNITY CENTER„ LOCATED ON LOT 5 OF THE STILLWATER RANCH
SUBDIVISION, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE SILVER LINING RANCH, 1490 UTE
AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
PARCEL ID: 2735-184-06-805
WHEREAS, The Community Development Depaztment received an application from the
Aspen Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen, represented by Alan Richman of Alan
Richman Planning Services, for review for Arts, Cultural, and Civic Use in the Academic zone
district; Special Review for pazking requirements in the Academic zone district; 8040 Greenline
Review; Stream Mazgin Review; and Conceptual/Final Specially Planned Area (SPA) Review
for the property commonly known and referred to as the "Silver Lining Ranch" which has
previously been designated a specially planned azea (SPA) on the City of Aspen Official Zone
District Map; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 4, Series of 1997, of the Planning and Zoning Commission
of the City of Aspen, granted approval of the Lot 5, Stillwater Ranch Subdivision for Conditional
Use Review in the Academic zone district; Special Review for parking requirements in the
Academic zone district; 8040 Greenline Review; Stream Mazgin Review; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1997, of the City Counci] of the City of Aspen,
granted final approval of the Lot 5, Stillwater Ranch Subdivision Specially Planned Area (SPA)
final development plan, and granted a GMQS exemption for anon-profit entity qualifying as an
essential public facility; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 24, Series of 2006, of the Planning and Zoning Commission
approved with conditions, a Growth Management Review to determine employee generation, and
Special Review to establish off-street pazking requirements; and recommended approval to City
Council of a Growth Management Review as an essential public facility for the Jewish
Community Center, proposed to be located at 435 West Main Street; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 36, Series of 2006, of the City Council of the City of Aspen,
granted approval of the Growth Management Review as an essential public facility for the Jewish
Community Center, proposed to be located at 435 West Main Street; and
WHEREAS, upon initial review of the subject application and the applicable code
standazds, the Community Development Department recommended approval with conditions of a
Specially Planned Area (SPA); and,
Ordinance No. _, Series of 2009
Page 1
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on January 20, 2009, continued to
February 17, 2009, upon further public testimony, discussion and consideration, the Planning and
Zoning Commission adopted Resolution No. 5, Series of 2009 by a five to one (5-1) vote; and,
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 welfare.
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 27, 2009, the Aspen City
Council approved an SPA amendment and Growth Management Review to allow for the Jewish
Community Center at the Silver Lining Ranch, as described herein, by a vote of to
~-~~
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL
THAT:
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
City Council approves a Consolidated Specially Planned Area (SPA) Amendment and Growth
Management Quota System Review for an Essential Public Facility for the Jewish Community
Center at the Silver Lining Ranch.
Section 2: Engineering Requirements
The building permit application shall include a drainage and stormwater study for all impervious
area on site. The developer will be required to be granted permission from the Aspen Club to
construct the retaining wall on the western side of the property. Impacts of construction outside
the site's property boundary must be agreed upon with neighboring properties and addressed in
the construction management plan.
A construction management plan must be submitted in conjunction with the building permit
application. The plan must include a planned sequence of construction that minimizes
construction impacts to the public The plan shall describe mitigation for: pazking,
staging/encroachments, truck traffic, noise, dust, and erosion sediment pollution.
The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code,
Title 21, and all design and construction standazds published by the Engineering Department.
Section 3: Affordable Housing and Audit
The proposal generates nine and one half (9.5) employees. 5.75 employees will be housed on
site through the provision of cone-bedroom unit and atwo-bedroom unit. This reflects the
applicant's commitment to provide housing for a minimum of 60% of the employees generated
by the project.. The applicant shall submit an employee audit prior to building permit issuance
and two yeazs after issuance of C.O. The form and methodology of the audit shall be reviewed by
Ordinance No. _, Series of 2009
Page 2
APCHA and be consistent for both audits. It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the audits.
The applicant shall provide mitigation for 60% of any increase in employees found to be generated
in the audit completed two years after issuance of the C.O unless otherwise waived by City Council.
Section 4: Sanitation District Requirements
Oil and Grease interceptors are required for all new and remodeled commercial kitchens and food
processing establishments. Permanent improvements aze prohibited in sewer easements or right of
ways including hazd landscaping which will impact public ROW or easements owned by the
district. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and
specifications, which are on file at the District office.
ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections aze not
connected to the sanitary sewer system. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. ACSD
will not approve service to food processing establishments retrofitted for this use at a later date.
Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells, elevator shafts drains must flow thru o/s
interceptor. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. All
ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of an excavation foundation or
access/infrastructure permit.
Section 5: Approved Dimensional Standards
The dimensional requirements which shall apply to this property aze as follows:
Dimensional Standard Approved SPA Plan Dimension
Minimum Lot Size 6 acres
Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit 2 acres per unit
Minimum Lot Width 200 feet
Minimum Front Yazd Setback 30 feet
Minimum Side Yazd Setback 20 feet, with an amended building
envelo e to accommodate azkin .
Minimum Rear Yard Setback 20 feet
Maximum Height 28 feet (Measured to the mid-point of the
roof on all sides of the building, except for
the east-facing elevation, which was limited
to 32.5 to the mid- oint of the roof
Minimum Distance Between Principal and
Accesso Buildin s No Requirement
Percent of Open Space Required for Building Site As shown on site plan, with the addition
of an affordable housin cabin.
Floor Area Ratio Allowable floor azea shall not exceed
14,700 s uaze feet.
Off-Street Pazking 3 gazage spaces, 20 outdoor spaces
Ordinance No. _, Series of 2009
Page 3
Section 6: Allowed Uses:
In addition to the permitted and conditional uses allowed in the Academic and Conservation zone
districts, this property is also allowed to be used for Arts, Cultural, and Civic Uses, and
Affordable housing for employees of the Arts, Cultural and Civic Uses. The proposed activities
in the Jewish Community Center include; apre-school, Hebrew school, adult education, religious
services, and special events. The uses which shall apply to this property are as follows:
SiJMMARY OF ACTIVITIES AT THE JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER
Activity Time Period Frequency Attendance
Pre-School Sam to Spm 5 days per week 35-40 children
Hebrew 3:30pm to Spm 2 days per week 8-10 children
School
Teen Program 6pm to Spm 1 night per 20-25 persons
month
Adult 10:30am to 11:30 am 1 day per week 5-10 persons
Education 7:30pm to Spm 1 night per 15-20 persons
week
Religious Friday around sundown every week 10-20 persons
services Saturda gam to Noon 10-40 ersons
Special events Evenings and weekends 5-10 events per more than 50, less
year than 200 per
event
Affordable Yeaz round 3 units on-site 5.75 employees
Housing
Note: Schedule and frequency of activites shown in this table aze based on current plans and may
vary slightly over time. Insubstantial changes to the timing or profile of the above approved uses
and activities may be authorized by the Community Development Director. Substantial changes,
such as new and significant programming or a dramatic increase in activity, may require a
substantial amendment to the SPA Plan.
Section 7: Parks
An approved tree permit is required before submission of the building permit set (decrease the
amount of spruce trees, increase in aspen, cottonwood, Douglas fir, and service berry bushes).
The new grading and planting will require City seed mixes and approval of the landscaping. All
new plantings will need to be irrigated and the landscape plan reviewed by Parks Department.
Tree protection fences must be in place and inspected by the city forester or his/her designee
before any construction activities aze to commence. No excavation, storage of materials, storage
of construction backfill, and storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip
line of any tree on site. Hand work only will be approved within the protection zones and for the
re-opening of the irrigation ditch.
Ordinance No. ,Series of 2009
Page 4
Section 8: Transportation
The Jewish Community Center shall meet with Transportation Department Staff prior to each
summer season to discuss their schedule of events and associated transportation/pazking impacts
as well as mitigation such as increased shuttle service, etc. The Jewish Community Center shall
communicate with event staff/attendees about alternative transportation options prior to lazge
events.
After one complete year of sustained operation, the Jewish Community Center shall provide a
traffic audit measuring the percentage of mass transit use. If actual mass transit use is less than
represented by the applicant, then the applicant shall work with the City of Aspen Transportation
Department staff to discuss additional measures to achieve close to 100% transit usage for the
pre-school and special events.
Section 9•
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awazded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before
the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan
development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless
amended by an authorized entity.
Section 10:
This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 11:
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 12•
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 27th day of April, 2009, at a meeting of the
City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, 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.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the 23rd day of March, 2009.
Attest:
Ordinance No. _, Series of 2009
Page 5
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 27th day of April, 2009.
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
John Worcester, City Attorney
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
Ordinance No. ,Series of 2009
Page 6
Thomas P. Reagan
President
Stillwater Open Space Association
Re: Proposed Use of Lot 5 (Lot S), Stillwater Ranch a/k/a Silver Lining Ranch
Dear Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission:
I am writing this letter as President of and on behalf of the Stillwater Ranch Open Space Association
(HOA) concerning the proposed use of Lot 5, Stillwater Ranch Subdivision (Stillwater Ranch). The HOA
administers the Protective Covenants (Covenants) governing the use of Lot 5 and the other lots within
Stillwater Ranch. A copy of the Covenants is attached with a copy of their most recent amendment.
Proposed Use is Underestimated and Cannot Reasonably be Controlled
The HOA believes that the proposed use of Lot 5 would have a dramatic and irreversible impact on
Stillwater Ranch, and is inconsistent with Stillwater Ranch's historical and current use and character.
The HOA also believes that the proposed use of Lot 5 could not be undertaken in a manner that
sufficiently minimizes its impact on Stillwater Ranch, while still permitting Lot 5 to have reasonable
utility for its proposed use. It is apparent to the HOA that the land use application for Lot 5:
(1) dramatically underestimates the likely impact of the proposed use on Stillwater Ranch and
surrounding streets and neighborhoods; (Z) does not account for the impracticality of monitoring and
enforcing restrictions that the City may impose to mitigate the impact of the proposed use, especially
given its nature; and (3) does not account for the fact that the proposed use is of a type that naturally
expands over time, yet no opportunity for expansion exists in Lot 5 or the surrounding areas. Lot 5,
Stillwater Ranch and the surrounding streets and neighborhoods do not have the capacity to support the
proposed use in any form, whether it is the form optimistically proposed in the current land use
application, or in the form that can more realistically be expected to take shape.
The HOA is willing to discuss these issues in greater detail, but believes there is a threshold issue that
should be resolved before the parties expend additional time and effort on the land use approval
process: the proposed use is clearly not permitted by the Covenants.
Proposed Use is Prohibited by Covenants
At the time the Covenants were recorded, it was contemplated that Lot 5 might be donated by Fabienne
BenediM to Kid's Stuff Foundation (now Silver Lining Ranch) for the purpose of providing a "permanent
home" (per the original land use application) to operate a camp for seriously ill children (Camp). At that
time, Lot 5 was not yet approved for use as the Camp, but in anticipation of that approval, the
Covenants were drafted with acarve-out that would release Lot 5 from certain single family use
restrictions when the use was approved. The City ultimately approved the use of Lot 5 for the Camp,
and Lot 5 was released from the single family restrictions. It was the intent of the Covenants to release
Lot 5 from the single family restrictions for operation of the Camp, and not for any other use.
886730.1
In fad, the Covenants contain a mechanism to protect Stillwater Ranch against the use of Lot 5 for
purposes other than the Camp. When Lot 5 was released from the single family restrictions, the right of
Lot 5 to vote on amendments to the Covenants was suspended. This suspension gives the HOA the
authority to ensure that lot 5 is restricted to the only two uses that the Covenants and the HOA permit:
single family use and the Camp. The suspension also serves to place potential owners of Lot 5 on notice
that their use of the property will be limited to uses permitted by the Covenants and the HOA.
The HOA recently exercised this protective mechanism by amending the Covenants to: (1) clarify the
Covenants' intent that Lot 5 be exempted from the single family use restrictions only for operation of
the Camp; and (2) outline a specific contingency for Lot S's use if it is not to be used as the Camp--the
single family use restrictions are re-imposed on Lot 5, and, if it returns to single family use, its voting
rights are restored.
The currently-proposed use of Lot 5 is nefther of the two uses that the Covenants permit for Lot 5, and is
therefore prohibited by the Covenants. The HOA intends to take whatever action is necessary to
enforce the Covenants, and continues to retain the right to amend the covenants without the wnsent of
Lot 5.
Conclusion
The HOA understands that it is not appropriate for the City to enforce the Covenants or to determine
their precise meaning. However, the HOA believes that it is appropriate for the City to acknowledge
that a significant disagreement exists concerning the permissibility of the proposed use under the
Covenants, an issue which could render the current land use approval process moot. Unfortunately, for
the reasons discussed above, the HOA anticipates that this will be the wse.
While the HOA is willing to discuss the specific merits of the proposed use of lot 5 with the City, the
HOA believes that, for the sake of efficiency, this discussion should be suspended while the HOA and the
applicant discuss the permissibility of the proposed use under the Covenants. Accordingly, the HOA
requests that the City suspend the approval process until it receives satisfactory evidence that this issue
has been resolved.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions about the Covenants or any other issues concerning
the land use application for Lot 5.
Sinc ,
Thomas P.
President, Stillwater Ranch
Space Association
886730.1
''/ ~Y ila/ ~, ~ ,
/' _ ~ ~~ s
I ~
~ ~ _ ~~ R
~ \ y ~ *-~
~ \ R~
~~
/' F ~ 4i
/%
i~'~ - _ _
~~ ;-_ _
~ ~~ ~ ~. ~ ~
~ - ~- ~~'_~il~ i.' Mme'
~ 3, ( ~
~'°y~.;~~ Y ~. ~
I f K `,J~ /i
J /
i ~ ~ ~ ~ .
