HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20121203
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
December 03, 2012
4:00 PM
I. Call to Order
II. Scheduled Public Appearances
III. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues
NOT on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes)
IV. Special Orders of the Day
a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments
b) Agenda Deletions and Additions
c) City Manager's Comments
d) Board Reports
V. Action Items
a) 422 E. Cooper Avenue - Conceptual Commercial Design and Conceptual Major
Development Call Up
b) Resolution #112, 2012 - Mitigating Transportation Impacts from Development
c) Resolution #111, 2012 - Ruedi Reservoir Water Acquisition
d) 616 E. Hyman Ave., Conceptual Commercial Design - Call up
VI. Adjournment
VII. Request for Executive Session - Settlement Discussion
Next Regular Meeting December 10, 2012
COUNCIL’S ADOPTED GUIDELINES
COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M.
• Stick to top priorities
• Involve others in community problem solving
• Be thorough, deliberate and accountable for consequences when making decisions
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
DATE OF MEMO: 11/13/2012
MEETING DATE: 11/26/2012
RE: 422 E. Cooper Avenue - Conceptual Commercial Design and
Conceptual Major Development Call Up
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
BACKGROUND:
DISCUSSION:
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
Click here to enter text.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINANCE REVIEW: Click here to enter text.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Click here to enter text.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
P1
V.a
Page 2 of 2
ALTERNATIVES:
PROPOSED MOTION:
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Notes:
• Please use page numbers on all memos and attachments, especially for work sessions
• The memo should be as long as it needs to be – but remember, you’re not writing a novel.
Use attachments for more detailed information, ordinances and resolutions, etc.
• Attachments: All attachments to the memo should be referenced somewhere in the body of
the memo. All attachments should be titled as “Attachment”, “Exhibit” or “Schedule” with
a letter following:
Attachments:
A - Exhibit One - Map ...
B - Property Description
C - Chart of Costs
D - Resolution #97-1
P2
V.a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council
FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: Call-up of HPC approval of Conceptual Major Development Review,
Conceptual Commercial Design Review and Demolition:
422 E. Cooper Ave., HPC Resolution #26, Series of 2012
MEETING DATE: November 26, 2012
COUNCIL REQUEST:
On November 12th City Council voted to call up the HPC approval of Conceptual Major
Development Review and Conceptual Commercial Design Review to demolish part of the
existing building and to construct a three story building adjacent to the Red Onion. Council is
asked to proceed with the call up procedures and take action on one of the options listed below.
REVIEW PROCESS:
During a public meeting, City Council shall consider the application de novo and may consider
the record established by the HPC. The City Council shall conduct its review of the application
under the same criteria applicable to the HPC.
City Council may take the following action:
1. Accept the decision.
2. Remand the application to HPC with direction from City Council for rehearing and
reconsideration.
3. Continue the meeting to request additional evidence, analysis or testimony as
necessary to conclude the call up review.
If Council selects Option #2 and remands the application back to the Board, the rehearing and
reconsideration of the application by HPC is final and concludes the call up review. Substantial
changes to the application outside of the specific topics listed in the remand to HPC may require
a new call up notice to City Council; however the call up review would be limited only to the
new changes to the application.
This application is subject to an administrative Growth Management review to create a free
market residential unit on a landmark property (as a benefit to landmarks the first free market
unit on a landmark parcel does not require mitigation) and Subdivision review by Planning and
Zoning and City Council.
BACKGROUND:
HPC granted approval to demolish the back portion of the one story commercial space adjacent
to the 1892 Red Onion building and construct a three story building. A Viewplane exemption
was granted due to other development (the Roaring Fork Building and Paragon Building) already
blocking the Wheeler Viewplane. The 1892 Red Onion sits on a 9,000 square feet lot that
P3
V.a
includes the one story commercial space to the east (the subject of this review) and a two story
commercial space to the west. All three spaces were internally connected at one time to serve as
a large Red Onion with a bar, nightclub and family dining room. The entire lot is designated a
historic landmark and is considered contributing to the Commercial Core Historic District.
The applicant proposes to create one new residential unit that spans the second and third floor of
the proposed new addition. There are currently no residential units on the 9,000 square feet
parcel. The first floor and basement are proposed to be commercial use. There is no proposed
increase in net leasable commercial area. Significant setbacks are proposed for the second and
third floors (12’ 1” and 45’ respectively) to maintain the prominence of the historic 1892 Red
Onion. The proposed building height is 38.’ There is no rooftop deck proposed atop the 3rd story.
Decks are proposed on the front elevation of the 2nd and 3rd stories.
After two public hearings, HPC recommended in favor of the design reviews with conditions by
a vote of 4:1.
DISCUSSION:
During the discussion on November 12, 2012, Council raised concerns about the Viewplane
Exemption granted by HPC. The Code does not allow call-up of HPC’s Viewplane decision, but
does permit call-up of Conceptual Commercial Design Review that addresses height, mass and
scale. Staff and HPC felt that the significant 45’ third floor setback pushes the mass as far away
from the street façade as possible. There are four story buildings directly across the alley, the
Roaring Fork Building and the Paragon Building, that create a tall backdrop behind the Red
Onion and already block the the Wheeler Opera House Viewplane for this project. The Paragon
Building is a historic landmark; therefore demolition of the building is highly unlikely. It is also
unlikely that the Roaring Fork Building would be demolished in the future because the Code
does not allow 4 story buildings in the Commercial Core Historic District any longer, so the
square footage could not be replaced in a new building.
Staff and HPC found that the Conceptual Design Guidelines were met. Staff finds that HPC
conducted their reviews in accordance with the Code and the Design Guidelines.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council accept HPC’s decision.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
“I move to accept HPC’s decision to grant Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual
Commercial Design and Demolition.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:_____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Approved Plans
Exhibit B: HPC Resolution 17, Series 2012
Exhibit C: HPC approved minutes September 12, 2012
Exhibit D: HPC approved minutes October 24, 2012
P4
V.a
P5
V.a
P7
V.a
P8
V.a
P9
V.a
P10
V.a
P11
V.a
P12
V.a
A1
1
1
A1
2
A1
0
1
1
A1
4
1
P13
V.a
A1
1
1
A1
2
A1
0
1
1
A1
4
1
P14
V.a
A1
1
1
A1
2
A1
0
1
1
A1
4
1
P15
V.a
A1
1
1
A1
2
A1
0
1
1
A1
4
1
P16
V.a
A1
1
1
A1
2
A1
0
1
1
A1
4
1
P17
V.a
A1
1
1
A1
2
A1
0
1
1
A1
4
1
P18
V.a
A1
1
1
A1
2
A1
0
1
1
A1
4
1
P19
V.a
A1
1
1
A1
2
A1
0 1
1
A1
4
1
33' - 0"12' - 0"
45' - 0"
P20
V.a
A1
1
1
A1
2
A1
0
1
1
A1
4
1
5' - 4"32' - 10"12' - 0 1/2"
P21
V.a
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
R
E
D
O
N
I
O
N
O
F
F
I
C
E
S
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
R
E
D
O
N
I
O
N
44
2
E
.
C
O
O
P
E
R
P22
V.a
38' - 0"
P23
V.a
38' - 0"
P24
V.a
P25
V.a
RE
D
O
N
I
O
N
O
F
F
I
C
E
S
RE
D
O
N
I
O
N
44
2
E
.
C
O
O
P
E
R
P26
V.a
P27
V.a
P28
V.a
33' - 0"12' - 0"
45' - 0"
P29
V.a
33' - 0"12' - 0"
45' - 0"
P30
V.a
422 East Cooper Avenue
HPC Resolution # 26, Series of 2012
Page 1 of 4
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
GRANTING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), COMMERCIAL DESIGN
STANDARD REVIEW (CONCEPTUAL), DEMOLITION, AND VIEWPLANE FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 422 EAST COOPER AVENUE RED ONION CONDOS,
UNIT 1, LOTS N, O, P, BLOCK 89, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION # 26, SERIES OF 2012
PARCEL ID: 2737-182-16-061.
WHEREAS, the applicant, Red Onion Investors, LLC, represented by Stan Clauson Associates,
Inc., has requested Major Development (Conceptual), Conceptual Commercial Design Standard
Review, Demolition, and Viewplane Reviews the property located at 422 East Cooper Avenue,
Red Onion Condos, Unit 1, Lots N, O, P, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, 422 East Cooper Avenue is located within the Commercial Core Historic District
and is located on a designated historic parcel; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that “no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;” and
WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application,
a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project’s
conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section
26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC
may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain
additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, for Conceptual Commercial Design Review, the HPC must review the application,
a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project’s
conformance with the City of Aspen Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design
Objectives and Guidelines per Section 26.412.040.A.2, Commercial Design Standards Review
Procedure, of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve,
disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information
necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, in order to authorize a Demolition, according to Section 26.415.080, Demolition of
designated historic properties, it must be demonstrated that the application meets any one of the
following criteria:
P31
V.a
422 East Cooper Avenue
HPC Resolution # 26, Series of 2012
Page 2 of 4
a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public
safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely
manner,
b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner’s efforts to
properly maintain the structure,
c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in
Aspen, or
d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met:
a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic
district in which it is located, and
b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the
integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship
to adjacent designated properties and
c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation
needs of the area; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to 26.435.050.C., Mountain Viewplane Review Standards, of the Land
Use Code, no development shall be permitted within a mountain view plane unless the Planning
and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission makes a determination that the
proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below.
1. No mountain view plane is infringed upon, except as provided below.
When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable
building height otherwise provided for in this Title, development shall proceed according to the
provisions of Chapter 26.445 as a Planned Unit Development so as to provide for maximum
flexibility in building design with special consideration to bulk and height, open space and
pedestrian space and similarly to permit variations in lot area, lot width, yard and building height
requirements and view plane height limitations.
The Planning and Zoning Commission, after considering a recommendation from the
Community Development Department, may exempt a development from being processed as a
Planned Unit Development when the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the
proposed development has a minimal effect on the view plane.
When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located in front
of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will further infringe upon
the view plane and the likelihood that redevelopment of the adjacent structure will occur to re-
open the view plane. In the event the proposed development does not further infringe upon the
view plane and re-redevelopment to reopen the view plane cannot be anticipated, the Planning
P32
V.a
422 East Cooper Avenue
HPC Resolution # 26, Series of 2012
Page 3 of 4
and Zoning Commission shall exempt the development from the requirements of this Section;
and
WHEREAS, during the September 12, 2012 meeting the applicant demonstrated compliance
with Land Use Code Section 26.304.035 Neighborhood Outreach; and
WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report to HPC dated September 12, 2012 performed an
analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards had been met,
and recommended approval with conditions; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on October 24, 2012 continued from September 12, 2012
and September 19, 2012, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application
during a duly noticed public hearing, the staff memo and public comments, and found the
proposal consistent with the review standards and recommended approval with conditions by a
vote of four – one (4 - 1).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby grants HPC Major Development (Conceptual), Conceptual Commercial Design
Standard Review, Demolition, and Viewplane Review for the property located at 422 East
Cooper Avenue, Red Onion Condos, Unit 1, Lots N, O, P, Block 89, City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions:
1. Demolition of the building located at 422 E. Cooper Street and retaining the front façade
is approved with the condition that a structural assessment of the front façade be
submitted with the Final Review application.
2. The mass and scale is approved as presented in the application.
3. A maximum of 38 feet is approved as presented in the application, with Land Use Code
height exemptions for elevator overrun and mechanical equipment as stated in Section
26.575.020.F(4) Allowed Exemptions to Height Limitations.
4. A mechanical plan and elevations shall be submitted with the Final Review application.
5. Off-site public amenity improvements to the Pedestrian Malls is approved in accordance
with Land Use Code Section 26.575.030.C(2) Off-site provision of public amenity and is
subject to review and approval by the Parks Department. The improvements shall equal
or exceed the value of the cash in lieu payment of $67,500.
6. The proposal is determined to have a minimal impact on the viewplane due to the existing
development that already blocks the viewplane and is hereby exempt from being
processed as a PUD in accordance with Section 26.435.050.C.1. Any mechanical
equipment placed within the viewplane shall comply with Section 26.435.050, which may
require a new viewplane review.
7. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one
(1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an
application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the
Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole
discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for
P33
V.a
422 East Cooper Avenue
HPC Resolution # 26, Series of 2012
Page 4 of 4
a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written
request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date.
______________________
Jay Maytin, Vice- Chair
Approved as to Form:
___________________________________
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
___________________________
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
P34
V.a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012
1
Chairperson, Ann Mullins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Nora Berko, Willis Pember, Jay Maytin,
Jamie McLeod, Patrick Segal, Sallie Golden and Jane Hills.
Staff present:
Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk
MOTION: Jay moved to approve the minutes of August 15th second by
Nora. All in favor, motion carried.
Public comments: Bill Wiener, 701 Gibson. It is important to preserve the
character of this community. The height issue is now before the public
because of what went on with council and the 28 feet. When we put extra
height on a building we are putting extra volume on it also. There are
circumstances that where a building needs to be taller than 28 feet. To do
that they need to mitigate. It is time to start looking at volume and that is
mass and it is changing the character. There is a formula that I can work on.
You would get setbacks that create urban feel with little gardens.
Jay said our guidelines indicate no setbacks.
Bill said the character of this community has been little gardens, flowers and
a piece of sculpture and variety around town. This is not that kind of large
city where we need everything to the property line. Bill said he will do a
volume analysis.
422 E. Cooper Ave. Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual
Commercial Design Review, Demolition, Mountain View Plane Review,
Public Hearing
Sallie recused herself.
Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney stated the public notice is in order
and the applicant can proceed. Exhibit I
Amy said we are dealing with a 9,000 square foot lot on the Cooper Ave
mall and it contains 3 structures. One has an art gallery and a t-shirt shop,
the Red Onion Restaurant and a poster shop. The entire property is
landmarked and in the historic district. At one time the Red Onion occupied
P35
V.a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012
2
all three spaces. This proposal only affects the portion of the property that is
occupied by the poster shop. The structure was built around 1965-66. This
application is to demolish the one story poster shop addition. The applicant
is proposing to keep the façade as it is now on Cooper but there is some
uncertainty as to whether it will survive the construction process. The new
construction will have a one story element at the front, a setback two story
element and setback three story element. There is no residential use on the
lot right now but it would be created. Staff feels because it is set back and
sympathetic to the architecture of the Red Onion and adjacent building we
feel the scale is appropriate. Staff feels that the signage on the Red Onion
restaurant east facing should not be blocked. The floor levels align with the
adjacent buildings and staff feels the proportions are good. They are at the
allowed height limit and are not asking to exceed it. There is a requirement
that they address the public amenity requirement. There are several ways to
do that. They can physically set a building back from the street and provide
cash-in-lieu. They would like to continue to have the poster shop right at the
street line and would make a contribution to improvements to Cooper Ave.
They are required to provide a certain amount of trash and utility area and
that is being met. They are located within the Wheeler Opera House view
plane. There are many things in the way that obstruct that view and some
existed at the time the view plane was adopted particularly the Paragon
building. The view plan slices across the Red Onion property and we want
to ensure that nothing they are constructing now makes the view plane
blocked anymore. Their argument is that existing development on the
Hyman mall already interferes with the projection of the view plan of Aspen
Mountain and they are not making the situation worse. The issues that need
addressed are demolition, the appropriateness of the mass, scale and height
of the addition, cash-in-lieu; trash and utility and Wheeler Opera House
view plane. Staff recommends conceptual approval with conditions.
Patrick said if the buildings on Hyman were redeveloped they would have to
comply with the view plane.
Amy said you are supposed to address the situation as of today and are they
infringing further on the view plan than other obstructing buildings already
do.
Stan Clauson and Associates Inc.
Kim Weil, Poss Architects
P36
V.a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012
3
Stan presented a power point on the existing buildings and proposed
development. Regarding the neighborhood outreach we had a meeting
explaining the project. The project was generally positively received. The
building is a cinder block building, slab on grade and a portion of the Red
Onion Restaurant comes into it on the first floor.
Kim said the dimensions of the building are 20 x 100.
Stan said in documentation that we have we show that 422 E. Cooper is not
historical and has no historical significance even though it is associated with
the historically designated Red Onion. On the first floor there is 1,000
square feet of net leasable and the proposed residence on the second and
third floor would consist of 2,000 square feet. There are significant
setbacks. On the first floor to the second floor it is set back 12 feet and on
the third floor it is set back 45 feet. The existing façade will be maintained
if we can shore it up. An elevator provides access to the third floor. The
Red Onion sign would remain. The entry would be the same as it is now
with a single doorway adjacent to the large picture window. From the
doorway you would enter the commercial space and then enter stairs and the
elevator to access the second and third level. There is no access to a third
floor roof deck. The elevator has a simple over run on the third story. The
highest point is 38 feet which is compliant with the code and then there is
approximately a 4 foot elevator run.
View plane
The building is located within the Wheeler Opera House view plane
generally speaking, but due to the height of the buildings on Hyman the
proposed development will be blocked from the view plane. The view plane
cuts off a portion of the third story. Because it is blocked the code provides
for a complete exemption from the view plane. The blockage largely occurs
from the Paragon building and the Roaring Fork building.
Kim said it was not our intent to create an architectural statement as much as
it was to do something of its time and respect the Red Onion. We will keep
the white façade and we would step back and use brick and stone and glass
rails which tend to minimumize the mass. We wanted to keep it simple
because there is an alley behind it and two buildings on either side.
Jay asked about the scrubber on the roof for the Red Onion restaurant and
where it would be located.
P37
V.a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012
4
Kim said we will retain a mechanical engineer to determine what our options
are. Codes require hoods and kitchen equipment to be up and we aren’t sure
which building it will be on top of since the owner owns all three buildings.
New technology allows the mechanicals to be smaller.
Jane asked about maintaining and retaining the Red Onion sign. With the
decks and setbacks people will be living in those units and they will likely
have things on their decks.
Kim said the second level deck is set back for that very reason. We are
holding the deck back from the sign so things can’t be put there.
Jamie inquired about the street entrance.
Kim said in order to retain the picture window the door entrance will be
right where it is now to serve the retail and residential unit. It is a little step
up.
Nora said given the idea that we are trying to make iconic buildings stand
out and have some breathing room how can we not over shadow the Red
Onion building.
Stan said the proposal has very significant setbacks. On the second floor it
is set back 12 feet and 45 feet on the third floor.
Kim pointed out that the lot is 100 feet deep and we are 45 feet back and
there is no roof deck or stairs to the third floor.
Kim said it would be difficult to come back later for a roof top deck because
you would need an elevator and two sets of stairs.
Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public comments.
Junee Kirk said she attended the neighborhood meeting and listened to many
of the comments. The Red Onion is one of the most iconic buildings and I
would hope that you would not put the third story on but rather look at the
balance of this. Balance in terms of space and space in terms of not building
right next to it. The Red Onion had one story structures on either side. The
guidelines indicated buildings next to iconic buildings should not exceed a
P38
V.a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012
5
height of 28 feet. On the alley side with the third floor addition you will
have a 42 foot high structure that will impact the Red Onion. This is an
historic block and once you destroy the Red Onion it is sad thing that we are
doing to this town and our local history. In Europe they really honor history.
You should take the one story and go back 12 to 20 feet on the second story
and they can still have their pent house.
Chairperson, Ann Mullins closed the public comment section of the agenda
item.
Sallie stated that the sign should be protected and the mechanical should be
addressed on the roof.
Jay asked for information on the plate heights.
Kim said the first floor is 13 feet and the second level to the third level is 11
feet. The third floor is 12. 6 feet. These are floor to floor heights. The plate
heights would be lower. That amounts to a 38 foot high building.
Ann outlined the issues:
Demolition
Mass and scale
Height
Public amenity
Trash/utility
View plane
Patrick asked staff if by right they can build 38 feet.
Amy said that is the maximum they can have and HPC would have to
approve that height in the project.
Jay pointed out that the Red Onion is the center of the block and everything
else tapers down lower. The buildings behind the Red Onion are massive.
If any block can handle 38 feet it is this block. I would like to see if the
applicant can study the mechanical and see if they can bring the 38 feet
down to 36 feet. That is an important part and we might not need the max
for the program.
Ann said the Red Onion is dominant on the block and we have one owner
for all three lots and we can maintain the dominance of that historic resource
P39
V.a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012
6
within the block. This project does not do that. The demolition is fine. The
mass, scale and height is unacceptable. It completely dwarfs the Red Onion
and you will get some of the view from the west side. On the east side it
will be the tallest building in the block. The third story will stick out and
dominate and compromise the Red Onion. The public amenity and
trash/utility are fine. I can’t accept that something else is blocking the view
plane. The main issue is the third story.
Jamie said the third floor is over powering the Red Onion building.
Jay said for what is behind this building and the large setback is clearly there
to honor the Red Onion. I support the project with a restudy of the height
and this project can handle the mass.
Sallie recused herself.
Jane will be voting.
Nora said she feels we are chipping away at our mission. Our mission is to
preserve what we have. The Red Onion deserves some prominence. Part of
the appeal of this town is what we have in history and as we build these huge
buildings next to it I have to look back and ask what I have contributed in
preserving what we have.
Willis said he feels the board is struggling with reading the mass and scale.
It would really help to have a three dimensional representation and show the
view planes. A one story building is not in the vocabulary of this project.