%'~~ ~ '~~
~ /,
_ - ~ ~ ~ ~ 1
sc_ / ~ i~ it
a _~--. .~ \` ~~ ./ .... p8p ~ ICI
i
~` ..~ ~. /
n ~ ~
` \\ ~ _. /
w:. \ ~ ~
® .~ ~ ~r
x ~ ~ \ .• , J •' i
x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
_ R*
: ~. 3a ~
_ ~ ~ ~.
• ~~ \ `~ ~~
~ ~=~ ';~
~~ z;~
o ~® ~I~IIIIIII=
a
r F ~~ ~ ~~
~ i9 ~
s
k
~o
~~
SILVER LINING RANCH ~~ ~~~
ASPEN, COLORADO ~~~~ ~F~•
~ t ~ ~
~~~b
~'\
Elmhurst
GROUP
Suite 630 phorre: 412.281.8731
One Bigelow Square fax: 412.281.9483
Pittsburgh, PA 15219 www.elmhuretgrp.com
February 16, 2009
Deaz Members of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission:
My name is Bill Hunt. Along with my two sisters, we own the residence at 1500 Ute
Avenue. Our family has owned the property since the 1950s. My grandpazents were long-time
Aspen residents and my grandfather was the past-president of The Aspen Institute. As you
know, Ute Avenue has transformed from a rural dirt road, to a residential street, and now a
partially commercial avenue, with the arrival, in the 1970s, of the Aspen Club and, subsequently,
the Silver Lining Ranch.
The traffic along Ute Avenue has currently reached an excessive level of congestion.
This will only be exacerbated by the proposed Jewish Community Center. Therefore. we must
oppose the Jewish Community Center's Land Use Application due to the dramatic increase in
traffic alone Ute Avenue.
Originally there was no pazking permitted for the Aspen Club entering off Ute Avenue,
and now there are 58 spaces. The Silver Lining Ranch always had extremely low intensity of
usage with only 10 pazking spaces for 28 weeks of camp per year and no more than 12 annual
special events; thus the traffic was easily controlled.
Unfortunately, The Jewish Community Center is an entirely different story. The JCC
will increase the traffic with ongoing activities of preschool, teen programs, adult education,
special events (evenings and weekends), summer camps, and the addition of 22 parking spaces
with a much higher number of vehicle trips per day. Therefore, any future limitations on the
JCC would cleazly be ineffective since such organizations are intended to grow over time and it
will be impossible to control the driving choices of families and guests attending special events.
There will also inevitably be families who do not live in Aspen utilizing the JCC, and our
concern would be who would monitor all of this traffic and activity?
The Aspen community deserves to have afirst-class Jewish Community Center, but not
at this proposed residential location with already inadequate access along Ute Avenue.
Thank you for your consideration.
~Si~nQcerely/7+~'I
fJ~.GG
William Hunt
Local Residence: 1500 Ute Avenue
Aspen, Colorado
/ EX+~IBIT
Jennifer Phelan
From: Gina Pogliano [GPogliano@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 1:21 PM
To: Jennifer Phelan; ben@ci.aspen.co.us
Subject: Jewish Community Center
Dear Jennifer and Ben,
I have been a resident at the Ute Park Townhomes employee housing project since 1994 and as I am unable to attend the
P&Z meeting tonight would like to comment by email on the proposed Jewish Community Center (JCC).
The proposed use of this facility is far too broad for the Ute Avenue neighborhood. As it stands now, we have huge traffic
and safety concerns on Ute Avenue and adding an additional facility that would be used daily, for special events, and
evening events would not only add to these safety concerns but also increase noise and lighting pollution. Lest you think I
am an employee housing "nimby" I would like to mention that I personally support the redevelopment of the Aspen Club
and Spa and consider it appropriate to the site. Mr. Fox has taken care in addressing the neighborhood's concerns and is
committed to improving traffic and pedestrian safety on our street; I do not find that the proponents of the JCC have
adequately addressed the many negative impacts of the scope of this proposed project. Please do not misconstrue my
opposition as being non-supportive of a Jewish Community Center - in my opinion this is simply not the right location for
the project.
Respectfully,
Gina Pogliano
1467 Ute Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Page 1 of 2
Chris Bendon
From: ROSS [with_a_tail@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 2:46 PM
To: Chris Bendon
Subject: Re: Ute
Andy: You may have spoken with Jason (?) Please email your letter again and I can make sure it is
forwarded to the P&Z.
Cheers,
Chris
Chris, This is Andy on Ute ave. I spoke to someone before the last P&Z meeting. I think it was you. I
emailed a letter to have it entered into the records. Again, I can't make meeting on Tuesdays in the winter.
Can I confirm that my last letter was received and submitted? Thanks. Andy Munves
Andrew Ross Munves
P.O. BOX 24
ASPEN, CO 81612
I apologize for not making the 1/20/09 P&Z meeting. I have a prior obligation in Glenwood Springs
at 6:30 PM.. I would like this letter to be entered into the official records.
After spending eight years at Centennial and Hunter Creek we moved to Ute Ave. It was November
of 2005 and we considered ourselves to be lucky to have a nice home in a quiet corner of town. When
December came around we were in for a rude awakening. There is a massive amount of truck and
private vehicle traffic on the block with a heavy concentration from 5 - 7pm.
South Original and Ute Ave. Are narrow streets with no outlet. They are becoming one lane in
several places when it has snowed recently. The proposed development at the Silver Lining Ranch
would add an unbearable volume of traffic to our community. Proposals for shuttles and other
incentives for not driving fall on deaf ears when it comes to affluent people. This is a simple fact.
This is a residential neighborhood that we are talking about. Six, Seven and Eight year old children
live at the East end of Ute Ave. There should be less traffic roaring by them when they play after
school, nat more. Let's control the development of our community.
2/17/2009
Page 1 of 2
Jason Lasser
_.
From: Alan Richman [arichman@sopris.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 9:32 AM
To: Jason Lasser
Subject: Fwd: Parking Lot
ason,
received the message below from Michael Fox and wanted you to have it for the record.
at the start of our item tonight I would request 5 minutes or so fora "refresher" presentation. I just want to briefly highlight the main
points we made at the prior meeting plus show the P&Z a new map of the entire Stillwater Ranch PUD that I made with the GIS.
'lease call if we need to talk prior to the meeting. Thanks!
X-Eon-Dm: dm0210
Subject: Parking Lot
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:30:11 -0700
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TN EF-Correl ator:
Thread-Topic: Parking Lot
Thread-Index: AcmQXDhkMiiA4V24R4igGmJhbIUOhA==
From: "Michael Fox"
To: "Alan Richman"
X-Antivirus: AVG for E-mail 8.0.237 [270.10.2511955]
Alan,
We have reviewed the proposed parking plan for the Silver Lining Ranch and, at this moment, it looks fine.
All the Best,
Michael
Michael Fox
Aspen Club International
1450 Crystal Lake Road
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-8900 (o)
211712009
EXHIBIT
Reeular Meetin¢ Asuen Citv Council Mav 14.2007
Ferguson to the city attorney about restricting the hotel units under one ownership, and he
would like a legal opinion on what that means.
Councilman Torre said he is still concerned about the use of the interior spaces and this
could be a better project. Councilman Torre commended the applicant on where this
project has come. Councilman Torre said compatibility with other projects in this azea is
important.
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #17. SERIES OF 2007 -Historic Designation - 827 Dean Street
Councilmembers Johnson and Tygre returned. Sara Adams, community development
department, told Council this is a voluntary designation for a residential neighborhood on
Dean street and it exemplifies the chalet style. This was built in 1956 by Harry
Poschman. Ms. Adams said this home illustrates two aspects of local post WWII history;
the chalet style and the significance of Harry Poschman to Aspen's cultwal heritage.
HPC found all review criteria were met and voted unanimously to recommend historic
designation.
Ms. Adams told Council Poschman was part of the Tenth Mountain Division along with
other local notables. Poschman developed an appreciation for chalet azchitectwe while
serving overseas in WWII. Poschman helped built lift 1 in 1947. Poschman built and
operated the Edelweiss Chalet. Ms. Adams stated staff finds Poschman important to
Y` Aspen, his representation of Aspen sentiment and his values which reflect the cultural
heritage of this town.
Ms. Adams presented color photographs of the house, pointing out this stmctwe is
oriented towazd the mountain, which is one thing the historic preservation officers look
for in the chalet style. Ms. Adams noted a generous gable roof, materials indicated of
chalet azchitecture -wood details and stucco. The house has had minor alterations.
Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing.
Ms. Adams entered a letter into the record from Ada Lamont in favor of designation;
letter from Janet Boelen in favor and from Les Holst in favor of designation.
Mayor Klandernd closed the public hearing.
Councilman Torre moved to adopt Ordinance #17, Series of 2007, on second reading;
seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Johnson, yes;
Tygre, yes; DeVilbiss, yes; Torre, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion tamed.
ORDINANCE #18. SERIES OF 2007 -Disconnect Lot 5 Stillwater Ranch
r~^°
`..
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council Mav 14.2007
Councilwoman Tygre recused herself due to a connections to her other office. Jim True,
~, representing this city, stated this decision is within the sole discretion of Council fmding
whether or not it is in the best interest of the community to allow disconnection of this
property.
Jessica Gan•ow, community development department, passed out a map of the subject
property with surrounding zoning. The subject property is zoned Academic and
Conservation with an SPA overlay. Ms. Ganow noted the delineation of the Stillwater
subdivision. Ms. Gatrow said this property is part of the Stillwater ranch subdivision and
its pazcels aze zoned AR-2 in the county. This zone district is to create a moderate
density transition zone between moderate and low density residential uses. Ms. Garrow
said it is presumed if this were to revert back to the county, it would be zoned AR-2 and
would abide by the subdivision covenants. This means it would be limited to 6500
square feet of FAR with 4,000 square feet exempt basement space, 700 square feet of
exempt garage. The applicants would be required to provide on-site affordable housing
mitigation. Ms. Garrow told Council this parcel received a growth management
allotment when approved as part of the subdivision in the county.
Ms. Garrow said if it were to remain in the city and to revert to a single family home, it
would need to go through an administrative growth management review and to provide
affordable housing. Ms. Garrow said a permitted use in the conservation zone is a single
family house; this is not a permitted use in the Academic zone district. Ms. Ganrow
stated staff recommends against granting this request. If this does revert to a single
family home, it would pay property taxes to the city, if it remains in the city. Ms. Garrow
said the FARs are comparable between the city and county.
Rick Neiley, representing the applicant Sister Andrea Jaeger, told Council Sister Andrea
started Little Star Foundation in 1990. Sister Andrea received a gift of this land from
Fabienne Benedict in 1994 and through the zoning and annexation process established a
charitable foundation that provides care for children with cancer and their families.
Neiley said there was no equivalent zoning in the county at that time, which is why it was
annexed to the city. Neiley said during the 16 years of operating the charitable
foundation in Aspen, it has become more difficult to get and treat patients at this altitude.
The objective is to disconnect the parcel; rezone it in the county as a single family lot,
sell the property to create an endowment and allow construction of a new facility south of
Durango.
Neiley requested Council approve this ordinance de-annexing the property so that it can
revert to the Stillwater zoning. Neiley said the property taxes that maybe lost to the city
would be azound $6,000/annually. Neiley told Council the applicants discussed rezoning
the property and leaving it in the city; however, all that is possible is what was approved
during annexation. The conservation zone is not intended to be developed. Neiley said
the rezoning process in the city would take much longer than the foundation can wait.
Sister Andrea said her foundation provides long term care of children with cancer. When
the foundation started, they provided housing at local hotels. Sister Andrea told Council
`.«.
l0
Reeular Meetiue Asuea City Council Mav 14, 2007
she contacted the Benedicts about land they owned east of town for this foundation. The
~ Benedicts gave the land to the foundation to sell or to use for a building for the
foundation. Sister Andrea said the high altitude affects the health of some of the
children. Sister Andrea told Council 9/11 has affected fund raising. Glenn Hom,
representing the applicant, told Council it will be a much shorter process in the county to
get the property mazketable. Ms. Gazrow said a single family house is not allowed in the
academic zone; it is allowed in the conservation zone but only if the SPA is lifted.
Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing.
The executive director of the Aspen Cancer survivor center told Council they looked at
this center as an opportunity to continue the work in town. The director said they have
discussed with other non-profits about purchasing this property and there is interest to
preserve this as a cancer retreat center.
Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing.
Sister Andrea said this foundation has worked with a lot ofnon-profit organizations to
support children and young adults. Sister Andrea told Council they have a responsibility
to work with these children and to continue that work. Sister Andrea said they need this
endowment to carry on this work. Councilman DeVilbiss asked the access to the
property. Sister Andrea said Ute avenue is the only access. Councilman DeVilbiss asked
if this could be sold for 3 single family houses in the county. Neiley said it was approved
in the county and the number of lots and density was established for one single family
residence. This also has a growth management allocation in the county. There could be
a single family house with a deed restricted employee unit. No further subdivision would
be permitted. Councilman DeVilbiss said the difference seems to be that the applicants
could get a single family house approved more quickly through the county process than
the city process.
Councilman DeVilbiss moved to adopt Ordinance #18, Series of 2007, on second
reading; seconded by Councilman Johnson.
Councilman Torre said he is not in favor of disconnection. Councilman Torre said he is
not in favor of properties being developed in the city and then when it is wnvenient for
disconnection, to apply for that. Councilman Torre stated it is in the city's best interest to
retain this property under the city's guidelines. The property was deeded for non-profit
work; it was accepted by the city as such and was zoned for academic and conservation
and it should remain so and not revert to single family house usage not in line with the
original approvals. Mayor Klanderud said this was gifted with no stipulations from the
donor.