Stan stated that the Red Onion is flanked by one and two story structures.
The entry to the two story structure comes right up to the Red Onion. The
building is at 38 feet. With respect to the view plane the code is very clear
and if something interrupts the view plane in front of you, you are exempt
from the view plane. We could have come to you with a two story building
coming all the way out to the front but in respecting the sign and the Red
Onion there is a significant setback for the second story and a significant
setback for the third floor. We feel this is a very respectful and small
project. We can do a three D model.
MOTION: Ann moved to continue 422 E. Cooper to Sept. 19th; second by
Jamie. Motion carried 6-1. Jay opposed.
P40
V.a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2012
7
Patrick said his issue is the third story.
Jamie said her concern is the height against the Red Onion and how much
higher is it.
Ann said she feels the building should be a two story. If that isn’t possible
then there should be no view plane compromise.
Willis said he feels the mass and profile is very promising and if you go two
stories you will block the sign and that doesn’t make sense. From any
pedestrian point of view you won’t see the third story.
Jane said she agrees with Willis that a three D contextual of the
neighborhood would be helpful. How does it compare to the street. I like
the project and want to see it in terms of height context.
MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn; second by Ann. All in favor, motion
carried.
Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
P41
V.a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2012
1
Vice-chair, Jay Maytin called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Nora Berko, Willis Pember, Sallie Golden
and Jane Hills. Jamie McLeod, Ann Mullins and Patrick Sagal were absent.
Staff present:
Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk
Sara Adams, Senior Planner
Motion: Nora moved to approve the minutes of Sept. 12th second by Willis.
All in favor, motion carried.
Motion: Jane moved to approve the minutes of September 19th second by
Nora. All in favor, motion carried.
Jane will recuse herself on 610 E. Hyman
400 E. Hyman Ave. – Minor Review
Debbie Quinn said the public notice affidavit and they are in order and the
applicant can proceed. Exhibit I
Sara said the project is also called the Tom Thumb building located in the
commercial core opposite the Wheeler Opera House. The applicant has
submitted for a minor development review to do some window changes and
freshening up of the existing building rather than the previous proposal of a
large glass box. They are proposing window changes to the first and second
floor. On the second floor they want to put larger windows in. This does
not meet our strict design guidelines for downtown where it says there is a
solid to void ratio on the second floor. However, this building was built in
1981 and we think the proposal to enlarge the windows on the second floor
actually freshens up the building and contributes more to the commercial
core than leaving the windows the way they are.
Signage: Staff has some concerns with the signage and as a condition of
approval it should be reviewed by staff and monitor. Signage is not
something HPC typically sees. It is usually reviewed with the zoning officer
but since it is wrapped with the minor review we thought it prudent to bring
it to the board. Our big concern is the location of the signage. There is
P43
V.a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2012
2
going to be one commercial tenant for the first and second floors and the
signage is proposed for the second floor and we feel it is more important to
have it on the first floor. We are also concern about the back lit nature of the
signage. What they are proposing meets are zoning regulations for lighting
and signage, however this is directly across from the Wheeler and we felt
that a back lit sign maybe distracting from the historic Wheeler and we are
suggesting the applicant look at a more traditional lighting such as a goose
neck to be reviewed by staff and monitor. Regarding the mechanical they
are proposing two large HVAC’s on top of the building and it is an HPC
concern and a zoning concern. It has to be pushed back from the street
façade. Staff is suggesting that they find the smallest HVAC systems that
they can and push it back as far as they can. We also recommend that staff
review the proposed screening once they are in their location. The plan is
also to add two other chair lifts in the plaza area to make the entire facility
accessible. Staff is recommending approval with conditions.
Louis Loria, architect
Ken Sack, owner
Louis said with the nature of this particular lot and where it is we thought
that by making a more harmonious façade and more transparent would be a
nice addition to the retail at street level. The upper larger windows gives the
client more ability to translate their product to the people on the street. We
feel the signage is appropriate and it meets the criteria and we feel it is not
out of character on the second floor. We would prefer the back lit signage
and it is an Led within the letters and is soft. It is not a glaring light. The
goose neck has a lot of glare and it is out dated.
Louis said on the accessibility there is a stairway that goes down and we will
put a chair lift that is ADA approved which will make the overall building
accessible. One goes to the street level and one goes to the lower level.
Louis said the mechanical equipment the building is only 20 feet wide. It
would not be visible from Hyman Ave. but is visible from the Wheeler opera
house. Code says put the mechanical 20 feet back but it is impossible
because the building is only 20 feet wide. We could push the unit back to
the other side if the board desires so it is not visible from the Opera House.
We are turning the area into a dynamic retail space.
New front elevation – Exhibit II
P44
V.a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2012
3
Louis said the frames of the windows will be stainless steel and the
screening is a brown metal tubing to screen it and be as quiet as possible.
Louis said it is really a soft hallow around the letters of the signage.
Nora said her concern is looking from the lobby of the Wheeler which is the
second floor and looking into the windows.
Louis said this building is all one tenant and the windows are translucent
windows. Louis said the heating is generated by the lighting within the
space and equipment which is driving the cooling out of the space. We have
to stay within the energy code.
Willis asked about the awning. Louis said the awning will be white and
sunbrella fabric. The materials for the lettering will be stainless brushed
steel.
Jay asked if the windows would be operable. Louis said no.
Sallie said the windows enhance the space and should be monitored by staff
and monitor. If the mechanical can be pushed back as far as you can that
would be appropriate.
Willis said this proposal enhances that corner and adding the transparency
enhances the building. We need to be careful that the hallow is a modest
hallow. The signage is elegant and the location is also elegant.
Jane said the proposal is beautiful and the window changes creates a vitality
interaction on the street. On the signage that is not in our purview but we
need to be careful so that it is a soft subtle light. I am not in favor of the
goose neck. The lift is a great amenity for that area. On the awning being
white we get a lot of red dust storms and white will be a maintenance issue.
Nora concurred with Willis. Nora said her only concern is the view plane
from the Wheeler.
Jay said he likes the project. On the mechanical we need to make sure that it
is the smallest possible. The proposed location is appropriate and I
wouldn’t change that. Staff and monitor should review the screening of the
mechanical.
P45
V.a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2012
4
Vice-chair Jay Maytin opened the public hearing. There were no public
comments. The public comment section of the agenda item was closed.
Louis said he appreciates all the comments and feels the design is more
appropriate for the area. On the lighting I will work with Sara to make it as
acceptable as possible. I know what the board wants. This is a luxury store.
We can also have a mockup made before it is installed. On the screening we
can look at other alternatives.
Ken Sack said he is part owner of the store and assured the board that the
awning will be kept clean.
Jay recommended that condition #2 be amended that the wall sign be
reviewed by staff and monitor. #3 the wall sign and lighting and a mockup
to be approved by staff and monitor. #4 to be approved by staff and monitor.
Motion: Jay moved to approve resolution #25 with the following changes:
#2Wall sign location to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor.
#3 Applicant shall provide a mockup of the wall sign including the lighting
and to be approved by staff and monitor.
#4 Mechanical to be approved by staff and monitor.
Motion second by Nora.
Willis made a friendly amendment to strike #2 as the sign location is
approved on the second floor as presented. Nora accepted the amendment
All in favor, motion carried. 5-0.
Sallie and Jay are the monitors.
422 E. Cooper Ave. – Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual
commercial Design Review, Demolition, Mountain View Plane Review,
Public Hearing
Sara said the key issues are height, impact of the third floor, vertical sign
and mechanical equipment.
Stan Clauson did a power point showing the sign from different views. The
sign is not obscured as the third floor is set back 45 feet. Stan said they
P46
V.a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2012
5
realized the setbacks had to be significant due to the Red Onion. Stan said
we can review the mechanical at final and will look for the smallest
equipment available.
Willis inquired about the view plane. Sara said the view plane is from the
steps of the Wheeler opera house.
Kim said the overrun on the third floor for mechanical is 4.2 feet.
Nora said she supports demolition and the public amenity request and the
trash/utility area. Two stories are OK but the 3 rd floor is too much. The
Red Onion is the only structure on the block that needs to be prominent.
Jane said she is OK with staff’s recommendations. With regard to the
massing and scale the applicant has done a great job and the setbacks are
OK. Jane said the heights are OK. I’m not in favor of the elevator over fun
but it is a requirement.
Sallie agreed with Jane’s comments.
Willis said it comes down to the third floor as seen from Casa Tua. The
massing is successful and the upper floors have no visible connection to the
Red Onion.
Jay said the project is good. For final there needs to be a restudy of the
roofline/cornice. The detailing on the second floor needs to be simpler.
Vice-chair Jay Maytin opened the public hearing.
Junee Kirk said you can see the massive building from the east side. The
Red Onion is the most obvious building on the block.
Vice-chair Jay Maytin closed the public hearing.
Sallie agreed with Jay that the detailing on the second floor should be
restudied for final and the lines simplified.
MOTION: Jay moved to approve resolution 26 second by Jane. Motion
carried 4-1. Nora opposed.
P47
V.a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2012
6
610 E. Hyman – AspenModern Negotiation for Voluntary Landmark
Designation, Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial
Design Review, Special Review for utility/trash recycling area,
continued from October 10th – public hearing
Jane recused herself.
Amy summarized the staff memo. This is an AspenModern negotiation
P48
V.a
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
Trish Aragon, PE, City Engineer
Lynn Rumbaugh, Transportation Manager
Jannette Whitcomb, Environmental Health Program Coordinator
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
CJ Oliver, Environmental Health Director
Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager
John Kruger, Transportation Director
Scott Miller, Capital Asset Director
DATE OF MEMO: 11/19/2012
MEETING DATE: 11/26/2012
RE: Mitigating Transportation Impacts from Development
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
BACKGROUND:
DISCUSSION:
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
This is a joint project between Community Development, Engineering,
Transportation, and Environmental Health. Each department is contributing to the
total cost of the project. No additional funding is requested by staff. The project will
use already budgeted monies from 2012 and will request to carry these monies into
2013 for the completion of the project. The proposed budget breakdown is:
P49
V.b
Page 2 of 3
• Engineering: $35,000 from the AMP
• Community Development: $22,891 from the AACP Implementation budget
• Transportation: $30,000 from savings
• Environmental Health: $12,000 from a combination of the environmental
impacts of development project ($9,800) and 2012 carry forward from payroll
surplus ($2,200)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINANCE REVIEW: Click here to enter text.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Click here to enter text.
The proposed contract has the potential to significantly improve Aspen’s environmental metrics
related to air quality. The intent of the project is to clarify and codify requirements for
transportation related impacts from development. Transportation impacts include increased
traffic and trips that result from development. These have an impact on our air quality by
increasing pollution due to vehicle emissions and particulates from vehicles on the road.