Mayor Klanderud said she has mixed feelings about this application. One decision is
made when it benefits the land owner and when it doesn't a different decision is sought.
Mayor Klanderud said it would be great if it were awin/win for everyone. The property
+...
it
Re¢ular Meetine Aspen Citv Council Mav 14, 2007
is developed for certain uses and it would a good solution if it could be used for similar
;, uses by other non-profits.
Councilman Johnson stated he does not feel it is in the city's best interest to allow de-
annexation for the reasons stated by staff nor is it wise public policy to set precedents of
de-annexation for the sole purpose of increasing value for free market residences.
Councilman Johnson noted there aze too many single family residence and too few non-
profit institutions like this. Councilman Torre asked if the conservation zone allows for a
single family residence. Ms. Gatrow said it does but in this instance the SPA overlay
prevents it.
Councilman DeVilbiss asked the rationale for the SPA overlay. Chris Bendon,
community development department, said this was a specific request and the zoning was
academic as most closely associated with the proposed use, and conservation zoning
because of the flood plain azeas. The SPA was tailored to the applicant's proposal and it
meshed with the homeowners' covenants.
Mayor Klanderud noted there have been discussions on the traffic on Ute Avenue for
other projects. If this were a different non-profit use, there could be increases in traffic
on Ute Avenue which may not be in the best interests of the city. A single family
residence would be a wash city or county. Councilman DeVilbiss stated the best interests
of the city will not be served by disconnection.
Roll call vote; Councilmembers Johnson, no; Torre, no; DeVilbiss, no; Mayor Klanderud,
yes. Motion NOT carried.
APPEAL OF P&Z RESOLUTION 1001 UTE AVENUE
Councilman Torre recused himself due to a connection with the Gant. Jessica Garrow,
community development department, submitted two resolutions, #42, reversing the
decision of P&Z and Resolution #41, upholding the decision of P&Z. Jim True,
representing the city, told Council this is an appeal of a decision made by P&Z granting
8040 green line and residential design standard variance and a PUD amendment. The
appeal standazd to be addressed by Council is based on a review of the record to
determine whether there was a denial of due process, abuse of discretion or finding that
P&Z exceeded its jurisdiction. True stated no additional evidence other than the record
presented to P&Z should be considered by Council.
Ms. Garrow outlined the documents in Council's packet that are part of the P&Z record
for this approval. Ms. Gatmw stated this is an appeal from Richazd and Susan Wells of a
decision made April 3, 2007, by P&Z where they granted approval of Resolution #9,
2007, ganting 8040 green line review to two residences at 1001 Ute avenue; a residential
design standazd variance from secondary mass and two PUD amendments; one for
building along the property line between the two residences and one to transfer a small
amount of FAR from lot 2 to lot 1.
12
EXHIBIT
MEMORANDUM
T0: David I-Ioefer, Attorney's Office
Joyce Ohlson, Conununity Development Department
FROM: Claude Morelli, Transportation Planner
CC: Steve Barwick, City Manager
Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager
Lysa Usher, Transportation Coordinator
DATE: E' ` o embei 1~J~9~
RE: Potential Asoen Club Contribution to the Cross Town Shuttle
SUl'1MARY: The purpose of this memorandum is to develop a recommendation for a
t ~.ynn er- ~1- 9%2dOt1: The recommended contribution is~~~~ oi,'chh,~i in which th
shuttle operates. Staff also recommends. however, that this amount be reduced by $2.00 for
each shuttle rider that the Aspen Club generates. The purpose of the reduction is to provide
an incentive for the Aspen Club to promote use of the service.
BACKGROUND:.At a recent work session on transportation, Council gave preliminary
approval for the operation and mazketing of a new in-town transit service called the Cross
Town Shuttle. This service will run during the winter of 1999/?000 between the east end of
Ute Avenue and the Music Associates bus stop in the West End via the Aspen Core Area (see
Figure A). Service will be provided every 30 minutes in each direction. The purposes of the
shuttle include (a) reducing traffic and demand for core-area pazking by providing an
alternative to automobile travel, and (b) filling gaps in transit service coverage that currently
exist in Aspen.
In a November 4, 1999 metnorandum to Council, staff presented estimates of potential shuttle
ridership. Staff estimates that, on average, approximately 133 riders per day will use the
shuttle over the course of the operating season. Of this total, approximately 57 are expected
to boazd or alight in [he West End and 76 aze expected to boazd or alight alone Ute Avenue
(see Table 1).
The November 4 memo noted
V.a#. ~"
' See the Aspen Club development approval documents for information on the Club's traffic-mitigation
Mc~ .45pen Club_Contribucionl Page I of 2
• • -~ A •-
RECOMMENDED ASPEN CLUB CONTRIBUTION: Staff's methodology for
developing a reasonable Aspen Club contribution level is a iwo-step process. The first step
involves apportioning the total cost of the shuttle service between the west and east segments
of the shuttle route on a mileage basis. The west segment extends from the Music Associates
stop to Rubey Pazk, while the east segment extends from Rube}' Park to the east end of Ute
Avenue. Step two involves further apportioning the cost of operating and marketing the east
segment to the Aspen Club. The apportionment of cost to the Aspen Club is based on its
estimated shuttle rider generation rate relative to other land uses along Ute Avenue.
Step 1: When measured on a round-trip basis, the route of the Cross Town Shuttle is
approximately 3.9 miles long. That is, each trip of the shuttle from the eas nd- f U
._
Avenue to the Music Associates bus stop and back totals about 3.9 miles r Frelin
Rn`he'v Pa~k'ttn the east end of Ute Avenue and back totals about 1.6 miles. Thus. the
see t f th' e swE`fi'ti~e represen[s about ~1 percent "oftotal route mileag~ Since the cost of
operating and marketing the shuttle is projected to total approximately $726 per dav~~°the r `y
.. 3~.~ ~--~- ,..`
mileage appomoned'cost ofoperanng the'serv7ce over the east portion is about $397 80uper ,t""
day {see Table 2). "' '-
Step 2: Ute Avenue land uses are expected to eenerate about 76 shuttle riders per day. Of this
amount, a[ least 20 riders are expected [o board or alight at the Aspen Club _Thu_~rtdei
generated by the~AsSpen Club are expected to r~rgsent about 26 percent of all Cfte.: yen e ;
~'v S ~X~RT'tl."... b~euis~sw.. .
~~ Mul£tp~ping the mtleage-apponioned cost of the east seement of the Cross Town
Shuttle Service (_ $ 297:80) by the Aspen Club's share of all Ute Avenue riders (= 0?6)
yields a ree Qmmended Aspen ,Club contt6uuop o£$77 8~ per;day_~See Table 3j
~..~.~~.
SIIUTTLE PROMOTION INCENTIVE: As an incentive for the Aspen Club to promote
use of the Cross Town Shuttle. staff recommends that the contribution level of $77.85 per day
be reduced by $2.00 for each rider generated by the club. For example. if the Aspen Club
were to generate an average of 30 riders per day. the required daily contribution would be
$17.85 (_ $77.85 - [$2.00 x 30J). Generation of 39 or more riders per day on average would
reduce the Aspen Club's daily contribution to zero. Measurement of ridership should be by
means of periodic random samples of shuttle boardings and alightings at the Aspen Club stop.
obligations: Ordinance Number 3Q Series of 1996, Section 2, Items a and I o. See also the July I5. 1996
memorandum from Alan Richman to the Aspen City Council, referenced in Item 4 of Ordinance ?t).
Memo Aspen Club_Contributionl Paee 2 Of 2
RECOMMENDED ASPEN CLUB CONTRIBUTION: Staffls methodology for
developing a reasonable Aspen Club contribution level is a two-step process. The first step
involves apportioning the total cost of the shuttle service between the west and east segments
of the shuttle route on a mileage basis. The west segment extends from the Music Associates
stop to Rubey Park, while the east segment extends from Rubey Park to the east end of Ute
Avenue. Step two involves further apportioning the cost of operating and mazketing the east
segment to the Aspen Club. The apportionment of cost to the Aspen Club is based on its
estimated shuttle rider generation rate relative to other land uses along Ute Avenue.
Step 1: When measured on a round-trip basis, the route of the Cross Town Shuttle is
approximately 3.9 miles long. That is, each trip of the shuttle from the east end of Ute
Avenue to the Music Associates bus stop and back totals about 3.9 miles. Traveling from
Rubey Park to the east end of Ute Avenue and back totals about 1.6 miles. Thus, the east
segment of the shuttle represents about 41 percent of total route mileage. Since the cost of
operating and mazketing the shuttle is projected to total approximately $726 per day, the
mileage-apportioned cost of operating the service over the east portion is about $297.80 per
day (see Table 2).
Step 2: Ute Avenue land uses are expected to generate about 76 shuttle riders per day. Of this
amount, at least 20 riders are expected to boazd or alight at the Aspen Club. Thus, riders
generated by the Aspen Club aze expected to represent about 26 percent of all Ute Avenue
riders. Multiplying the mileage-apportioned cost of the east segment of the Cross Town
Shuttle Service (_ $ 297.80) by the Aspen Club's share of all Ute Avenue riders (- 0.26)
yields a recommended Aspen Club contribution of $77.85 per day (see Table 3).
SHUTTLE PROMOTION INCENTIVE: As an incentive for the Aspen Club to promote
use of the Cross Town Shuttle, staff recommends that the contribution level of $77.85 per day
be reduced by $2.00 for each rider generated by the club. For example, if the Aspen Club
were to generate an average of 30 riders per day, the required daily contribution would be
$17.85 (_ $77.85 - [$2.00 x 30]). Generation of 39 or more riders per day on average would
reduce the Aspen Club's daily contribution to zero. Measurement of ridership should be by
means of periodic random samples of shuttle boazdings and alightings at the Aspen Club stop.
obligations: Ordinance Number 20, Series of 1996, Section 2, 1[ems 4 and 10. See also the July l5, 1996
metnorandum from Alan Richman to the Aspcn City Council, referenced in Item 4 of Ordinance 20.
memo_aspen club <t_shuule contribulionl.doc page 2 of 2
December 3, 2003
Aspen Club and Spa
1450 Crystal Lake Road
Aspen, CO 81611
Attn: General Manager
__
~°f~h~ ~~
C+~
THE CRY OF ASPEN
As the Aspen Club and Spa will not be contributing to the Cross Town Shuttle this season, the business
will be required to provide van services as represented as part of a 1996 approval for the relocation of
the Aspen Club parking lot and expansion of the club. The requirements are as follows:
1. Nature of service: The service will be point to point, between the Aspen Club Lodge and the
Aspen Club. The shuttle will also have at least one cross-town pick up point.
2. Route: Along Highway 82 and Crystal Lake Road, but may deviate to Ute Avenue for
therapy patients.
3. Timing: The service will operate during the morning (8-9:30am), mid-day (12-1:30pm) and
evening (4-6:OOpm) peak hours, on the half hour and the hour, for a total of 13 round trips
daily. It will be a year-round service.
4. Vehicle type: Van service.
5. Public information: Members and employees will be given materials describing the shuttle
service and encouraging them to use it. Members and employees will also be reminded that
RFTA operates a shuttle along Highway 82 that they can use. A sign will be posted in a
conspicuous place on the property describing the time and place of the Club's shuttle service.
A transportation management plan, including the following elements, will. also be due to the City of
Aspen Transportation Department by December 15, 2003.
1. Commencement date of van service
2. Detailed information on how the van service meets the above requirements
Remittance of 2003 Cross Town Shuttle contribution
4. Proposed plan for annual proof of compliance - ie annual report, meeting, etc.
Regards,
Lynn Bader, Transportation Coordinator Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer
6. Completion of former issues of compliance: City of Aspen records indicate that the Aspen
Club has not fulfilled its required 2003 Cross Town Shuttle contribution. The Club must
provide proof of payment of prior invoices, or alternatively, pay the enclosed invoice by
December 15, 2003.
Aspen Club & Spa
Traffic Management Plan
Specific Requirements for Shuttle Service
Source: Alan Richman Merno dated July I5, 1996
Shuttle Service
1. Nature of service:
The service will be point to point, between the Aspen Club Lodge and the Aspen Club.
The shuttle will also have at least one cross-town pick up point.
2. Route:
Along Highway 82 and Crystal Lake Road, but may deviate to Ute Avenue for therapy
patients.
3. Timing:
The service will operate during the morning (8-9:30am), mid-day (12-1:30pm) and
evening (4-6:OOpm) peak hours, on the half hour and the hour, for a total of 13 round
trips daily. It will be a year-round service.
4. Vehicle type:
Van service.
5. Public information:
Members and employees will be given materials describing the shuttle service and
encouraging them to use it. Members and employees will also be reminded that RFTA
operates a shuttle along Highway 82 that they can use. A sign will be posted in a
conspicuous place on the property describing the time and place of the Club's shuttle
service.
6. Reporting
A report including parking lot counts, ridership data, etc was required to be submitted to
Council within one year of construction completion. Is there any way to require similar
reporting to ensure compliance? (ex: annual check in with Transportation staff)
ASPEN CLUB PRO RATA SHARE OF CROSSTOWN SERVICE
2003 CALCULATIONS
Total Annual Cost $ 163,823
Total Operating Days 190
Total Operating Cost/day $ 862.23
WINTER COST CALCULATIONS
Tota] Operating days 114
Hours of Operation 13
Roundtrips/hour to Aspen Club 2
Total Daily Trips 26
Total Winter Trips 2964
Total Winter Cost $ 98,293.80
Cost per trip $ 33.16
Winter Aspen Club Cost per Day
Aspen Clubs Required Mitigation 13 trips per day
($33.16 x .41 x .50 xl3 trips) $ 88.38
Aspen Club Cost for Total Winter Operations
(114 days x $89.00/day) $ 10,075.11 $ 10,076.00
SUMMER COST CALCULATIONS
Total Operating days 76
Hours of Operation 14.5
Round trips hour to Aspen Club 2
Daily Trips 29
Total Summer Trips 2204
Total Summer Cost $ 65,529.20
Cost per trip $ 29.73
Summer Aspen Club Cost per Day
Aspen Clubs Required Mitigation 13 trips/day
($29.73 x .41 x .50 xl3 trips) $ 7924
Aspen Club Cost for Total Winter Operations
(76 days x $79.24/day) $ 6,021.91 $ 6,022.00
TOTAL WINTER & SUMMER COSTS $ 16,098.00
The ~J ,
ASPEN CLUB
&SPA
December 30. 2003
The City of Aspen Club & Spa
Lynn Bader, Transportation Coordinator
Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer
Please consider the following in response to your letter dated December 3, 2003.
requesting a plan for our shuttle service:
2. The Vehicle in use is a 2004 GMC Savannah 7-passenger van.
3. From December 15 through April 15, and from June 15 through September 30, the
van will run continuously from 8:30 am until 8:00 pm on Saturday and Sunday and
until 9:00 pm on weekdays. This itinerary yields approximately 40-50 trips per day.
4. From April 16 through June 14, and from October 1 through December 14, the van
will run twice per hour, on the 10 and 40 minute past the hour, during the same
hours. This itinerary will yield approximately 20-30 trips per day.
5. We are currently testing a route that begins and ends at the Aspen Club and loops
through town, stopping at taxi pick-up points and at Rubey Park.
6. We are open to the City's recommendation of compliance proof-we can provide an
annual report, or attend a meeting, whichever pleases the City. Please advise.
We have written a check in the amount of $10,000 that will be mailed on January 2,
2004. The remainder will follow on January 9.
Thank you so much for your consideration. Please call me with any questions,
comments, or concerns.
Linda Schmehl
General Manager
March 8, 2004
CERTIFIED MAIL
Linda Schmehl
Aspen Club
1450 Crysta] Lake Road
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Payment for 2003 Cross Town Shuttle
Dear Linda,
The City of Transportation Department has not received the final payment due for the
Aspen Club's contribution to operation of the Cross Town Shuttle in 2003. Per your
letter dated December 30, 2003, a payment was to be made January 2, 2004 and January
15, 2002. To our knowledge the January 15, 2004 payment has not been received.
Further, the Transportation Department staff has also not received information related to
a marketing plan for the shuttle (i.e. how the Aspen Club is informing clients and staff of
the service).
As you are aware, the Aspen Club was required to provide some sort of public
transportation program as part of 1996 approvals ~the open Club,~chose„~to.
X--
provde~ amg toahe Ci~or the Cross T_gwnShuttl .Since payment has not been
b for a pornon of the Cross Town Shuttle for 2003, the Aspen Club is violation of its
approvals. Please remit payment and a marketing plan within ten (] 0) days from the date
of this letter or a court citation may be issued.
We appreciate your attention in this matter.
Regards,
Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer
City of Aspen
cc: Lynn Bader, Transportation Department
~x~1 ~8r~ I
City PlanninE & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -January 20, 2009
District; seconded by Michael Wampler. Erspamer, yes; Gibbs, yes; Bloom yes;
Weiss, yes; Wampler, yes; Myrin, yes. APPROVED 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ASPEN JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER AT THE SILVER LINING
RANCH
LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing for 1490 Ute Avenue the Aspen Jewish
Community Center SPA Amendment. The legal notice was provided and Jim True
said that it was compliant.
Jason Lasser, Special Projects Planner for the City of Aspen, distributed emails
that were received by Community Development today. Lasser said that this was
an SPA Amendment, GMQS, Special Review for Parking, Stream Margin and
8040 Greenline Reviews. The Planning & Zoning Commission's task was to
review the Special Planned Area Amendment.
Cliff Weiss asked about the 2 letters from the public that stated they did not receive
notice for the public hearing. Jim True responded that the legal notice appears in
order; there was an affidavit of mailing. Alan Richman stated that the public
notice was done according to what the City of Aspen requires; he went to the GIS
Department to obtain the most current records. Richman said that if the property
owners are not diligent in keeping the Assessor up to date on their mailing
addresses then the address would not be correct and there was a 300 foot radius for
noticing. Richman said that the Rabbi has had multiple contacts with Mr. Bellock
and Mr. Reagan about this project.
Jason Lasser said there were 2 reviews by the Planning & Zoning Commission to
go to City Council; one is for the Specially Planned Area (SPA Amendment) and
the other is for Growth Management Review. P&Z has 3 reviews that are final at
P&Z; Special Review for Parking to add 10 spaces, Stream Margin Review and
8040 Greenline Review. Lasser said the SPA Amendment allows for flexibility for
uses and for dimensional requirements; the SPA Amendment is to allow for arts,
cultural and civic uses on the upper bench. Lasser said the applicant was looking
to amend the building envelope to accommodate revised parking on the west edge,
the property line adjacent to the Aspen Club. Lasser said the changes to the
existing building were primarily interior changes to accommodate the Jewish
Community Center; what was being added to the property was a small cabin to the
north edge of the property. Staff recommends approval of the SPA Amendment.
4
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes - January 20, 2009
Lasser said for Special Events they would drop off and pick up at the Rio Grande
Parking Garage and the preschool at Koch Lumber Yard Park. Richman said for
weddings the people would be picked up at their hotels.
Lasser said for the GMQS the employee generation would be determined by the
Planning & Zoning Commission. The applicant proposed based on research were
5.75 employees, which was approximately 60% of the affordable housing
mitigation that APCHA requested.
Lasser said the Special Review for Parking was adding 10 spaces as well as the
shuttle and a 10 foot wide pedestrian and bike path that connects from Ute Avenue
directly to the front door of the Community Center.
Lasser said the 8040 Greenline doesn't touch any development or buildings it just
crosses the driveway.
Lasser said the Stream Margin Review meets the criteria and was previously
approved and there were no significant changes to the lower bench being made.
Staff recommends approval of all of the reviews.
Cliff Weiss asked if the cabin will be for 1 FTE. Alan Richman replied that for
each bedroom you get credit for 1.75. Weiss asked where the others were housed.
Richman replied inside the main building.
LJ Erspamer asked what the 30% of the open space meant on page 24. Richman
replied that it would be 30% of the site of 6 '/z acres was required to be open space.
Bert Myrin asked about the 60% of FTEs housed. Jennifer Phelan responded that
this was an essential public facility and there was not a table for employee
generation but each essential public facility was reviewed separately. Phelan said
that the commission could lock in that 60% mitigation and if something changes
then the applicant would come back with a change.
Mike Wampler spoke to Shirley Ritter about child care; infants require more
employees than middle school children; he asked if that played into this at all.
Richman replied that they think they know what their employee generation will be;
there was not a magic formula so they are looking at their planned operation.
Richman said there will be an audit 2 years after they operate and if turns out that
the generation is somewhat in excess then they will be responsible for more and
they will adjust; if it turns out to be less they are still providing 3 housing units.
City Planning & ZOnInE MeetinE -Minutes -January 20, 2009
Alan Richman introduced Rabbi Mintz; Susan Richman helping with the site plan;
Art Chabon, the architect; Jeff Ream helping with the traffic study and Neil
Karbank, legal counsel. Richman provided the background of the property; he
agreed with the staff presentation and resolution with the changes. Richman said
that the Silver Lining Ranch operated from 1999 to 2006 and the foundation
decided to move the operation out of this property and relocated to southwest
Colorado, outside of Durango; there has been very little activity on this property
for the last several years. In 2007 the foundation submitted a petition to the City
Council asking to either disconnect the property from the City, which would revert
back to a County parcel of land and would have gone to the County
Commissioners to see if they could revert back to R-15 single family zoning or ask
the City Council to rezone to RR, the lowest intensity residential use or R-15. City
Council denied both requests and made a clear determination that they wanted the
property to stay an institutional use. Richman said the Jewish Community Center
is appropriate for this property.
Richman said the existing condition were the property as a whole is 6 '/z acres on 2
benches, an upper bench and lower bench; there was a slope between the 2 benches
that drops about 20 to 30 feet. The upper bench was rather flat and was
immediately adjacent to the Aspen Club, which was located on the map on the first
page of the memo.
Rabbi Mintz thanked City staff and the Commission for all of their time. Rabbi
Mintz gave the background of the Jewish Community Center which was founded
about 8 years ago and purchased the L'Auberge Cabins on Main Street about 5
years ago. Rabbi Mintz said that after seeing the Silver Lining Ranch several times
he realized that it was perfect for their needs and because it takes advantage of the
beauty of Aspen with almost no work and looking at the Main Street location for
children was not that compatible with all of the traffic.
Richman said although this was a significant project the proposed changes to the
property were very minor. They were making an internal remodel to each of the 3
floors in the building and there were some line of sight changes. The second floor
will stay the same with the bedrooms used as employee housing and the Rabbi's
office; the lower level will be the 3 preschool classrooms.
Richman said the traffic projections were from Ute Avenue where the entrance was
located and public transportation is emphasized as the way to access this property
and begins with the preschool. Richman said the number of parking spaces
proposed is adequate to handle the religious services on Friday evenings and
6
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -January 20, 2009
Saturday mornings and adult education. Richman said that they will inform
parents when signing preschool children up that there were shuttles and parents
that drive routinely would be charged an additional fee. Richman said the same
shuttle services would be used for special events such as major religious
celebrations like the Jewish New Year, bar mitzvahs and weddings; the special
events would be limited to 10 per year. Richman said employees living on site will
be discouraged from having a car except for the caretaker who needs a vehicle.
Richman said the Aspen Club will have car-sharing and welcomed this applicant to
take part in that car-sharing and they have agreed to place bicycles on the property.
Cliff Weiss asked the existing FAR of the building. Richman replied it was
approved at 14,000 square feet.
Jeff Ream, senior transportation engineer, said that he took a lot of the discussions
of operations from the original Main Street site and applied them to this site.
Ream said this was a fairly unique site; there were typical daily activities such as
the daycare, employee trips and the less frequent activities of the services and
classes and special events. Ream said this site had limited parking and the
applicant was taking an active approach to limiting traffic through travel demand
management measures most specifically the preschool and special event shuttles.
Ream said the Crosstown Shuttle provides service twice an hour; the Aspen Club
Shuttle has been proposed and for the employees there was car-sharing and
bicycles. The memo contained the traffic studies.
Richman reminded the commission of the major project benefits to create a place
of worship, education and culture to serve to serve the Aspen Community. The
Community Center will provide desperately needed preschool facility for
approximately 40 children and will be built with no public subsidy. Richman said
the property has been sitting idle for.the last 3 years. Richman asked for
commission approval.
Cliff Weiss asked what the traffic volumes looked like on Friday nights and
Saturday mornings. Jeff Ream responded on Friday night and Saturday morning
the background traffic was lower; there were about 15 additional vehicles added to
the traffic. Background traffic was the club and the residences on Ute Avenue.
Richman said that his understanding was that the Wildwood School does drop off
and pickup at Koch Park.
Bert Myrin asked about the parking spaces being for employees only. Richman
responded the goal was for 20 parking spaces because they believe that number
7
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -January 20, 2009
will accommodate the basic day to day uses of this site. Myrin asked if the
employees would take 10 of the spaces. Richman replied there were multiple
employees living on site and they would be discouraged from having cars and the
spaces would not be dominated by employees. Myrin was concerned that parking
was being doubled and at the same time trying to discourage traffic. Myrin asked
if the city would fund the Crosstown Shuttle service or if they funded the
Crosstown Shuttle for the Aspen Club. Myrin asked if this project could
participate in some funding for the Crosstown Shuttle.
Stan Gibbs asked what the Aspen Club traffic analysis was. Gibbs asked if the
base line for this project included the Aspen Club traffic generation; he said if that
number was not included then it was a piecemeal approach toward transportation
for that street (Ute). Ream said that he spoke to the Aspen Club and tried to get as
much information as possible but the Aspen Club was not in a position to give
those numbers out; they were still figuring it out. Mike Wampler said that
according to his number crunching if there were 12 hours a day at 200 an hour that
came up to 2200; generating a car every 3 minutes so that would be anon-issue.
Gibbs asked if the preschool shuttle was just used for the preschool. Richman
replied that it was used for the preschool and special events. Rabbi Mintz said
there were only about 4 or 8 cars that come on Friday night and less on Saturday
morning because there is the concept of not driving on the Jewish Sabbath, which
was something to keep in mind.
Wampler said there was a locked gate there and suggested the fine for driving kids
should be substantial.
Dina Bloom asked if they were going toward an agreement with the Aspen Club
for a ride share program, car share program, bike program and shuttle. Richman
said there were 2 ways to look at the Aspen Club Shuttle which today operated on
a demand only basis and if the project that is on the table were to go forward that
shuttle service would expand considerably.
MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to extend the meeting until 7:30 pm; seconded by
Michael Wampler. All in favor, APPROVED.
Myrin asked if the neighbors of Koch Park were notified. Myrin asked if there was
a gate and asked if a gate was allowed in the city.
Weiss asked why they were adding a 700 square foot structure. Rabbi Mintz
replied that he wasn't comfortable with the caretaker living in the building with
8
City Planning & Zoning MeetinE -Minutes -January 20, 2009
children. Phelan said that community development require accessory dwelling
units to be detached; affordable housing units can be inside a building but
encourage detached units.
Erspamer requested a site visit and an avalanche survey to be included in the next
packet.