Reducing the number of trips or requiring development to mitigate the impacts of those trips will
result in fewer negative impacts to air quality.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
ALTERNATIVES:
PROPOSED MOTION:
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Notes:
• Please use page numbers on all memos and attachments, especially for work sessions
• The memo should be as long as it needs to be – but remember, you’re not writing a novel.
Use attachments for more detailed information, ordinances and resolutions, etc.
P50
V.b
Page 3 of 3
• Attachments: All attachments to the memo should be referenced somewhere in the body of
the memo. All attachments should be titled as “Attachment”, “Exhibit” or “Schedule” with
a letter following:
Attachments:
A - Exhibit One - Map ...
B - Property Description
C - Chart of Costs
D - Resolution #97-1
P51
V.b
Mitigating Transportation Impacts of Development Contract
Page 1 of 5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
Trish Aragon, PE, City Engineer
Lynn Rumbaugh, Transportation Manager
Jannette Whitcomb, Environmental Health Program Coordinator
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
CJ Oliver, Environmental Health Director
Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager
John Kruger, Transportation Director
Scott Miller, Capital Asset Director
COPY: Don Taylor, City Finance Director
RE: Mitigating Transportation Impacts from Development - Contract for
Professional Services
DATE OF MEMO: November 19, 2012
MEETING DATE: November 26, 2012
____________________________________________________________________________
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is requesting Council approval to proceed with one of
Council’s primary objectives to implement the AACP, Mitigating Transportation Impacts from
Development. Attached is the contract. Attached is a contract for professional service to
conduct work related to creation of a system to ensure development mitigates its transportation
impacts. If approved, Fehr & Peers will be working with City staff from Community
Development, Engineering, Transportation and Environmental Health departments. A detailed
scope of services is included as Exhibit A. The contract is for $99,881, which includes a traffic
counts, the establishment of triggers for development to conduct a traffic study and mitigate
transportation impacts, a TDM tool, a Quality of Service tool, and a check- meeting with City
Council. Information on the consultants in included in Exhibit B.
DISCUSSION: The sections below outline the project background, consultant selection
process, an overview of the project and deliverables, and the timeline.
PROJECT BACKGROUND: This project was one of the top priorities identified by City Council as
part of implementation of the AACP. On March 5, 2012, City Council held a work session to
discuss which items from the Aspen Area Community Plan should be implementation priorities.
Eight (8) priorities were picked. These included asking staff to research the different impacts
from development and specifically focus on improving the system for mitigating transportation
impacts. Community Development staff worked with other city departments to research different
impacts of development, and issued a report Mitigating the Impacts of Development. On May
21, 2012, staff returned to City Council in a work session to review the report. Council
P53
V.b
Mitigating Transportation Impacts of Development Contract
Page 2 of 5
identified two top priorities from that report (updating the employee generation study and
updating transportation mitigation standards and triggers) and gave staff the go-ahead to include
those items in their work programs. Regarding transportation, City Council asked staff to study
the impacts development has on our transportation system, and look to create a system to
mitigate those impacts. In addition, at that work session City Council expressed interest in
creating a reliable, defensible system that resulted in actual improvements, not simply charging
an additional fee on development.
Determining a development’s share of mitigation is currently done on a case-by-case basis,
starting with meetings of the City’s Development Review Committee which reviews applications
and informally discusses impacts and possible mitigation strategies. Because there is no set of
clear guidelines regarding potential mitigation methods, the applicant often relies on the
Transportation Department to provide a mitigation strategy for the review process. Currently, a
mix of mitigation options is worked out between the applicant, staff, the P&Z and City Council.
There are no clear standards that indicate when a traffic study is required and what information it
should include. Likewise, there are no set standards for the types of improvements that mitigate
transportation impacts. While the city has requested studies for PUDs and SPAs, there is no
consistent scope of work for such studies, and the Land Use Code does not provide clear
direction that non-PUD/SPA project in the downtown is required to provide such information.
The current process has constantly changing targets, and both staff and Council have expressed a
desire to create a fair and consistent process. In addition, the Planning and Zoning Commission
has expressed frustration to staff in the past about the unclear process for reviewing
transportation impacts.
Following the May 21st work session, staff from Community Development, Engineering,
Transportation, and Environmental Health worked to outline a scope of work for the project,
asking firms to help the City create a standardized system for development to mitigate its
transportation and air quality impacts, including determining an appropriate “trigger point” for
development to mitigate these impacts, determining when a development should provide a traffic
study, outlining the parameters for an effective traffic study, creating a system to ensure proper
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Quality of Service techniques are
implemented, and creating a trip generation model specific to Aspen.
Staff checked in with City Council in August, prior to releasing the RFP, to confirm the
direction. The RFP was released in September, and responses were due in October.
SELECTION PROCESS: Six (6) firms responded to the City’s RFP. The submittals came from
national and international firms, with a few located in Colorado. Most of the firms had resort
experience and many have completed work in Colorado. Fehr & Peers, a transportation firm out
of Denver, provided a detailed proposal that met all of the requested points, including the
creation of an Aspen-specific traffic model based on Aspen data. Their proposal was
comprehensive, and staff believes the most cost-effective given the high quality product. Other
firms proposed providing a similar product for more than twice the cost. Others were less in
price, but did not address all aspects requested or to the level of sophistication of Fehr & Peers.
There were three important aspects to Fehr & Peers’ proposal that made it stick out from the rest:
P54
V.b
Mitigating Transportation Impacts of Development Contract
Page 3 of 5
1. Fehr & Peers has completed work throughout the country, and have had their tools tested
in court and succeed; meaning the basis of their work for the City of Aspen will be
legally defensible.
2. Their transportation tools are refined and will be able to address the different land uses in
Aspen. Their proposal includes budget to conduct traffic counts to ensure the final
product relates to on-the-ground reality in Aspen, rather than a national standard that is
often used in transportation studies but doesn’t reflect our traffic patterns.
3. The Fehr & Peers tools are user friendly, enabling staff, a land use applicant, and the
general public to use the tool to determine transportation impacts of a proposal. One
important goal of this project is to create a standardized way for development to mitigate
their transportation impacts, and having an easy to use tool is a critical component.
Staff selected the Fehr & Peers proposal for these reasons and because of its comprehensive
nature. The detailed scope of the proposal is attached in Exhibit A.
PROJECT OVERVIEW: The purpose of this project is to improve the fairness and consistency of
the City’s development review process as it relates to transportation requirements. The project
includes five steps that result in standardizing the development review process by:
1. Establishing a trigger point for the requirement of traffic impact studies;
2. Developing standardized parameters for traffic impact studies;
3. Creating a trip generation model specific to Aspen’s land uses and development pattern;
4. Creating a menu of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) mitigation options
coupled with a scoring system; and
5. Creating a menu of Multi-Modal Quality of Service and Level of Service (MMLOS)
mitigation options coupled with a scoring system.
At the end of the project, the City will be in a position to adopt code amendments that identify
the trigger point for development to conduct a traffic study, outline the required elements of a
traffic study, and adopt a mitigation scoring tool for TDM and MMLOS.
PROJECT TIMELINE:
The scope of work included in Exhibit A includes a detailed timeline. The project will be broken
into the following tasks. Tasks 1-3 are part of Phase 1 and tasks 4-5 are part of Phase 2.
Task 1: Review current procedures. The consultant team will review the current policies and
procedures with the City of Aspen staff. (November – December)
Task 2: Aspen specific traffic study parameters. The consultant team will review Traffic Impact
Study (TIS) guidelines for similar communities to establish a starting point for the Aspen specific
work. The consultant team will then tailor a draft of TIS guidelines to Aspen, taking seasonality
and other factors into considerations. The draft guidelines will be reviewed by staff. (December -
January)
Task 3: Aspen specific trip generation model. The consultant team will take traffic counts at up
to 4 different locations. The team will analyze the locations based on use type, number of dwelling
P55
V.b
Mitigating Transportation Impacts of Development Contract
Page 4 of 5
units, proximity to transit and other relevant factors. The data will then be processed to determine
the trip generation by land use type. (December - January)
Task 4: Final TDM mitigation scoring tool. The consultant team will identify up to 30 TDM
strategies that should be included in the Aspen based model. The team will then create an Aspen
specific scoring tool that can be used to evaluate developments from the site to neighborhood level.
This task includes an optional TDM Monitoring Plan that would enable the city to ensure
developments are appropriately implementing their TDM measures. (January)
Task 5: Multi Modal Quality of Service and Vehicle Level of Service (MMLOS). The
consultant team will review existing strategies and create an implementation strategy specific to
Aspen. This task also includes the consultant team creating an initial draft of the entire study and
meeting with City Council to review the study. The task also includes finalizing all the work and
preparing it for adoption by the city. (January for MMLOS; February – March for draft study and
Council Presentation; April – May for final deliverables)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The proposed contract has the potential to significantly
improve Aspen’s environmental metrics related to air quality. The intent of the project is to
clarify and codify requirements for transportation related impacts from development.
Transportation impacts include increased traffic and trips that result from development. These
have an impact on our air quality by increasing pollution due to vehicle emissions and
particulates from vehicles on the road. Reducing the number of trips or requiring development to
mitigate the impacts of those trips will result in fewer negative impacts to air quality.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The proposed contract is for a total of $99,881, which
includes Phase 1 and Phase 2 as well as an option cost of $3,650 for an optional TDM
Monitoring Plan. Staff is recommending moving forward with both Phases of the contract as
well as the optional cost.
Staff requested Fehr & Peers revise their proposal to include the Phasing options for City
Council. City Council could chose to move forward with Phase 1 at this time, and ask Staff to
return for approval of Phase 2. Phase 1 includes all of the initial research and development of an
Aspen specific trip generation model. Phase 2 includes the creation of the TDM scoring tool and
MMLOS. The optional TDM Monitoring Plan is included as part of Phase 2.
This is a joint project between Community Development, Engineering, Transportation, and
Environmental Health. Each department is contributing to the total cost of the project. No
additional funding is requested by staff. The project will use already budgeted monies from
2012 and will request to carry these monies into 2013 for the completion of the project. If
approved, the different departmental funding sources will be combined into one budget within
the Transportation fund as contained within the 2012 supplemental budget request. The proposed
budget breakdown is:
• Engineering: $35,000 from the AMP
• Community Development: $22,881 from the AACP Implementation budget
• Transportation: $30,000 from savings
P56
V.b
Mitigating Transportation Impacts of Development Contract
Page 5 of 5
• Environmental Health: $12,000 from a combination of the environmental impacts of
development project ($9,800) and 2012 carry forward from payroll surplus ($2,200)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is requesting approval of the service contract with Fehr
& Peers. Staff recommends approval of Phase 1 and Phase 2 to ensure timely completion of the
project, as well as the additional $3,560 for a TDM Monitoring Plan, for a total contract cost of
$99,881.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:_____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
“I move to approve Resolution No. ___, Series of 2012, approving a contractual agreement for
professional services between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and Fehr & Peers for professional
consulting services related to the Mitigating Transportation Impacts from Development project,
including Phase 1 and Phase 2, as well as $3,650 in additional expenses for a TDM Monitoring
Plan.”