Public Comments:
1. Tom Regan, public, stated that he was president of the Stillwater open space
association; he said Fabi Benedict carved out Lot 5 for the permanent home
for the Silver Lining Ranch, Kids Foundation. Regan said that the
restrictions and covenants were to provide protection to the homeowners to
resort to a single family home if Andrea's foundation moved out.
2. Bill Krimmel, public, stated that he has been involved with the kids at the
Silver Lining Ranch since 1998 when the building was being built. Krimmel
stated that he was in favor of this project.
3. Janie Rosenberg, public, stated that daycare was needed in this town.
Rosenberg said that if there was a way to house teachers here that would be
a huge benefit.
4. Barbara Fleck, public, said that she lives at Stillwater and they want to keep
this a quiet neighborhood; she spoke to members of the synagogue and
wanted to know where they were putting the summer camp because their
covenants won't allow it.
5. Rick Neiley, public, stated that he represented Sister Andrea Yaeger. Neiley
said that in 2007 City Council denied the request for this property to revert
back to a single family use originally permitted by Pitkin County. Neiley
said that City Council gave very specific instructions to find an organization
that would continue non-profit work on this property and this proposal is an
almost perfect fit for the existing facilities, for the nature of the
infrastructure and the benefits to the community. Neiley said that the
parking and transportation issues had a framework to make it work. Neiley
said that he studied the covenants and there was nothing in those covenants
that say that the use can't change.
6. Larry Rosenfeld, public, said if the concern was having kids back out there;
Aspen has kids now.
Weiss said that a site visit was needed for parking, traffic, and the layout of the
new parking spaces.
9
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -January 20, 2009
MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to continue the public hearing for the Jewish
Community Center to February 17, 2008; seconded by Bert Myrin. All in favor.
APPROVED.
Discussion: Weiss, Myrin and Erspamer stated that the parking and transportation
concerned them the most. There will be a site visit at noon on Tuesday, February
17~'. Myrin requested the minutes from the Council meeting mentioned on page 13
of the memo.
Erspamer asked for a zoning map in the Sister Cities Meeting Room.
Adjourned at 7:30pm.
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
10
Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning February 17, 2009
Bert Myrin asked about the airlock for new structures not being met. Jennifer
Phelan responded that they were remodeling and were proposing the airlock; she
stated that guideline did not have to be applied.
Mike Wampler asked Denis Murray if he approved of everything that was
proposed. Denis Murray replied yes and they worked with engineering as well but
might have to adjust the grade of the sidewalk and that would help them gain the
elevation to make the ramp work out.
Gideon Kaufman provided the affidavits for posting and mailing to Mr. True.
Kaufman said that they have worked together with staff and took suggestions and
modified the plan to meet with the approval.
Linda Wong explained the airlock and how it worked.
Stan Gibbs noted that the drawing of the remodeled building doesn't really show
the delivery access on the side; does that move. Linda Wong replied the current
building had delivery access and she said that she believed that would be retained.
Gibbs said that he just wanted to make sure that alley access was retained because
it was required for deliveries.
Jim DeFrancia asked if this commission was the final authority on the application.
Phelan replied that they were.
Public Comments:
Jeffrey Halferty, public, said that he worked on that building when it was Ozzie's
and thought that this was a great proposal.
MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve Resolution #5, series 2009,
approving the request for commercial design review for 312 South Hunter
conditioned on retaining the existing delivery door along the alley and delete the
word "not "; Cliff Weiss seconded. Roll call vote: Wampler, yes; Bloom, yes;
Myrin, yes; Weiss, yes; DeFrancia, yes; Gibbs, yes. APPROVED 6-0.
Continued Public Hearing:
1490 Ute Avenue -Jewish Community Center, SPA Amendment
Stan Gibbs opened the continued public hearing for 1490 Ute Avenue, Jewish
Community Center, SPA Amendment. Jennifer Phelan asked Jim True to speak on
covenants; she asked for clarification on the role of covenants with regard to public
3
Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning February 17, 2009
hearing and the criteria that the planning and zoning commission uses in reviewing
an application.
Jim True stated that it was really very simple and had explained this before. The
City of Aspen is not in a position to enforce private covenants. What the P&Z
must do is consider this pursuant to the City's Landuse Code and the terms and
conditions of the Landuse Code. Private covenants are a separate issue that are
individually enforced; the history in this situation is (as he understands it) the
covenants were in place and there was a lot of discussion at the last meeting about
the covenants. If the applicant wishes to request to have time to address covenant
issues that's up to them but it is not P&Z's place to review, interrupt, make
determinations as to what the covenants do or do not say. True recommended that
P&Z simply address what's in the Landuse Code and not address representations
regarding what the covenants say this; it is not P&Z's position to make
determinations for what private covenants do or do not say.
Jim DeFrancia said that he appreciated that advice and should we ignore covenants
that have to do with building restrictions. True said that it is not P&Z's position to
make determinations as to whether it does or doesn't comply with private
covenants. True noted that was a whole array of legal issues for a judge to
determine and not P&Z. True said that there are certainly issues that the
homeowners can bring up that are related to your consideration; he did not say not
to consider homeowner's concerns but keep it in the context of the Landuse Code
and not enforcing private covenants.
Jason Lasser, special project planner with the City of Aspen, said this was a
continuation for the Aspen Jewish Community Center at Silver Lining Ranch,
consolidated SPA amendment application and growth management review.
Lasser sated questions from the last P&Z meeting were who runs the crosstown
shuttle, is the fire hydrant placement okay with the fire department, how does the
city treat private gates and additional information for the avalanche study.' Some
answers to those questions were provided in the packet as well as new additional
information, exhibit M (letters from homeowners, neighbors and interested public).
That was handed out today. Staff recommends approval of this application.
Bert Myrin asked about the employee housing mitigation from the January 20`h
memo page 6 says that the employee housing mitigation was 60% of the 9
employees; P&Z is just determining the number of employees. Lasser replied that
was included because the applicant was now requesting a waiver and they were
4
Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning February 17, 2009
actually going to provide 60% of the affordable housing. So as an essential public
they can request a waiver from City Council.
Alan Richman, representing the Aspen Jewish Community Center, stated that he
did not want to repeat the presentation from the January 20`h that was rather
lengthy. Richman provided the key points from the original presentation plus one
more. 1. The owner of the property is Kids Stuff Foundation. 2. We believe that
the property and the building represent an excellent fit for the Jewish Community
Center; the property offers wonderful opportunities for play areas for preschool,
represents an awe inspiring place for religious worship. 3. The proposed changes
to the property include the new pedestrian section, the driveway loop
improvements and the addition of about 10 parking spaces. 4. They have placed a
strong emphasis on programs to reduce the need for users to drive to the facility;
there was a free shuttle service for the preschool; there was a need for financial
penalties for parents who do not use the preschool shuttle service; special events
shuttle service; car share program. 5. The traffic volumes on the surrounding road
system are low and the traffic increase from this Center would have little to no on
those traffic operations. 6. The Community Center will provide a desperately
needed preschool facility for approximately 40 children. 7. (addition) GIS created
an aerial photograph map of the entire Stillwater Ranch PUD.
Richman said that no roads are shared with the Stillwater Ranch properties. The
distances from the closest neighbor is just less than 650 feet away, which is just
over 2 city blocks. Richman said they were not building a new facility but reusing
an existing building.
Cliff Weiss asked about other homeowners impacted besides the Stillwater
neighbors. Richman responded that there were other neighbors and Ute Avenue
neighbors. Weiss inquired about outdoor activities and what were the plans, for
summer camp on the open space. Richman replied that nothing was proposed on
the conservation open space. Stan Gibbs asked for Alan to point out where the
open space was located on the map. Cliff Weiss asked where the children's play
area was located. Weiss asked about the false fronts of a western town. Richman
replied those false front play areas were put up by the Kids Stuff Foundation called
Kid Town and hope that area will remain there. Richman said they were open to
conditions in the Resolution.
Jim DeFrancia asked how many full time employee were anticipated. Richman
replied 9-10. DeFrancia asked how many employees the Silver Lining Ranch had.
Richman replied that there were quite a number when the sessions were in
5
Re¢ular Meetin¢ Aspen Plannin¢ and Zoning February 17, 2009
operation of medical staff from 10-15 personnel; there were 7 one week sessions
and then it went to 7 two week sessions. There were administrative employees in
the building full time but each kid needed medical staff and there were 20 kids for
each session. DeFrancia asked what was proposed for employee housing
mitigation for staff. Richman replied that there were 3 units inside the building
currently but they would have 2 units inside the building because the lower level
unit would be displaced by the preschool rooms and they would have 750 square
foot caretaker unit built.
Bert Myrin asked if the affordable unit was proposed where the dumpster was
located. Richman replied next to it. Myrin asked who would use the 23 parking
spaces. Richman responded that when there were religious activities there would
be some spaces used for the adult education and drop off spaces. Myrin asked how
many bedrooms would there be on site for employee housing. Richman answered
there's a 2 bedroom and 2 1 bedrooms. Rabbi Mintz stated that he currently has 5
employees and only 1 uses a car. Myrin asked if there was a distinction between a
parking space and a drop off space. Richman replied there were some spaces that
were obvious spaces and there were identified ones as drop off spaces.
Cliff Weiss asked the distance between the Aspen Club parking lot and Silver
Lining Ranch. At least 300 yards was the reply. Richman replied that there was
no way to get from the Aspen Club parking lot without going back to Ute Avenue
to get to this property.
Public Comments:
1. Dick Bell, public, said that he worked for the Silver Lining Ranch and there
was a horse ranch on the property. Bell stated that he goes on site every
week.
2. Barbara Fleck, public, said that shuttles don't work; mother's don't want to
leave their children so they drop them off. There were activities so the
parents stay so they have those cars parking. The covenants do not allow
them to use the open space so the horseback riding and the camp do not fit
into the whole program.
3. Peter Gerson, public, stated that he bought from Fritz and Fabi and the land
was a sanctuary with birds, fox, bears, coyote and deer. This land was a
flood plain and they have kept it in the natural state; when the children go
outside they will impact this area.
4. Tom Regan, public, stated that he was president of the Stillwater open space
association. This area was developed as a neighborhood and was connected
together by the common area and by the use of the different properties.
6
Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning February 17, 2009
Regan said that they were not asking P&Z to adjudicate on the covenants.
Regan requested further analysis for the traffic study prior to anything being
voted on; he asked for a continuance.
5. Rick Neiley, public, said that he represented Sister Andrea Yeager the
founder of Silver Lining Ranch. Neiley stated the original application from
1996 or 1997 anticipated 20 kids, family members, 20 staff members (some
would live there year round) and a variety of other uses when kids' camp
was not in session. The portion of the property that was currently developed
should be rezoned to Academic Zone District, which is established for lands
for education and cultural activities with attendant research, housing, and
administrative facilities, private schools, auditoriums and facilities for
performances and lectures, library and museum. That seems to be what we
are talking about with this applicant.
6. Aaron Fleck, public, said that there would be 7-10 special events in addition
to their services and activities of the temple. Previously the facility was
used 14 weeks a year with 20 students and a few people besides and now
they are proposing a school with 40 students, other activities, 23 parking
spaces. Fleck said that the traffic study did not account for 200 people at an
event even though he did not live on Ute Avenue and that was not his
concern but it should be of concern to the city and this organization.
7. Cathy Pike, public, said that she was a Ute Avenue neighbor and she was in
support of a Jewish Center but this location choice was very poor. Pike said
that she has had to call because of the Aspen Club parking overflow onto
Ute Avenue and that a fire truck could not get through the street. There
were small children that play on the street, people walk their dogs on the
street and the when city plows snow the street becomes about a lane and a
half wide. Pike said that she would like to see the traffic survey from 7 am
to 9:30 am and from 3 pm to 7 pm; there was a lot of traffic on Ute.
8. Pete McClain, public, said that he was Cathy's neighbor and completely
agrees with her assessment of the situation. This was an inappropriate place
to have the Community Center.
9. Rick Head, public, agreed with Cathy and Pete.
Alan Richman stated there were a couple of clarifications from public comments.
The Jewish Center application proposed 5-10 special events per year; a special
event is the Jewish New Year, Passover Service. Most of those 5-10 events would
be religious services that happen within the sanctuary and the dining hall; there is a
potential for a bar mitzvah or a wedding. Richman said that apre-condition of a
special event is that shuttle service is utilized.
7
Reeular Meeting Aspen Plannine and Zoning February 17, 2009
Richman said they would stand by the traffic analysis; the consultants find that the
traffic volumes on Ute Avenue are low, the intersections function adequately and
the amount of traffic for the projects proposed really doesn't threaten the level of
service on the road; this is not a physical capacity issue on that road.
Mike Wampler said the parents of Wildwood School use the shuttles and these
kids' shuttles will be used. Wampler noted that the city has made it clear that they
do not want that property to go back to a single family house, keeping that in mind
this is probably the best use and a good cause. Wampler stated that this still had to
go to council.
Jim DeFrancia stated there was a policy decision made in 2007 with the application
to rezone to single family use and the city decided not to do that; the city felt this
property was valuable for non-profit institutional use. DeFrancia said he had
problems with the traffic study; the study should be done between November and
April on any morning or afternoon because of the weather conditions and snow
piling up in the-street.
Cliff Weiss said that he was not ready to approve the additional parking spaces; he
did think by approving the additional parking spaces the applicant was not thinking
creatively. Weiss asked what was meant by the children's camp or play area; he
asked what the limitations are; it was only fair to the neighbors to be good
neighbors. Weiss said that he couldn't justify the additional 700 square foot cabin;
he didn't know why the caretaker needed to be on site.
Dina Bloom stated the building was very fitted for a Jewish Community Center but
traffic was still her issue and wished there could be a solution.
Bert Myrin said that Section 3 in the Resolution says there was an employee
generation audit; in Section 1 the 8040 Greenline and the stream margin review
hasn't had much discussion and he would like this to move forward. Myrin said
that parking was an issue for him because parking draws cars and if there is a place
to park or drop off it draws vehicles. Richman said there was no parking standard
for this use so the commission is establishing it. Myrin said parking was final at
P&Z. Richman said that council has purview over parking within the SPA but
P&Z sets the special review.
Weiss said that he was not just for passing things onto council otherwise what
exactly if the purpose of this commission. Wampler said that there was one more
review session after the commission's review.
8
Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning February 17 2009
Wampler noted that he lives past Park Avenue and when the snow piles up it's a
one lane road and it slows traffic down.
Stan Gibbs agreed with Jim on the City establishing the non-profit use for this
property and he couldn't think of another use other than another Silver Lining
Ranch that would be much lower in usage than what is being proposed here. Gibbs
said that this was a reasonable use for this parcel given that the city believes that it
should stay connected to the city and that it should be anon-profit, culturally and
socially useful function. Gibbs asked if the applicant was willing to commit to a
percentage of people coming onto the site by shuttle service and if it's not met after
a year then there would be a higher level. Richman stated they have clearly set
their goal for both the preschool and special events at a 100% use of the shuttles.
Gibbs said that he would like to see parking not increase.
MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve Resolution #6, series of 2009, Mike
Wampler seconded. Bert Myrin amended the motion under section 5 the off street
parking to require 3 garage spaces and 10 outdoor spaces. Jim DeFrancia
second. Roll call vote: DeFrancia, yes; Bloom, no; Wampler, no; Cliff, yes;
Myrin, yes; Gibbs, no. Motion fails.
Discussion of motion: Stan Gibbs wanted to amend the motion to require a
traffic audit by the applicant for their use of mass transit and that parking not be
increased beyond the current parking. Gibbs said that a drop off space wasn't a
parking space. Richman said there were a few spaces but it was mostly of the drop
off nature; there were 10 or less outside spaces. Gibbs withdrew his amendment
on the parking issue.
MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to extend the meeting to 7: 30 pm. Jim DeFrancia
seconded. All in favor, APPROVED.
Weiss said the concept of doing studies later was not favorable. Weiss said that he
still objected to the addition of the 750 square foot caretaker unit; the project was
already at the maximum FAR at 14,000. DeFrancia said this was an employee
housing unit. Richman stated that someone (caretaker) had to be on site if it would
open early for preschool. Richman stated the property had to be plowed,
maintained and systems in the building to be maintained. Rabbi Mintz stated that
it was precise that the property be maintained and opened at 8:00 am. Rabbi Mintz
said that he received a lot of questions from parents and the employees living on
the second floor were full time employees. Weiss said he just wanted to have this
discussion on the cabin.
9
Reeular Meetin¢ Aspen P-annine and Zonin¢ February 17, 2009
MOTION: Stan Gibbs offered an amendment to the prior motion for a traffic
audit after one year to be provided by the applicant and evaluated by the City and
if the mass transit expectations are close to 100% for preschool and special events;
individual car uses can be demonstrated to be incidental and not a major factor on
Ute Avenue. Jim DeFrancia seconded. Roll call.• Wampler, yes; Weiss, no;
DeFrancia, yes; Bloom, yes; Myrin, yes; Gibbs, yes. APPROVED 5-1.
Discussion: Alan Richman accepted the condition.. Bert Myrin asked how the
Crosstown Shuttle route was originally funded for the Aspen Club; if we have
some idea of the number and use today. Lasser replied that the Aspen Club
provided their own shuttle service and that was why they did not use the
Crosstown shuttle. Myrin asked for the Crosstown to be incorporated into the
motion and a proportionate share paid by this applicant.
MOTION.• Bert Myrin proposed a motion to recommend to Council to consider
the Aspen Club calculations in looking for contributions for the Crosstown Shuttle
(the model for the subsidy) by the applicant and to meet with transportation prior
to going to Council. Jim DeFrancia seconded. Roll call: Weiss, no; Bloom, yes;
Wampler, no; DeFrancia, yes; Myrin, yes; Gibbs, yes. APPROVED 4-2.
MOTION: Bert Myrin said that P&Z finds this applicant generates 9-10 full time
employees. CIff Weiss seconded. Roll call: Wampler, yes; DeFrancia, yes;
Bloom, yes; Weiss, yes; Myrin, yes; Gibbs, yes. APPROVED 6-0.
Discussion: Richman said they would provide specific program to Council for the
outdoor uses.
MOTION.• Bert Myrin moved to amend the Resolution overall to approve;
seconded by Mike Wampler. Roll call: Weiss, no; DeFrancia, yes; Bloom, yes;
Wampler, yes; Myrin, yes; Gibbs, yes. Approved 5-1.
Adjourned at 7:30pm.
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
10
v~ua.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council
FROM: Errin Evans, Current Planner ~~~/~/~
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Directo~V~"'I
DATE OF MEMO: March 16, 2009
MEETING DATE: March 23rd, 2009
RE: Pitkin County Jail - 485 Rio Grande Place -Specially Planned
Area Amendment and Growth Management Review
Second Reading and Public Hearing of Ordinance No. 5, Series
of 2009
APPLICANT /OWNER:
Jodi Smith, Pitkin County
REPRESENTATIVE:
Stan Clauson Associates, Inc.
LOCATION:
Pitkin County Jail - 485 Rio Grande
Place; Legal Description -Pitkin County
Center Lot 1 and Lot 5 of the Rio Grande
Subdivision; Parcel Identification
Number-2735- 182-19-002
CURRENT ZONING & USE
Located in the Public (PUB) zone district
with a Specially Planned Area (SPA)
overlay containing public buildings such
as the County Court House and the
County Jail.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The Applicant is requesting to construct a
324 s.f. addition to the north side of the
Jail to house computer servers. This
is funded by Pitkin
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Mayor and City Council
approve the request to construct an addition to the
County Jail Building with conditions.
SUMMARY:
The Applicant requests of the Council to approve the
SPA Amendment and Growth Management review
in order to build an addition on the site.
Revised 3/16/2009
Page 1 of 11
Photo of the subject property
BACKGROUND: Currently, some of the City and County servers and other data equipment are
stored in the County Jail Building. The space where the equipment is housed is not large enough.
The County would like to construct an addition to accommodate the equipment and future
expansions of the equipment. The applicant proposes to add an addition to the Pitkin County Jail
Building at 485 Rio Grande Place to accommodate data equipment and computer servers (See
Application -Exhibit D). The subject property has a Specially Planned Area (SPA) overlay upon
it and the SPA needs to be amended to incorporate the addition. On December 16`h and January
6~h the Planning and Zoning Commission approved resolutions to make a recommendation to
Council to approve the SPA Amendment and the Growth Management Review respectively.
LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicant is requesting the
following land use approvals from the City Council:
• SPA Amendment pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.440.050 A. This application
does not qualify for an administrative amendment. All modifications shall be approved
by the Planning and Zoning Commission and Council. This proposal does qualify for
Consolidated Review. In this case, the conceptual and final plans may be combined
based on the scope of the project. The Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public
Revised 3/16/2009
Page 2 of 11
rtgure t: v~cmiry map
hearing, may make a recommendation to the City Council for approval, approval with
conditions or disapproval of the SPA amendment. The City Council is the final authority.
• Growth Management Ouota System -Essential Public Facilities pursuant to Land Use
Code Section 26.470.090 4. Any development to an essential public facility requires the
Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to make a recommendation to the
City Council for approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of the Growth
Management Review. The City Council is the final authority.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The project consists of adding apre-fabricated structure to the north side of the County Jail
building. The fagade of the structure will be covered with a brick treatment to match the existing
building. The structure is approximately 10 feet high and 324 square feet (see Figure 2).
SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA AMENDMENT REVIEW:
Since the original Specially Planned Area, known as the Rio Grande SPA Plan, was approved in
1977, many amendments and changes to approvals have occurred on this site (see Exhibit C for a
Revised 3/16/2009
Page 3 of 11
Figure 2: The new addition in relation to the existing building.
list). The SPA approval was not very detailed at that time. The properly was designated for
County use; however items that would now be required to be documented in a current SPA plan
were not accounted for. Building elevations, allowable floor area, open space and other
dimensional standards that may be customized to accommodate the needs of an SPA were not
outlined in the original approvals for this SPA. Later in 1993, the Rio Grande Master Plan was
approved. That plan was designed to guide land use patterns for undeveloped land in the Rio
Grande area. The County Jail parcel is located just outside the scope of that plan. Ordinance No.
10 of Series of ]993 does indicate that the property north of the County building is intended for
future additions to the County Jail.
Since then, the Civic Master Plan was adopted, replacing the Rio Grande Master Plan. The Civic
Master Plan was created to implement goals and principles around the Civic Core, including
Galena Plaza and the Rio Grande Park. The County Jail Building is located in the Civic Core;
however this plan does not provide for specific building dimensions.
None of the past plans or ordinances outline future details for additions to the County Jail, with
one exception, Ordinance 10 of Series 1993. That Ordinance does make accommodations for
future additions, though it is unclear whether or not those additions were the intended to be for
the substantial construction that was approved in 1995.
Staff Comments
There are few items to review for this proposed addition because the current SPA is vague and
does not define any future plans for buildings on the site. The underlying zone district for this
SPA is the Public zone district. The dimensional requirements in this zone district are set by the
adoption of the final development plan; however no dimensional requirements were set in any of
the final plans or amendments to the plans.
The building is proposed to be located over a lot line between Lot 1 and Lot 5. This is not
permitted by the building code. If approved, the applicant will be required to apply for a lot line
adjustment prior to applying for a building permit. This can be done administratively. Also the
applicant will be required to work with the Parks Department to achieve an approved
landscaping plan.
The proposed addition will not require any mitigation for growth management. The addition
will not create any new employees or create new net leasable space.
Staff would prefer to see a master plan that encompasses the long term future goals and needs of
the County buildings. Regardless, the Planning and Zoning Commission decided to recommend
approval to Council. It is preferable to see an addition that relates to the building and integrates
into the location. Based on the information that was submitted with the application, it appears
that the applicant has attempted to reduce the visual impacts that the addition may have on the
surrounding properties. The applicant has added a matching roof line and added more
landscaping to integrate the addition into the existing structure more effectively.
Revised 3/16/2009
Page 4 of 11
GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW:
The Planning and Zoning Commission adopted a resolution to recommend to Council to approve
this application on January 6th for Growth Management Review. This addition will be used to
store technical computer equipment. There will be no employees working in the unit except for
routine equipment checks nor will the addition generate new employees. There will be no new
net leasable commercial or office space created as defined by the Land Use Code:
"Net leasable commercial and office space: Those areas within a commercial or
office building which are, or which are designed to be, leased to a tenant and
occupied for commercial or office purposes, exclusive of any azea including, but
not necessarily limited to, areas dedicated to bathrooms, stairways, circulation
corridors, mechanical staging aeeas and storage areas provided, however, that
these areas are used solely by tenants on the site."
Staff Comments
This application is required to undergo review under Growth Management because it is an
addition to an essential public facility. Since no new net leasable area is created, there are no
requirements for growth management mitigation.
RECOMMENDATION: While reviewing the proposal, staff believes that the application is
generally minor in nature. It appeazs to be consistent with the final development approvals of the
various amendments to the SPA. It does not substantially change the exterior of the building and
the same materials will be used on the facade and the roof features will match the existing
building. Staff prefers to see a Master Plan that addresses the long term needs for this site.
Community Development Department staff recommends that the City Council approve the
amendment to the SPA and approve the Growth Management Review.
If the Council decides to approve the addition, it is advised that they do so with the following
conditions:
1) The applicant will be required to apply for a lot line adjustment or otherwise remedy the
building location proposed to be over a lot line. The Building Code does not permit
buildings to span lot lines.
2) The applicant is required to remove snow or store accumulated snow on site. Snow is not
permitted to be relocated to the Rio Grande Park to limit damage to the sprinkler heads.
3) The landscaping rocks must be removed from the right-of-way.
4) The building permit shall include a landscaping plan that provides for: tree protection,
plant spacing, seed mix and irrigation, and weed management.
MANAGER'S COMME/N/^^T~~; /, t e
... a e CT'A..A o t~ F<Y'
~~
W ~ S~1/dam ¢e,,~ ~~~.o G~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~.-L (Au[~c.