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A – Agreement for Professional Services, with Scope of Work
EXHIBIT B – Consultant Qualifications
P57
V.b
RESOLUTION # ___
(Series of 2012)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND FEHR & PEERS AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for,
between the City of Aspen and, a true and accurate copy of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit “A”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract
for, between the City of Aspen and a copy of which is annexed hereto and
incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said
agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 26th day of November 2011.
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, November 26, 2012
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
P59
V.b
Agreement Professional Services Page 0
CITY OF ASPEN STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT V 2009
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
City of Aspen Project No.: 2012-119.
AGREEMENT made as of 26th day of November, in the year 2012.
BETWEEN the City:
Contract Amount:
The City of Aspen
c/o Transportation
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: (970) 920-5055
And the Professional:
Fehr & Peers
c/o Anne Bowers, P.E.
621 17th Street, #2301
Denver, CO 80293
Phone: (303) 296-4300
For the Following Project:
Mitigating the Transportation Impacts of Development
____________________________________________________________________________
Exhibits appended and made a part of this Agreement:
If this Agreement requires the City to pay
an amount of money in excess of
$25,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid
until it has been approved by the City
Council of the City of Aspen.
City Council Approval:
Date: November 26, 2012
Resolution No.:___________________
Exhibit A: Scope of Work.
Exhibit B: Fee Schedule.
Total: $99,881.00
P61
V.b
Agreement Professional Services Page 1
The City and Professional agree as set forth below.
1. Scope of Work. Professional shall perform in a competent and professional manner the
Scope of Work as set forth at Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein.
2. Completion. Professional shall commence Work immediately upon receipt of a written
Notice to Proceed from the City and complete all phases of the Scope of Work as expeditiously as
is consistent with professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the Work in a timely
manner. The parties anticipate that all Work pursuant to this Agreement shall be completed no later
than May 30, 2013. Upon request of the City, Professional shall submit, for the City's approval, a
schedule for the performance of Professional's services which shall be adjusted as required as the
project proceeds, and which shall include allowances for periods of time required by the City's
project engineer for review and approval of submissions and for approvals of authorities having
jurisdiction over the project. This schedule, when approved by the City, shall not, except for
reasonable cause, be exceeded by the Professional.
3. Payment. In consideration of the work performed, City shall pay Professional on a time and
expense basis for all work performed. The hourly rates for work performed by Professional shall
not exceed those hourly rates set forth at Exhibit B appended hereto. Except as otherwise mutually
agreed to by the parties the payments made to Professional shall not initially exceed the amount set
forth above. Professional shall submit, in timely fashion, invoices for work performed. The City
shall review such invoices and, if they are considered incorrect or untimely, the City shall review
the matter with Professional within ten days from receipt of the Professional's bill.
4. Non-Assignability. Both parties recognize that this Agreement is one for personal services
and cannot be transferred, assigned, or sublet by either party without prior written consent of the
other. Sub-Contracting, if authorized, shall not relieve the Professional of any of the responsibilities
or obligations under this Agreement. Professional shall be and remain solely responsible to the City
for the acts, errors, omissions or neglect of any subcontractors’ officers, agents and employees, each
of whom shall, for this purpose be deemed to be an agent or employee of the Professional to the
extent of the subcontract. The City shall not be obligated to pay or be liable for payment of any
sums due which may be due to any sub-contractor.
5. Termination of Procurement. The sale contemplated by this Agreement may be
canceled by the City prior to acceptance by the City whenever for any reason and in its sole
discretion the City shall determine that such cancellation is in its best interests and convenience.
6. Termination of Professional Services. The Professional or the City may terminate the
Professional Services component of this Agreement, without specifying the reason therefor, by
giving notice, in writing, addressed to the other party, specifying the effective date of the
termination. No fees shall be earned after the effective date of the termination. Upon any
termination, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models,
photographs, reports or other material prepared by the Professional pursuant to this Agreement
shall become the property of the City. Notwithstanding the above, Professional shall not be
relieved of any liability to the City for damages sustained by the City by virtue of any breach of
P62
V.b
Agreement Professional Services Page 2
this Agreement by the Professional, and the City may withhold any payments to the Professional
for the purposes of set-off until such time as the exact amount of damages due the City from the
Professional may be determined.
7. Independent Contractor Status. It is expressly acknowledged and understood by the parties
that nothing contained in this agreement shall result in, or be construed as establishing an
employment relationship. Professional shall be, and shall perform as, an independent Contractor
who agrees to use his or her best efforts to provide the said services on behalf of the City. No
agent, employee, or servant of Professional shall be, or shall be deemed to be, the employee, agent
or servant of the City. City is interested only in the results obtained under this contract. The
manner and means of conducting the work are under the sole control of Professional. None of the
benefits provided by City to its employees including, but not limited to, workers' compensation
insurance and unemployment insurance, are available from City to the employees, agents or
servants of Professional. Professional shall be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the
acts of Professional's agents, employees, servants and subcontractors during the performance of this
contract. Professional shall indemnify City against all liability and loss in connection with, and
shall assume full responsibility for payment of all federal, state and local taxes or contributions
imposed or required under unemployment insurance, social security and income tax law, with
respect to Professional and/or Professional's employees engaged in the performance of the services
agreed to herein.
8. Indemnification. Professional agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers,
employees, insurers, and self-insurance pool, from and against all liability, claims, and demands, on
account of injury, loss, or damage, including without limitation claims arising from bodily injury,
personal injury, sickness, disease, death, property loss or damage, or any other loss of any kind
whatsoever, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with this contract, if such injury,
loss, or damage is caused in whole or in part by, or is claimed to be caused in whole or in part by,
the act, omission, error, professional error, mistake, negligence, or other fault of the Professional,
any subcontractor of the Professional, or any officer, employee, representative, or agent of the
Professional or of any subcontractor of the Professional, or which arises out of any workmen's
compensation claim of any employee of the Professional or of any employee of any subcontractor
of the Professional. The Professional agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, and to provide
defense for and defend against, any such liability, claims or demands at the sole expense of the
Professional, or at the option of the City, agrees to pay the City or reimburse the City for the
defense costs incurred by the City in connection with, any such liability, claims, or demands. If it is
determined by the final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction that such injury, loss, or
damage was caused in whole or in part by the act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or
its employees, the City shall reimburse the Professional for the portion of the judgment attributable
to such act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or employees.
9. Professional's Insurance.
(a) Professional agrees to procure and maintain, at its own expense, a policy or policies
of insurance sufficient to insure against all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations
assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. Such insurance shall be in
addition to any other insurance requirements imposed by this contract or by law. The
P63
V.b
Agreement Professional Services Page 3
Professional shall not be relieved of any liability, claims, demands, or other obligations
assumed pursuant to Section 8 above by reason of its failure to procure or maintain
insurance, or by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance in sufficient amounts,
duration, or types.
(b) Professional shall procure and maintain, and shall cause any subcontractor of the
Professional to procure and maintain, the minimum insurance coverages listed below. Such
coverages shall be procured and maintained with forms and insurance acceptable to the
City. All coverages shall be continuously maintained to cover all liability, claims, demands,
and other obligations assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. In the case
of any claims-made policy, the necessary retroactive dates and extended reporting periods
shall be procured to maintain such continuous coverage.
(i) Workers’ Compensation insurance to cover obligations imposed by
applicable laws for any employee engaged in the performance of work under this
contract, and Employers' Liability insurance with minimum limits of FIVE
HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) for each accident, FIVE
HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease - policy limit, and
FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease - each
employee. Evidence of qualified self-insured status may be substituted for the
Workers' Compensation requirements of this paragraph.
(ii) Commercial General Liability insurance with minimum combined single
limits of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE
MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) aggregate. The policy shall be applicable to
all premises and operations. The policy shall include coverage for bodily injury,
broad form property damage (including completed operations), personal injury
(including coverage for contractual and employee acts), blanket contractual,
independent contractors, products, and completed operations. The policy shall
contain a severability of interests provision.
(iii) Comprehensive Automobile Liability insurance with minimum combined
single limits for bodily injury and property damage of not less than ONE MILLION
DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE MILLION DOLLARS
($1,000,000.00) aggregate with respect to each Professional's owned, hired and non-
owned vehicles assigned to or used in performance of the Scope of Work. The
policy shall contain a severability of interests provision. If the Professional has no
owned automobiles, the requirements of this Section shall be met by each employee
of the Professional providing services to the City under this contract.
(iv) Professional Liability insurance with the minimum limits of ONE
MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) each claim and ONE MILLION DOLLARS
($1,000,000) aggregate.
(c) The policy or policies required above shall be endorsed to include the City and the
City's officers and employees as additional insureds. Every policy required above shall be
P64
V.b
Agreement Professional Services Page 4
primary insurance, and any insurance carried by the City, its officers or employees, or
carried by or provided through any insurance pool of the City, shall be excess and not
contributory insurance to that provided by Professional. No additional insured endorsement
to the policy required above shall contain any exclusion for bodily injury or property
damage arising from completed operations. The Professional shall be solely responsible for
any deductible losses under any policy required above.
(d) The certificate of insurance provided to the City shall be completed by the
Professional's insurance agent as evidence that policies providing the required coverages,
conditions, and minimum limits are in full force and effect, and shall be reviewed and
approved by the City prior to commencement of the contract. No other form of certificate
shall be used. The certificate shall identify this contract and shall provide that the coverages
afforded under the policies shall not be canceled, terminated or materially changed until at
least thirty (30) days prior written notice has been given to the City.
(e) Failure on the part of the Professional to procure or maintain policies providing the
required coverages, conditions, and minimum limits shall constitute a material breach of
contract upon which City may immediately terminate this contract, or at its discretion City
may procure or renew any such policy or any extended reporting period thereto and may pay
any and all premiums in connection therewith, and all monies so paid by City shall be
repaid by Professional to City upon demand, or City may offset the cost of the premiums
against monies due to Professional from City.
(f) City reserves the right to request and receive a certified copy of any policy and any
endorsement thereto.
(g) The parties hereto understand and agree that City is relying on, and does not waive or
intend to waive by any provision of this contract, the monetary limitations (presently
$150,000.00 per person and $600,000 per occurrence) or any other rights, immunities, and
protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24-10-101 et
seq., C.R.S., as from time to time amended, or otherwise available to City, its officers, or its
employees.