D1 ,t,`t z.~,T' v~-eP .fie C~ ,~'~`
4"" ,~~ ~ c.~-
~/ ~ ~~ Revisl6/2009
~ j U ~Sd~ ~ (o,.,. 4 -~`~~ Page 5 of 11
~~.~
RECOMMENDED MOTION: If the City Council chooses to approve the proposed
amendment and growth management review, they may use this motion "I move to adopt
Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2009 upon second reading."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -Staff Findings
Exhibit B -List of prior plans and approvals
Exhibit C -SPA from 1977
Exhibit D -Application (packet for first reading -February 23`d, 2009)
Revised 3/]2/2009
Page 6 of 11
Ordinance No. 5
(SERIES OF 2009)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, TO APPROVE A
SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA AMENDMENT AND A GROWTH MANAGEMENT
REVIEW FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING AN ADDITION TO THE PITKIN
COUNTY JAIL BUILDING LOCATED AT 485 RIO GRANDE PLACE, LEGALLY
KNOWN AS LOTS 1 AND 5, PITKIN COUNTY CENTER, CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO
Parcel Identification Number 2737-073-47-851 & 2737-073-06-855
WHEREAS, Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. located at 412 North Mi11 Street, Aspen,
Colorado on behalf of Pitkin County, 530 E. Main Street, Aspen, Colorado, submitted a request for
a Specially Planned Area Amendment dated October 6th, 2008 to the Community Development
Department; and
WHEREAS, the subject properly is located at 485 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, the pazcels aze
identified as pazcel numbers 2737-073-47-851 & 2737-073-06-855, and the legal description of the
property is: Pitkin County Center, Lot 1 and 5, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado;
and
WHEREAS, the Specially Planned Area approval for the Property was originally approved
by the Aspen City Council in 1977 and again for the Rio Grande Master Plan in Ordinance No. 10
Series of 1993; and
WHEREAS, the current request is to receive approval from the City Council for a
Specially Planned Area amendment to amend the SPA and Growth Management Review to permit
the construction of a 324 square feet addition to allow for storage of data equipment and computer
servers; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered the
application for a Specially Planned Area Amendment Review and Growth Management Review,
and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on December 16th,
2008 and January 6`h, 2009 respectively. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved
Resolution No. 36 of Series 2008 and Resolution No. 1 of Series 2009 to recommend that the City
Council approve the application; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the application for a Specially
Planned Area Amendment Review pursuant to Code section 26.440.050 under the applicable
provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein and Growth Management Review as pursuant
to Code section 26.470.090, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community
Development Director and the Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and considered
public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on December 16th, 2008; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards, the
Community Development Department recommended approval of the request; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this
Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfaze.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN. COLORADO IN REGULAR MEETING ASSEMBLED, THAT:
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
City Council hereby approves the of the Specially Planned Area Amendment and Growth
Management review as requested for the Property.
The recommendation of approval granted herein is conditioned on the Following:
1. The applicant is required to remove snow or store accumulated snow on site. Snow is not
permitted to be relocated to the Rio Grande Park to limit damage to the sprinkler heads.
2. The applicant will be required to apply for a lot line adjustment or otherwise remedy the
building location proposed to be over a lot line. The Building Code does not permit
buildings to span lot lines.
3. The Parks Department requires a landscaping plan be provided with the building permit
that provides for:
a. Tree Protection: A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of
each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site and their represented
drip lines. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be
required for the bldg permit set. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of
construction backfill, and storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed
within the drip line of any tree remaining on site. This fence must be inspected by
the city forester or his/her designee before any construction activities are to
commence.
b. Plant Spacing: Appropriate spacing will be required for all new plantings.
Coniferous Trees will require adequate spacing between trees and distance from
buildings or structures to allow for mature growth. Deciduous Trees will require
adequate spacing from structures to accommodate mature growth in height.
c. Seed Mix and Irrigation: Applicant shall use the City of Aspen approved native
seed mix and a temporary or permanent irrigation system will be required for
establishment.
d. Weed Management: Applicant shall detail and define how it will manage noxious
weeds during the seed establishment period.
Section 3•
This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
z
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed
a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 5:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the approvals as
herein awazded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and
Zoning Commission or City Council, aze hereby incorporated in such approvals and the same shall
be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 5:
A public heazing on this ordinance shall be held the 23`d day of March, 2009, in the City Council
Chambers, 130 S. Galena, 15 days prior to which public notice shall be published in a newspaper
of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 23`d day of February, 2009.
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2009.
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
John P. Worcester, City Attorney
EXHIBIT A .
26.440.050 Review Standards for development in a Specially Planned Area
In the review of a development application for a conceptual development plan and a final
development plan, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council must consider the
following:
1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of
development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height,
bulk, azchitecture, landscaping and open space.
The addition to the County Jail is a fairly small structure, measuring 324 square feet and
approximately 10 feet high. It is a pre fabricated structure that will be placed in the rear
of the building facing Obermeyer Place and the Rio Grande Park. The addition will have
a brick treatment to match the existing Jail Building and the roofline will be altered to
match the existing building. The existing building is shown below in Figure A. The
addition is proposed to be located where the picnic table is now sitting.
Figure A -The existing building.
The location was chosen because the County Buildings seem to be a stable use in the
downtown campus area. The future of some other considered locations may change and
require removal of the equipment. The equipment cannot be housed within the Court
House, City Hall or other buildings for several reasons: the older buildings are not
climate controlled, the wiring systems are too dated and the structures are not able to
support the weight.
The SPA should be amended to reflect long term plans for the site prior to the approval
of future additions. It is more eff cient to look at the entire SPA site and determine how
the long term needs could be met. The original SPA was created in 1977 and could now
Revised 3/12/2009
Page 7 of 11
be amended to meet needs that may have changed since that time. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed development.
The addition will be used to house data equipment and computer servers. There will not
be any plumbing or new staff created as a result. No increased impacts on the public
facilities or roads are predicted. Staffftnds this criterion to be met.
3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for development,
considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls,
avalanche dangers and flood hazards.
The parcel is suitable for development. It is mostly level. There are no environmental
constraints that would limit the location of the addttion. The parcel is not located in the
jloodplain area or an area that is particularly steep. Staff finds this criterion to be med.
4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs -and planning techniques to
preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide open
space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public space.
The proposed development consists of a prefabricated square unit that will be finished
with an exterior treatment and roofline to match the existing building. The addition is
located in the view plane from the pedestrian court at Obermeyer Place and the
historically designated cabins located on the adjacent to the County Center parcel.
Figure B below shows a 3-D view of the addition as it would appear from the pedestrian
court at Obermeyer Place.
With a creative landscaping plan the visual impacts from the surrounding properties is
predicted to be minimal.
It does not create signifcant adverse environmental impacts; however it does reduce the
amount of open space that is currently on County Center. When the last amendment to
the County Jall was approved in 1995, the applicant was required to replace any open
space that was removed as a result of the addition. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address the County Jail Building or this
addition. This proposal is relatively minor in nature; however staff emphasizes the need
to have long term plans to address future needs for each public service facility.
Staffftnds this criterion to be met.
6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds
to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood.
This project is relatively small and not expected to require excessive public funds for the
project itself or facilities for the parcel; however, the cost of the addition will come from
public funds. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
Revised 3/12/2009
Page 8 of 11
7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty percent meet the slope
reduction and density requirements of Section 26.445.040 (B)(2).
There are no slopes in excess of twenty percent where the addition is to be located.
Density will not be affected by the addition. Staff finds this criterion met.
8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments For the proposed development.
No new net leasable area will be created as a result of this project. No new employees
will be required. This project will not require growth management mitigation. Staff
ftnds this criterion met.
Revised 3/12/2009
Page 9 of 1 I
EXHIBIT A
26.470.090 Review Standards for Development of Essential Public Facilities
The development of an essential public facility, upon a recommendation from the Planning and
Zoning Commission, shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the City Council
based on the following criteria:
a. The Community Development Director has determined the primary use and/or structure
to be an essential public facility (see definition). Accessory uses may also be part of an
essential public facility project.
The proposed addition is an accessory use to the County Jail and other County and Ciry
services. It will be used to facilitate a more efficient network and computer server
system. Currently, the existing facilities are inadequate and the new addition will
accommodate all the current needs for space and allow for more growth of future
computer equipment. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
b. Upon a recommendation from the Community Development Director, the City Council
may assess, waive or partially waive affordable housing mitigation requirements as is
deemed appropriate or warranted for the purpose of promoting civic uses and in
consideration of broader community goals. The employee generation rates may be used
as a guideline, but each operation shall be analyzed for its unique employee needs,
pursuant to Section 26.470.100, Calculations.
The addition will be used to house data equipment and computer servers. There will not
be any new net leasable commercial or office space created. There will not be any new
staff generated as a result. No growth management mitigation is required for this
proposed addition. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
Revised 3/12/2009
Page 10 of 11
EXHIBIT B
List of Prior Approvals affective the Rio Grande Area
1977 -The Rio Grande Interim SPA plan was approved
198] -The relocated the snow dump and set aside an unspecified parcel for a Performing Arts
and Culture Center
1982 -The City and County exchanged the Aspen One, Oden and stable properties
1988 - A conceptual SPA Master Plan was approved that included the pazking garage, the
library, the Spring Street extension, the snow melt azea, and an arts usage area
1989 - A final SPA plan was approved for the County Library and the parking gazage
1991- A final SPA plan was approved for the Youth Center
1992 -Ordinance 26 of 2002 is SPA Amendment to install park spaces and landscaping. Snow
storage must be on site and is not permitted on the r/w or on the path.
1992 -Intergovernmental Agreement for Resolution 29 of Series 1992 approving land exchanges
and easements for the library, the parking gazage, land north of the jail, trail and transit
easements, and the youth center building.
1993 -Ordinance 10 of Series 1993 approved the Rio Grande Master Plan and specified that Lot
5 should be used for future expansions to the County Jail. (The Ordinance is included in the
application)
1995 -SPA Review for an expansion to the County Jail
2006 -Civic Master Plan was approved
Revised 3/12/2009
Page 11 of ] 1
Sul r3, T ~
STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES iNc
landscape architecture. planning. resort design
ytz Nar[h Mlll Street Aspen, Colorado Bt6u [.97o19z5-z3z3 f.97o/9zo~t6z8
Info®scaplanning.com www.scaplanning.com
Memo
To: Randy Ready, City of Aspen
Cc: Phyllis Mattlce >4 Jodi Smilh, Pitkin County
From: Stan Clawson
Date: T6 March 2009
Re: Proposed Pitkin County Data Center-
Environmental and Financial Impacts
Responding to your request for supplementary information regarding
environmental and financial impacts of the proposed Pitkin County Data
Center facility, we are providing this memo as well as attached financial
information from the Pitkin County Facilities Management Department.
This memo outlines the sustainable qualities and environmental impacts of the
Oldcastle Precast modular building and accessories as proposed for the Pitkin
County Data Center currently under review by the City of Aspen. The
information provided here was generated from material provided by the
manufacturer.
General Information:
The proposed building will house IT equipment which is currently stored in
various unsuitable locations. Moving the equipment to a consolidated
purpose-built data center will reduce the demand on cooling multiple locations
and increase the efficiency of the existing cooling systems.
The proposed data center is a precast concrete modular building with a thin
brick fapade and roofing material intended to match fhe existing Pitkin County
Jail structure. The 12' x 27' floor plan will have Thermax Heavy Duiy Insulation
and two external wail mounted HVAC units on its rear wall.
Thermax Heavy Duty Insulation:
Thermax Heavy Duty Insulation consists of glass fiber-reinforced poly-
isocyanurate foam core with white acrylic coated aluminum on one side and
embossed aluminum on the other. Thermax Heavy Duty insulation offers an R-
Value of 11.4. The facers help prevent water intrusions into the foam and allow
the foam to stabll¢e at a higher R-value.
'r
h~
Pitkin Gounty Data Center
6 March 2009
x .~ Page 2
,;
*
Therrnax Heavy Duly Insulation is manufactured with hydrocarbon blowing
which have no ozone depletion potential.
ts
. agen
,
i
~. a'~
r, ~
Wall-Mount AU Conditioner:
The Bard Wall-Mount Air Conditioner is aself-contained energy-efficient system
_
r~ designed to offer appropriate indoor climate confrol at a minimal cost.
~ Specific engineered features provide maximum efficiency. The aluminum
finned copper coils and enhanced louvered fin create maximum heat fransfer
and energy efficiency. Twin blowers move air quietly and come equipped with
~I a motor overload protection system. The scroll compressors are designed for
' increased efficiency, quieter operation, and Improved reliability for longer life.
j Electrical heat stops have an automatic limit and thermal cut-0ff for safety and
~ efficiency.
The Bard Wall-Mount units are designed to maximize air quality. The standard
ventliation package includes the Barometric fresh air damper which allows
outside ventilation air up to 25% of the total airflow rating of the unit. The
damper opens during blower operation and closes when the blower is off.
An optional "Economizer" has been added to the Data Center air conditioning
units to provide "free cooling" when outside air conditions are cool and dry
enough to satisfy cooling requirements. The Economizer will provide lower
operating costs, while increasing energy efficiency and extending the Iffe of the
compressor.
Diesel Standby Generator:
Oldcastle Precast also quoted a 60 KW, Cummins, Diesel standby generator.
The generator will meet all EPA emissions, diesel containment, and monitoring
regulations and standards. The diesel generator uses a dual wall tank intended
to contain possible leaks.
The standby generator features a turbocharger and an affer-cooler, which
function to control and maintain emissions within US EPA and California emission
regulations. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Non-road Tier 2
Regulations limits Particulate Matter to 0.30 Grams per Hp-Hour and the
Califomia Air resources Board Risk Management Guide limits Particulate Matter
to 0.15 Grams per HP-hour. The proposed generator only produces 0.10 Grams
per HP-Hour of Particulate Matter.
Both City and County staff have identified that there is an urgent need for the new data center.
Pitkin County intends to move forward with the project upon approval of the Land Use
Application. The County has appropriated $200K of the funding and allocated an additional
200K in the County's Tech Pool fund in order to fully fund the project. In that this facility will
function as part of the City/County network infrastructure, the County is anticipating the City
fund 50% of the project.
There is no current funding budgeted within the City's 2009 budget. However, the City Asset
Management Plan for Information Technology has budgeted $588,000 in the 2010. The County
is hoping the City Council will allocated 50% ofthe full project in 2009 as a joint effort to
complete this critical need for a combined data center which benefits both ernities.