10. City's Insurance. The parties hereto understand that the City is a member of the Colorado
Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency (CIRSA) and as such participates in the CIRSA Proper-
ty/Casualty Pool. Copies of the CIRSA policies and manual are kept at the City of Aspen Risk
Management Department and are available to Professional for inspection during normal business
hours. City makes no representations whatsoever with respect to specific coverages offered by
CIRSA. City shall provide Professional reasonable notice of any changes in its membership or
participation in CIRSA.
11. Completeness of Agreement. It is expressly agreed that this agreement contains the entire
undertaking of the parties relevant to the subject matter thereof and there are no verbal or written
representations, agreements, warranties or promises pertaining to the project matter thereof not
expressly incorporated in this writing.
P65
V.b
Agreement Professional Services Page 5
12. Notice. Any written notices as called for herein may be hand delivered or mailed by
certified mail return receipt requested to the respective persons and/or addresses listed above.
13. Non-Discrimination. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, marital status,
affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry, handicap, or
religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform services under this contract.
Professional agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, Section 13-98,
pertaining to non-discrimination in employment.
14. Waiver. The waiver by the City of any term, covenant, or condition hereof shall not
operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term. No term, covenant, or
condition of this Agreement can be waived except by the written consent of the City, and
forbearance or indulgence by the City in any regard whatsoever shall not constitute a waiver of any
term, covenant, or condition to be performed by Professional to which the same may apply and,
until complete performance by Professional of said term, covenant or condition, the City shall be
entitled to invoke any remedy available to it under this Agreement or by law despite any such
forbearance or indulgence.
15. Execution of Agreement by City. This Agreement shall be binding upon all parties hereto
and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns. Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained herein, this Agreement shall not be binding upon the City unless
duly executed by the Mayor of the City of Aspen (or a duly authorized official in his absence)
following a Motion or Resolution of the Council of the City of Aspen authorizing the Mayor (or a
duly authorized official in his absence) to execute the same.
16. Illegal Aliens – CRS 8-17.5-101 & 24-76.5-101.
(a) Purpose. During the 2006 Colorado legislative session, the Legislature passed
House Bills 06-1343 (subsequently amended by HB 07-1073) and 06-1023 that added
new statutes relating to the employment of and contracting with illegal aliens. These new
laws prohibit all state agencies and political subdivisions, including the City of Aspen,
from knowingly hiring an illegal alien to perform work under a contract, or to knowingly
contract with a subcontractor who knowingly hires with an illegal alien to perform work
under the contract. The new laws also require that all contracts for services include
certain specific language as set forth in the statutes. The following terms and conditions
have been designed to comply with the requirements of this new law.
(b) Definitions. The following terms are defined in the new law and by this reference
are incorporated herein and in any contract for services entered into with the City of
Aspen.
“Basic Pilot Program” means the basic pilot employment verification program
created in Public Law 208, 104th Congress, as amended, and expanded in Public
Law 156, 108th Congress, as amended, that is administered by the United States
Department of Homeland Security.
P66
V.b
Agreement Professional Services Page 6
“Public Contract for Services” means this Agreement.
“Services” means the furnishing of labor, time, or effort by a Contractor or a
subcontractor not involving the delivery of a specific end product other than
reports that are merely incidental to the required performance.
(c) By signing this document, Professional certifies and represents that at this time:
(i) Professional shall confirm the employment eligibility of all employees who are
newly hired for employment in the United States; and
(ii) Professional has participated or attempted to participate in the Basic Pilot
Program in order to verify that new employees are not employ illegal aliens.
(d) Professional hereby confirms that:
(i) Professional shall not knowingly employ or contract new employees
without confirming the employment eligibility of all such employees hired for
employment in the United States under the Public Contract for Services.
(ii) Professional shall not enter into a contract with a subcontractor that fails to
confirm to the Professional that the subcontractor shall not knowingly hire new
employees without confirming their employment eligibility for employment in the
United States under the Public Contract for Services.
(iii) Professional has verified or has attempted to verify through participation
in the Federal Basic Pilot Program that Professional does not employ any new
employees who are not eligible for employment in the United States; and if
Professional has not been accepted into the Federal Basic Pilot Program prior to
entering into the Public Contract for Services, Professional shall forthwith apply
to participate in the Federal Basic Pilot Program and shall in writing verify such
application within five (5) days of the date of the Public Contract. Professional
shall continue to apply to participate in the Federal Basic Pilot Program and shall
in writing verify same every three (3) calendar months thereafter, until
Professional is accepted or the public contract for services has been completed,
whichever is earlier. The requirements of this section shall not be required or
effective if the Federal Basic Pilot Program is discontinued.
(iv) Professional shall not use the Basic Pilot Program procedures to undertake
pre-employment screening of job applicants while the Public Contract for
Services is being performed.
(v) If Professional obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing
work under the Public Contract for Services knowingly employs or contracts with
a new employee who is an illegal alien, Professional shall:
P67
V.b
Agreement Professional Services Page 7
(1) Notify such subcontractor and the City of Aspen within three days
that Professional has actual knowledge that the subcontractor has newly
employed or contracted with an illegal alien; and
(2) Terminate the subcontract with the subcontractor if within three
days of receiving the notice required pursuant to this section the
subcontractor does not cease employing or contracting with the new
employee who is an illegal alien; except that Professional shall not
terminate the Public Contract for Services with the subcontractor if during
such three days the subcontractor provides information to establish that the
subcontractor has not knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal
alien.
(vi) Professional shall comply with any reasonable request by the Colorado
Department of Labor and Employment made in the course of an investigation that
the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment undertakes or is undertaking
pursuant to the authority established in Subsection 8-17.5-102 (5), C.R.S.
(vii) If Professional violates any provision of the Public Contract for Services
pertaining to the duties imposed by Subsection 8-17.5-102, C.R.S. the City of
Aspen may terminate the Public Contract for Services. If the Public Contract for
Services is so terminated, Contractor shall be liable for actual and consequential
damages to the City of Aspen arising out of Professional’s violation of Subsection
8-17.5-102, C.R.S.
(ix) If Professional operates as a sole proprietor, Professional hereby swears or
affirms under penalty of perjury that the Professional (1) is a citizen of the United
States or otherwise lawfully present in the United States pursuant to federal law,
(2) shall comply with the provisions of CRS 24-76.5-101 et seq., and (3) shall
produce one of the forms of identification required by CRS 24-76.5-103 prior to
the effective date of this Agreement.
16. Warranties Against Contingent Fees, Gratuities, Kickbacks and Conflicts of Interest.
(a) Professional warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or
retained to solicit or secure this Contract upon an agreement or understanding for a
commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or
bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Professional for
the purpose of securing business.
(b) Professional agrees not to give any employee of the City a gratuity or any offer of
employment in connection with any decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation,
preparation of any part of a program requirement or a purchase request, influencing the
content of any specification or procurement standard, rendering advice, investigation,
auditing, or in any other advisory capacity in any proceeding or application, request for
P68
V.b
Agreement Professional Services Page 8
ruling, determination, claim or controversy, or other particular matter, pertaining to this
Agreement, or to any solicitation or proposal therefore.
(c) Professional represents that no official, officer, employee or representative of the
City during the term of this Agreement has or one (1) year thereafter shall have any
interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof, except those that
may have been disclosed at the time City Council approved the execution of this
Agreement.
(d) In addition to other remedies it may have for breach of the prohibitions against
contingent fees, gratuities, kickbacks and conflict of interest, the City shall have the right
to:
1. Cancel this Purchase Agreement without any liability by the City;
2. Debar or suspend the offending parties from being a Professional, contractor or
subcontractor under City contracts;
3. Deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the value of
anything transferred or received by the Professional; and
4. Recover such value from the offending parties.
17. Fund Availability. Financial obligations of the City payable after the current fiscal year
are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise made
available. If this Agreement contemplates the City utilizing state or federal funds to meet its
obligations herein, this Agreement shall be contingent upon the availability of those funds for
payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
18. General Terms.
(a) It is agreed that neither this Agreement nor any of its terms, provisions, conditions,
representations or covenants can be modified, changed, terminated or amended, waived,
superseded or extended except by appropriate written instrument fully executed by the
parties.
(b) If any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be held invalid, illegal or
unenforceable it shall not affect or impair the validity, legality or enforceability of any other
provision.
(c) The parties acknowledge and understand that there are no conditions or limitations
to this understanding except those as contained herein at the time of the execution hereof
and that after execution no alteration, change or modification shall be made except upon a
writing signed by the parties.
(d) This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado as from time
to time in effect.
P69
V.b
Agreement Professional Services Page 9
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed, or caused to be executed by their duly
authorized officials, this Agreement in three copies each of which shall be deemed an original on
the date first written above.
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: PROFESSIONAL:
________________________________ ______________________________
[Signature] [Signature]
By: _____________________________ By: _____________________________
[Name] [Name]
Title: ____________________________ Title: ____________________________
Date: ___________________ Date: ___________________
Approved as to form:
_______________________________
City Attorney’s Office
P70
V.b
Agreement Professional Services Page 10
EXHIBIT A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Scope of Work
Phase One – Tasks 1 through 3
Task 1: Review of current procedure
Our team will work with the City of Aspen staff to ensure that we understand the existing
policies and procedures. This task could include discussions with the four departments on
their current procedures as well as review of existing documents related to the development
process. In our discussions with the staff, we will also ask for their definition of a successful
project.
Meetings
This task will include one in-person kick-off meeting with representatives of the four
departments in which we will discuss project goals, review the schedule, discuss measures
of success, determine specific sites for trip generation surveys, and review existing
documents.
Task 2: Aspen‐specific traffic study parameters
Task 2a: Review Available Traffic Impact Study Guidelines from other
Jurisdictions
Fehr & Peers has prepared Traffic Impact Study (TIS) guidelines for a wide variety of
communities that include multimodal analysis requirements. We will build on our knowledge in
a collaborative process with City of Aspen staff to collect, organize, and review additional TIS
guidelines from up to five other analogous jurisdictions. We will select one set of guidelines to
serve as a starting point for the City of Aspen TIS guidelines. The guidelines will be tailored to
the City of Aspen recognizing its unique characteristics, including but not limited to seasonal
peaking, resort community environment, and mountainous topography. Further, we will evaluate
the multi-modal analysis approaches used by others for potential application in the City of
Aspen. Fehr & Peers has already identified 15 multi-modal analysis methods that are part of our
MMLOS Toolkit. For each of these methods, the toolkit contains summaries of the method and
its key advantages and disadvantages in application.
Task 2b: Develop Draft TIS Guidelines
Fehr & Peers will prepare Draft TIS Guidelines for the City of Aspen that include the following
elements:
• Triggers for a TIS
• Scope of TIS including definition of study area
• Data collection including seasonal issues related to peak tourist times
• Multimodal Analysis methodology
P71
V.b
Agreement Professional Services Page 11
• Travel demand forecasting methodology
• Impact assessment methodology including significance criteria and thresholds
• Mitigation Options
• On-site circulation review
• TIS report format outline
Deliverables
A PDF of the draft TIS Guidelines will be submitted electronically to the City for review and
comment. Fehr & Peers will complete the final TIS Guidelines, incorporating comments from
the review.
Meetings
We will hold up to two conference call meetings with City staff. The first meeting is
anticipated to review potential multi-modal analysis methodologies and significance criteria
and thresholds and to confirm the recommended practice for travel demand forecasting and
impact assessment. The second meeting will be used to discuss City comments on the draft
TIS guidelines.
Task 3: Aspen‐specific trip generation model
Based on our experience working in resort communities and our research and development of
the MXD trip generation tool, we propose the following tasks in the development of an Aspen-
specific trip generation tool.
Data Collection and Model Development
Fehr & Peers will perform up to two trip generation surveys for each of the three most
common land uses in Aspen (up to six total trip generation surveys) – this may include
commercial retail, multi-family residential, general office, etc.
The trip generation surveys will include:
• Collecting 48-hour cordon traffic counts using automated counters. The survey sites will
be limited to up to four (4) cordon count locations. The survey sites for each land use type
will be determined based on direction from the City of Aspen staff and the ease of data
collection.
• In addition to the traffic counts the following data will also be gathered for the sites:
• Land Area (in acres)
• Number of Intersections
• Proximity of transit
• Number of dwelling units
• Retail, office, and industrial square feet (separated as specifically as possible or
we can use employment)
• Local and regional employment
• Average vehicles owned per dwelling unit
• Average household size
• Jobs per thousand square feet
P72
V.b
Agreement Professional Services Page 12
The collected data will be processed to determine the resulting trip generation from each of
the land use types and sites. Using the data (land use type, square feet, number of units, etc.)
from each of the survey sites, we will also perform trip generation using the conventional trip
generation method of utilizing the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation
Manual. The results of the trip generation surveys (actual counts) and the ITE trip generation
will be compared to verify if using ITE trip generation rates for the City of Aspen is the most
accurate or whether new “resort community” rates should be used based on the actual survey
counts. If the ITE rates are not accurate, Fehr & Peers will develop a spreadsheet based trip
generation model using the Aspen-specific trip generation rates and directional splits for the
three previously discussed most common land uses.
Fehr & Peers will also assist the City of Aspen in formulating a trip generation standard that
requires new developments to perform repeated (schedule and frequency to be determined)
traffic counts (trip generation surveys) at their site to verify their respective trip generation.
This standard will help increase the inventory of Aspen-specific trip generation rates for the
common land uses as well as the less common and the previously formulated Aspen-specific
trip generation rates can continually be calibrated as each development occurs.
Deliverables:
A PDF of our findings will be submitted electronically to the City of Aspen in a draft
memorandum for review and comment. Fehr & Peers will complete the final
memorandum and trip generation model, incorporating comments from the review.
Meetings:
Fehr & Peers will conduct two conference call meetings with City staff for this task to
discuss progress updates.
Phase Two – Tasks 4 through 5
Task 4: Final mitigation scoring tool – TDM
Task 4a: Research & Visioning
This task will establish a baseline of programs, policies, and practices regarding existing TDM
in the City of Aspen through document reviews and up to three interviews. One visioning
exercise with the City will identify goals of a comprehensive TDM strategy to shape the
remaining tasks in this solution.
Deliverables: Existing conditions report (draft and final)
Task 4b: Identification of TDM Measures and Benefits
We will work with the City to identify up to 30 previously-researched TDM strategies that
should be included in an Aspen-based model and, if needed, include up to 5 additional Aspen-
specific best practices. Each strategy will have quantifiable reduction levels and a range of
P73
V.b
Agreement Professional Services Page 13
reductions. A series of fact sheets for each strategy (summarizing the literature) and a
methodology for quantifying strategies individually or in groups will be created.
Deliverables: Tech memo outlining TDM strategies and benefits (draft and final)
Task 4c: Creation of Trip Adjustments
Specific trip adjustments for developments that are required to implement trip reduction
strategies will be established. This will allow Aspen to avoid case-by-case negotiations.
Deliverables: Tech memo of trip adjustments (draft and final)
Task 4d: Trip Generation Impacts
Fehr & Peers has a created an Excel-based tool that quantifies TDM effects and can address
TDM questions for an individual development site up to a neighborhood level. This task will
build upon this already-created tool to create an Aspen-specific Excel-based tool for each new
development based on development type, trip generation, project location, surrounding
mixture of land uses, and proposed strategies to reduce single-occupancy vehicles. The
scoring tool will then suggest potential mitigation strategies and report ballpark costs, ease of
implementation, and trip reduction potential (using available empirical evidence) based on
state of the practice research conducted by Fehr & Peers. Results of this tool will indicate the
extent to which the development will need to implement TDM tools to mitigate impacts.
Deliverable: Excel-based TDM toolkit
Optional Task 4e: Monitoring Plan
This is an optional task in which Fehr & Peers would create a monitoring plan for the City of
Aspen to ensure developments are appropriately implementing TDM strategies and to monitor
if these strategies are having the anticipated effect in mitigating single-occupancy vehicles.
Deliverables: Monitoring Plan (draft and final)
Task 5 – Multi Modal Quality of Service and Vehicle Level of
Service
We will work with the Aspen staff and the project team to develop Multi-Modal LOS
standards and Aspen specific toolkits through the following tasks.
Task 5a: Review Existing MMLOS conditions
Fehr & Peers will conduct a review of existing multimodal methodologies and criteria. This
review will include measures that consider multiple modes separately as well as measures that
address overall effectiveness. In addition, the review will include a careful examination of
multimodal analysis in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, as well as other relevant
examples. This task item will also summarize how LOS analysis for pedestrian, bicycle, and
transit networks could be used in combination vehicular LOS.
P74
V.b
Agreement Professional Services Page 14
Deliverable: Technical memorandum – multimodal LOS state of the practice
Task 5b: Meeting
Fehr & Peers will conduct a conference call meeting with City of Aspen representatives. At
this meeting, Fehr & Peers’ review of existing performance measures will be presented and
objectives for the study will be discussed. This meeting will address the question of whether
there are existing methods and criteria that fully meet the desired goals of the City in updating
their transportation performance measures.
Deliverable: One conference call meeting
Task 5c: MMLOS Implementation Strategy
If existing local or national methods and criteria are selected, Fehr & Peers will outline steps
to adapt these tools for use by Aspen. If variations on existing metrics and methods are
preferred, Fehr & Peers will discuss potential variations.
This task would document a performance measures implementation strategy for use in
combination with existing and proposed policies and standards.
Deliverable: Action plan documenting steps necessary to adopt performance measures for
applying multimodal LOS in the City of Aspen
Task 5d: Performance Measures and Mitigation Options
Fehr & Peers will present a set of proposed performance measures and MMLOS mitigation
options adapted for use in Aspen to the City of Aspen representatives.
Deliverable: Technical memorandum – set of proposed measures and mitigation options
Task 5e: Draft Memorandum
Fehr & Peers will summarize the previous tasks—including research, methods and criteria—
in a draft memo that will be submitted to the project team for review and comment.
1. This memo will also address the integration of new multimodal performance standards into
the traffic impact assessment process. This discussion will consider the means by which
developers might contribute to improving the transportation system on a project-by-project
basis in response to the newly recommended performance standards.
2. This memo will also note the broader ramifications of multimodal performance standards in
conjunction with the City’s planning and development review processes. We will describe the
implications in a number of different areas, which may include the following:
• Impact fees. What is the potential impact on the magnitude and nature of fees,
focusing on both existing fees and new fees?
P75
V.b
Agreement Professional Services Page 15
• Timing and cost of proposed analysis options. What are the likely changes to the cost
and schedule associated with proposed MMLOS changes, including both community
plan efforts and the entitlement process? Will the changes increase the schedule to
process project reviews and change the associated costs?
Coverage of these topics will be introductory rather than exhaustive.
Deliverable: Draft technical memorandum
Task 5f: City Council Meeting
The project team will have made comments on the draft memorandum and submitted them to
Fehr & Peers in advance of a team meeting. Fehr & Peers team members will meet with city
staff to review comments received. Fehr & Peers will present the draft recommendations at
one City Council meeting.
Deliverable: One meeting with city staff and one City Council meeting
Task 5g: Final Memorandum and Tools
Fehr & Peers will finalize the draft memorandum based on received comments from city staff
and City Council. The memo will serve as the basis for Aspen to update their guidelines for
transportation analysis. The Aspen specific trip generation tool, the TDM tool, and the
MMLOS Scoring Tool will also be submitted to the City.
Deliverable: Technical memorandum, trip generation tool, TDM tool, and MMLOS scoring
tool.
Estimated Completion Timeline
Task 1 - kick off & review of current procedures: November, early December
Task 2 - Aspen specific traffic study parameters: December, early January
Task 3 - Aspen specific trip generation model: December/January
Task 4 - Final TDM mitigation scoring tool: January
Task 5 - MMLOS: January
Present draft for staff review: February/March
City Council Presentation: March/April
Final deliverables: May
P76
V.b
Agreement Professional Services Page 16
EXHIBIT B PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Fee Schedule
P77
V.b
P79
V.b
P80
V.b
P81
V.b
P82
V.b
P83
V.b
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Phil Overeynder, Utilities Engineer, Special Projects
THRU: David Hornbacher, Utilities and Environmental Initiatives Director
DATE OF MEMO: November 14, 2012
MEETING DATE: November 26, 2012
RE: Ruedi Reservoir Water Acquisition – Resolution #111, 2012
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: This request responds to an offer from the United States Bureau of
Reclamation (USBR) to sell the remaining available water in Ruedi Reservoir. As such it will be
Aspen’s last opportunity to acquire supplemental water supplies from this federally financed
project. Staff requests that Council review alternative levels of water acquisitions from Ruedi and
determine which level is most consistent with the City’s potential future water supply needs.
Supplemental water from this source could be used to augment various projects contained in the
City’s Water Management Plan. In making this determination, staff requests that City Council
consider potential long term water needs.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In 2001, City Council asked the USBR (as part of what
was known termed “Round II Water Marketing”) to reserve 1000 acre-feet of Ruedi water for
future municipal needs. The upfront costs involved in securing this supply were quite substantial.
Aspen therefore chose not to move forward to complete the agreement and the reserved water
returned to the “marketable pool”.