County staff has estimated that construction the Data Center in 2009 be completed for under
$SOOK, which is less than what the city planned on spending for the construction in 2010. This
network project is critical to advance due to the inability to provide adequate cooling, back-up
power service, and a controlled environment (without risk of water, dirt, unauthorized access) in
the current locations of City Hall, County Courthouse, Jail basement. Benefits to consider for
doing the project in 2009 are:
• Reduced risk to network equipment (i.e.: recent experience of damaged equipment due
to heat, falling ice, and water leaks)
Self contained cooling system with heat sensor alarms
• Security increased; own access
• Power back-up generator, current systems are at risk with no generator back-up
• Adequate space for growth, reduces cost of adding more cooling to other buildings
• Stafftime and procurement is akeady completed; shovel ready project.
The estimated cost of the data center construction approximately $307,000:
r__ ~_a._e__._a B...Id:oo f nnetM.mfinn Cost Estimates
r] lrr auncntcu yuu.a ... ....................
Cost Base Bid
$216 464
Add: HVAC Economizer Ener Savin s $3,083
Add: Electronic E ui ment Irate ration-Alternate Racks $14,811
Electrical Connection to Jai] $30,000
Landsca a $15,000
Permits $2,000
Count Construction Project Mana ement
Contin en Funds 10% $3,000
$25,000
Total Building Cost Estimate: $306,358
Pitkin County Facilities Management, 485 Rio Grande Place, Unit iot, Aspen, CO
8i6xx
97o-920-5396.970-920-5285 Fax or email: jodis@co.pitkin.co.us
DATA CENTER FINANCIAL/BUDGET Il~IPACTS:
Data Center Equipment & Relocations Cost will not be available for 4-6 weeks. Once
the Data Center receives land use approval staffwill procure a consultant to determine
a list of priorities and all associated costs of the move. IT staff have estimated that
costs for this part of the project will be approximately $175,000.
Costs for operation of the Data Center once in operations will be established through an
amendment of the current Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and the County for
Technology. It is anticipated that the vests will be equally shared by the City and County as all
other technology infrastructure. This will include power, insurance, and costs for snow removal
needed due to the County losing the existing snow storage area where the Data Center is being
placed. (This loss of snow storage space will require that the County hire a snow removal
service to plow and haul the snow away as there is no place on-site to store it on site. The
County is estimating that the average cost will be approximately $9,000 to $12,000 per year).
Pitlun County Facilities Management, 485 Rio Grande Place, Unit toi, Aspen, CO
8i6ii
970-920-5396> 970-920-5285 Fax or email: jodis@co.pitldn.co.us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
THRU:
DATE OF MEMO:
MEETING DATE:
Mayor Ireland and Council
Errin Evans, Current Planner~~
VUl b
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director{ IAA/~/J
March 12, 2009
March 23'd, 2009
RE: Aspen Ambulance Vehicular Tent Shelter - 401 Castle Creek
Road -Growth Management Quota System Review
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2009
APPLICANT /OWNER:
Aspen Ambulance District
REPRESENTATIVE:
Leslie Lamont, Lamont Planning
Services
LOCATION:
401 Castle Creek Road; Legal
Description -Parcel C, Aspen Valley
Hospital District Subdivision; Parcel
Identification Number - 2735- 123-07-
801
CURRENT ZONING & USE
Located in the Public (PUB) zone
district containing the Aspen Valley
Hospital and associated buildings.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The Applicant is requesting to
continue the use of a temporary
vehicular tent shelter year round until
the ambulances can be relocated to the
new fire station downtown and the
Aspen Valley Hospital carport which
is proposed for Phase III of the AVH
Master Facilities Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Council approve the request
for a Growth Management review for an essential
public facility at this time to allow the continued use of
the temporary vehicular shelter until a permanent
building is constructed.
SUMMARY:
The Applicant requests of the Council to approve the
request for growth management review of an essential
public facility.
Revised 3/12/2009
Page 1 of 6
Photo of the subject property
BACKGROUND: On March 10`h, 2008, the Aspen City Council approved a Temporary Use
Permit to allow the Aspen Ambulance District to erect a vehicular tent shelter on an existing
concrete pad on the Aspen Valley Hospital Campus. The shelter was requested after the
Ambulance District acquired the assets, including two additional vehicles, from Mountain
Ambulance services. The approved temporary use permit allows the tent to remain in place from
October 15`h, 2008 until April 16`h, 2009. To remove the tent annually to accommodate
restrictions for temporary use permits, it would cost the ambulance district approximately
$12,000 each year. The tent shelter protects ambulances that do not fit into the existing barn
until the new fire station downtown and Phase III of the Master Facilities Plan that includes a
petmanent shelter for the ambulances are completed.
Currently the Aspen Valley Hospital is undergoing a master facilities planning process. If
approved, Phase III of the Master Facilities Plan includes a permanent shelter for the ambulances
that do not fit into the existing barn, though it will not be constructed until 20] 3. The fire station
that is currently under construction downtown will also be able to assist in accommodating the
Ambulance District vehicles.
A Temporary Use Permit is only valid for a period of six months within any one calendaz year.
To continue past the six month period, the Ambulance District is required to undergo Growth
Management Review as it would no longer be considered a temporary use. The Planning and
Zoning Commission adopted a resolution to make a recommendation to. Council to approve the
review for growth management on January 20`h, 2009.
LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicant is requesting the
following land use approvals from the City Council:
• Growth Management Quota System -Essential Public Facilities pursuant to Land Use
Code Section 26.470.090 4. Any development to an essential public facility requires the
Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public heazing, to make a recommendation to the
City Council for approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of the Growth
Management Review. The City Council is the final authority.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW:
This application is required to undergo review under Growth Management because it is an
addition to an essential public facility. Using the temporary vehiculaz tent shelter does not create
any new employees or new net leasable space. The tent is not intended to be used for
commercial or office purposes. The tent will be continued to be used for protecting ambulances
from the elements. When Council reviewed the application for a Temporary Use Permit, the
applicant made it known that they would be expecting to apply to use the shelter year-round and
to maintain use until 2013 when the Master Facility Plan anticipates the completion of the
permanent shelter for the ambulances. The applicant intends to relocate two of the ambulances
to Aspen Fire Protection locations when construction is completed near the end of 2010.
Essential Public Facilities are required to mitigate for growth management on a case by case
basis.
Revised 3/12/2009
Page 2 of 6
Staff Comments
The Ambulance District is a function of Pitkin County. They have a management contract with
the Aspen Valley Hospital District. The Ambulance District has historically been established as
a sepazate district. In the past, SkiCo contracted a private ambulance service from various
entities over time. Approximately five years ago, the Ambulance District absorbed the private
venture, Mountain Ambulance. The number of ambulances and drivers remains the same.
Overall ambulance services in the community were not expanded and the amount of services
provided did not change as a result of the amalgamation.
RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Department staff recommends that the
Council approve the request for Growth Management Review at this time with the following
conditions:
1. The applicant is permitted to use the vehicular tent shelter until a permanent shelter is
constructed.
2. As requested in the temporary use permit, the applicant is required to plant two spruce
trees that are four feet high and to work with Ron Moorhead, the adjacent property owner
regarding their placement. These trees are required to be planted by June ls`, 2009.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: If the Council chooses to recommend approval for the request,
they may use this motion "I move to adopt Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2009, upon second reading."
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -Staff findings
Exhibit B -Temporary Use Permit Resolution No. 20 of Series 2008 (packet from first reading
on February 23rd, 2009)
Exhibit C -Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 4 of Series 2009 (packet from first
reading on February 23`d, 2009)
Exhibit D -Application (packet from first reading on February 23`d, 2009)
Revised 3/16/2009
Page 3 of 6
ORDINANCE N0.6
(SERIES 2009)
A ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, TO APPROVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING A
VEHICULAR TENT SHELTER UNTIL 2013 TO PARK AMBULANCES AT THE ASPEN
VALLEY HOSPTIAL COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 401 CASTLE CREEK ROAD,
LEGALLY DESCIBED AS PARCEL C, ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT
SUBDIVSION
Parcel Identification Number 2735-123-07-801
WHEREAS, Leslie Lamont, located at 725 Melissa Lane, Cazbondale, Colorado on behalf
of the Aspen Ambulance District, 401 Castle Creek Road, Aspen, Colorado, submitted a request for
Growth Management Review dated December 24d', 2008 to the Community Development
Department; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located at 401 Castle Creek Road, Aspen, the pazcel is
identified as parcel number 2735-123-07-801, and the legal description of the property is: Pazcel C,
Aspen Valley Hospital District Subdivision, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado; and
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards, the
Community Development Department determined affordable housing mitigation for growth
management is not necessary at this time. No new net leasable commercial or office space has
been created nor have any new employees been generated; and
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on January 20`h, 2009, the Planning and
Zoning Commission made a recommendation to Council to approve the request for Growth
Management Review; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public heazing on February 23rd, 2009, the Council to
approved the request for Growth Management Review; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development
proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and is necessary for the
promotion of public health, safety, and welfaze.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN COUNCIL AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal
Code, the City Council hereby approves the request for exemptions for growth management
mitigation. The growth management mitigation will be assessed during the Master Facilities
Plan process. The applicant intends to use this vehicular tent shelter until 2013. The following
conditions apply:
1. The applicant is permitted to use the vehicular tent shelter until a permanent shelter is
constructed.
As requested in the temporary use permit, the applicant is required to plant two spruce
trees that aze four feet high and to work with Ron Moorhead, the adjacent property owner
regarding their placement. These trees are required to be planted by June 15`, 2009.
All material representations made in the application and in the hearing by the Applicant
and the Applicant's representative shall be considered conditions of approval, unless
amended by other conditions.
Section 2:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awazded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before
the City Council, aze hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be
complied with as if fixlly set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 3:
This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4:
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
sepazate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 5:
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held the 23`d day of March, 2009, in the City Council
Chambers, 130 S. Galena, 15 days prior to which public notice shall be published in a newspaper
of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 23`d day of February, 2009.
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this _ day of , 2009.
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
John P. Worcester, City Attorney
EXHIBIT A
26.470.090 Review Standards for Development of Essential Public Facilities
The development of an essential public faciliTy, upon a recommendation from the Planning and
Zoning Commission, shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the City Council
based on the following criteria:
a. The Community Development Director has determined the primary use and/or structure
to be an essential public facility (see definition). Accessory uses may also be part of an
essential public facility project.
The Aspen Palley Hospital Campus including the ambulance operation is considered to
be an essential public facility. The proposed vehicular tent shelter is an accessory use to
the existing ambulance barn and ambulance operations. It will be used to protect
ambulances from foul weather and to keep onboard medicines from freeaing in the winter
and overheating in the summer seasons. The ambulances should have permanent
housing whether on this site or combined with the Fire Protection sites by 2013. New
employee generation mitigation will be reviewed for the permanent shelter during the
Master Facilities Plan process. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
b. Upon a recommendation from the Community Development Director, the City Council
may assess, waive or partially waive affordable housing mitigation requirements as is
deemed appropriate or warranted for the purpose of promoting civic uses and in
consideration of broader community goals. The employee generation rates may be used
as a guideline, but each operation shall be analyzed for its unique employee needs,
pursuant to Section 26.470.100, Calculations.
The vehicular tent shelter will be used to park ambulances. There will not be any new net
leasable commercial or office space created. There will not be any new staff generated
as a result. No growth management mitigation is necessary to be assessed at this time
for this proposed addition. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
' Essential Public Facility - A facility which serves an essential public purpose is available for use or by benefit of,
the general public and serves the needs of the community. As defined by the City of Aspen Land Use Code.
Revised 3/12/2009
Page 4 of 6
EXHIBIT A (Continued)
26.470.100 Calculations. Employee veneration and mitigation.
Applicants may request an employee generation review with the Planning and Zoning
Commission, pursuant to Section 26.470.110, Growth management review procedure. In
establishing employee generation the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the
following:
a. The expected employee generation of the use considering the employee generation pattern
of the use or of a similar use within the City or a similaz resort economy.
The Ambulance District is a function of Pitkin County. Until recently, SkiCo contracted
private companies to provide ambulance services at the base of the mountain.
Approximately five years ago, the Ambulance District acquired the assets of the private
venture, Mountain Ambulance. Since then the number of ambulances and drivers
remains the same. Overall ambulance services in the community were not expanded and
the total amount of services provided did not change as a result of the amalgamation.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
b. Any unique employment chazacteristics of the operation.
No employees will be occupying the tent shelter. Amore permanent shelter will be
constructed during Phase 111 the Master Facilities Plan in 2013. At that time, the
permanent shelter will undergo another review for growth management particular to that
building. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
c. The extent to which employees of various uses within a mixed use building or of a related
off-site operation will overlap or serve multiple functions.
This is not a mixed use building. There are no longer any off-site operations now that the
Ambulance District has acquired the assets of Mountain Ambulance. All Ambulance
functions in Aspen operate from this site. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
d. A proposed restriction requiring full employee generation mitigation upon vacation of the
type business acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
It is not anticipated that the use will change prior to 2013. If the use of the tent changes,
the applicant will be required to remove the vehicular tent shelter. When Phase 117 of the
Master Facilities Plan is reviewed, the permanent shelter will undergo growth
management mitigation at that time. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
e. Any proposed follow-up analysis of the project (e.g. an audit) to confirm actual employee
generation.
When Phase 111 of the Master Facilities Plan is reviewed, the permanent shelter will
undergo growth management review at that time. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
f. For lodge projects only: An efficiency or reduction in the number of employees required
for the lodging component of the project may, at the discretion of the Commission as a
means of incentivizing a project, be applied as a credit towards the mitigation
requirement of the free-market residential component of the project. Any approved
Revised 3/12/2009
Page 5 of 6
reduction shall require an audit to determine actual employee generation after two
complete years of operation of the lodge.
This is not a lodge project, so this item is not applicable. Staff finds this criterion to be
met.
Revised 3/12/2009
Page 6 of 6