BACKGROUND: The City’s Water Management Program (WMP) includes a number of short
term and long range water supply projects. The shorter term projects are anticipated to be funded
through the Asset Management Plan (AMP) in the next 20 years. The longer term actions have
no current funding source to provide for implementation. Short term actions and their associated
water needs are described in the attachments and include:
Water Reuse System
Ponds on open space and for stormwater treatment
Studies prepared by Aspen conclude that the City’s water supplies are adequate to meet all
currently-anticipated prospective needs within the urban growth boundary at buildout. However,
there is the potential that future shifts in runoff patterns (including earlier spring runoff, which is
already occurring to a degree) resulting from Climate Change would change the timing of
P85
V.c
Page 2 of 3
available water supplies, therefore requiring supplemental water supplies. Longer term plans and
actions may be necessary if Climate Change results in a further shift of runoff patterns.
Longer term actions include:
Salvation Ditch Pumpback and Roaring Fork Supply
New groundwater and Roaring Fork Supply
New reservoir storage (absolute last option to be considered)
(these alternatives and their water supply needs that may need to be addressed through
acquisition of Ruedi supplies are also outlined in the attachment).
DISCUSSION: The short term projects will require some water for “augmentation” purposes.
In aggregate, staff estimates this volume at approximately 40 acre feet per year. Water for
augmentation is necessary to avoid injury to senior downstream users. For example, water is lost
through evaporation on recently constructed ponds and wetlands at the golf course and on City
open space lands. In order to legally keep water in these ponds, the amount of water lost to
evaporation must be provided to the senior downstream water rights. Likewise, expanded use
and reliability of the water reclamation project require augmentation. Ruedi water obtained from
USBR is a cost-effective way of providing water in the amounts and at the times needed to
ensure that downstream uses such as the Cameo rights do not come up short as a result of the
City’s operations.
Similarly, longer term water supply options, also listed above, could also require augmentation.
These longer term options may supply needs in the event Climate Change dictates the need for
system changes. It is likely that expanded supply alternatives would require downstream
augmentation. Staff estimates that the augmentation requirements for long range projects plus
AMP projects, totals 400 acre feet per year. Once fully paid, Aspen would receive the water from
the project in perpetuity, but must pay for on-going operating costs.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Executing a Ruedi contract with USBR is expected to
require either a lump sum payment (approximately $516,000 for the 400 acre foot purchase) plus
an annual operating cost, or an annual payment that includes principal plus operating costs. With
the annual payment option the anticipated interest rate is 3.046% with an 8 year payback period.
It is anticipated that the annual cost for the 40 acre feet per year scenario would be $7,834 per
year plus operation and maintenance costs (approximately $120 per year). For the 400 acre feet
per year option (long term needs) the annual cost would be $78,336 plus operation and
maintenance costs of approximately $1,200 annually. During the time period that USBR is
completing required NEPA documents (see discussion in next paragraph) the city would
reimburse approximately 2% cost of the environmental document (now estimated at $1,836 for
the 400 af option) plus a payment of $28,760 which would be entirely applied against the
principal amount due. Beginning in 2013, principal payments would increase to $78,336 and a
portion of this would be applied to principal. Operation and maintenance costs apply after the
water delivery contract is executed
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The environmental impacts of the Ruedi marketing program
will be the subject of an environmental assessment by the USBR. Until this analysis is
performed, it is not possible to define the impacts of contracting for additional Ruedi supplies.
P86
V.c
Page 3 of 3
The USBR has conducted and approved environmental assessments in connection with earlier
Ruedi contracts.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that Council contract with USBR for 400
acre feet of Ruedi water to be used for augmentation purposes, to allow Aspen to respond to
water supply needs in the event that Climate Change requires additional projects to meet the
needs of future water customers. The higher level is recommended because it is believed this will
be the last opportunity to acquire Ruedi supplies.
ALTERNATIVES: Council could take no action to increase the supply of water for
augmentation or reduce the amount to only needs identified in the absence of shifts in runoff
patterns.
NEXT STEPS: The proposed resolution will reserve an additional water supply from Ruedi
Reservoir. Three agreements will be necessary to be approved by City Council. It is anticipated
that a cost reimbursement agreement for NEPA compliance and financial agreement will be
presented for action during December 2012. In addition following completion of the NEPA
document it is anticipated Aspen will enter into an agreement with USBR for the water purchase.
Suggested Motion: “I move to approve Resolution# . . .”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Alternative Short Term and Long Term Water Supply Alternatives and
Associated Augmentation Requirements.
Attachment B – Resolution # 111, Series of 2012
P87
V.c
RESOLUTION #111
(Series of 2012)
A RESOLUTION DECLARING THAT THE CITY OF ASPEN INTENDS TO
PURCHASE SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SUPPLY FROM THE U.S. BUREAU
OF RECLAMATION AND THE RUEDI PROJECT AND THAT IT INTENDS
TO FUND THE CITY’S PRORATA SHARE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENTATION.
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen has prospective uses for Ruedi water and
wishes to secure a portion of the remaining unallocated water currently being
offered; and
WHEREAS, potential changes in climate of the central Rocky Mountains
threaten to change runoff patterns including the timing and amount of released
from snowmelt; and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen currently has a limited supply of raw
reservoir storage to act as a hedge against future unknown factors affecting its’
water supply; and
WHEREAS, USBR can only enter into a contract to sell water from Ruedi
Reservoir after satisfying the requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA); and
WHEREAS, the City is willing to pay a proportional share of the cost of the
NEPA documentation; and
WHEREAS, the City finds it preferable to spread the cost of obtaining
Ruedi water over an extended repayment period as offered by USBR; and
WHEREAS, the City intends to enter into the necessary cost recovery
agreements to participate in the purchase of supplemental water supplies from
Ruedi Reservoir.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
That the Aspen City Council resolves to reimburse it’s proportionate share of
NEPA documents and to begin payment to the USBR at an agreed sales price for
P89
V.c
up to 400 acre feet per year of Ruedi Water and to pay for its share of operation
and maintenance costs.
Be it further resolved that the City of Aspen intends to enter into a contract for
purchase of the above amount of water supply contingent on USBR’s completion
of NEPA documents and USBR’s final offer to sell water to Aspen as requested
herein.
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, November 26, 2012.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
P90
V.c
ATTACHMENT A
Alternative Short Term and Long Term Water Supply Alternatives and Associated
Augmentation Requirements
The following is a description of various alternatives contained in the 1990 Water Management
Program (WMP) along with a description of how supplemental water supplies acquired form
Ruedi Reservoir could be utilized to make these projects operate with fewer water restrictions
including potential "calls" from downstream users which would otherwise limit the effectiveness
for these projects to increase physical water available for use in Aspen's water system. Funding
for short term projects is contained in the Asset Management Plan and some of these projects are
currently in development or construction. Longer term projects have no current funding and
generally would be necessary only to the extent that climate change contributes to a shift in
runoff patterns (earlier runoff) which would have the effect of decreasing the available supply
from existing water sources. The actual need for these long term projects is unknown and the
simpler, less costly alternatives would be employed first to avoid more capital intensive projects
such as raw water reservoir storage.
Short Term Alternatives
Cumulatively the estimated water requirement for short term water projects is approximately 40
acre feet per year (in addition to the water already acquired under a recent contract and described
below). A description of how this water would be used is provided below.
Completion of Reuse System for Aspen Golf Course and Highway 82 Irrigation
This project is currently under construction and development. Water from the Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District will be pumped to the existing reuse pond (located at the Aspen
Golf Course) and used to irrigate the course along with landscape irrigation uses along Highway
82 (west of Maroon Creek to the airport) and for the Burlingame development and parkland in
this vicinity. Augmentation water form Ruedi is needed to allow this diversion to stay in priority
when downstream users in the Grand Valley have a higher priority than the junior right for the
reuse system. Approximately 30 acre feet per year is the estimated need and these rights have
already been secured for water from Ruedi under a contract with the Colorado River Water
Conservation District.
Completion of Miscellaneous Ponds on City Open Space and Parklands
The City is developing ponds for aesthetic and wetland restoration at a variety of different
locations on City parks and open space lands, as well as, at the Golf Course. Similarly ponds are
under construction to provide for treatment of storm water and through use of wetlands (Jenny
Adair and Rio Grande parks). The evaporation from these ponds requires augmentation from
supplemental sources when downstream rights experience water shortage conditions.
Long Term Water Supply Alternatives
Long term water supply alternatives are described in the existing WMP in priority of
implementation. According to that document, the lowest priority project is development of
surface water storage on Castle and Maroon Creeks. These projects would only be considered for
implementation if other projects and strategies (including conservation) are not sufficient to
secure a sufficient long term water supply. The extended timing of changes in runoff patterns
P91
V.c
resulting from Climate Change represent a significant challenge in planning for long term
supplies since it is not possible to predict with accuracy what future conditions will present. A
significant note in addition to the uncertainty that any of these projects would be needed is that
all of these alternatives will require substantial investigation to develop preliminary designs,
costs and to evaluate the impact on streams before proceeding. The cumulative amount of
supplemental water form Ruedi associated with long term projects is estimated at 360 acre feet
per year, resulting in a cumulative need of 400 acre feet per year from Ruedi under the current
USBR offering.
Salvation Ditch Pumpback and Roaring Fork Supply
The WMP considered an alternative to pump water from the Roaring Fork while providing an
exchange of water to the Salvation Ditch. Conceptually, this project would divert water (either
water from the Roaring Fork, or reclaimed water form ACSD, or a combination of both) from a
location near the ACSD plant and provide for an exchange of water with the Salvation Ditch.
This exchange would reduce the amount of water diverted from the Salvation Ditch headgate
(located near Stillwater Drive in East Aspen) and increase the available stream flow in the
Roaring Fork through Aspen. At the same time, this would potentially supply a new of potable
water available for treatment at the Hunter Creek treatment plant site. Since the diversion and
subsequent change would require a junior water right, this project would require augmentation
water to avoid damage to downstream water users.
New Groundwater and Roaring Fork Supplies
The WMP includes provision of a new treatment facility using Roaring Fork Supplies. A number
of alternative treatment sites are available on existing City owned property. This project could be
supplemented by additional groundwater sources from rights such as the Durant Mine Tunnel
(existing non-potable water source) or other new or existing groundwater sources. The additional
uses may require augmentation to avoid damage to senior downstream users.
New Reservoir Storage
Aspen relies on direct runoff from snowmelt and has no significant quantity of surface water
storage. Aspen holds conditional water rights for raw water storage on both Castle and Maroon
Creek totaling in excess of 15,000 acre feet. The existing WMP makes it clear that other less
costly and intrusive alternatives would be implemented prior to constructing reservoirs.
However, it would be unwise to eliminate these two projects as options until other options are
evaluated more fully and proven as a feasible means of addressing future potential changes in
climate and resulting runoff patterns. If constructed, these two reservoirs could benefit from
Ruedi water in two ways. A minimum pool could be established for aesthetic and recreational
purposes, which may be returned as a result of the permitting process. Second, future oil shale
development may, to the extent it occurs, develop a more or less permanent water shortage on
the Colorado River mainstream, limiting opportunities to store water form Castle and Maroon
Creek. As supplemental release of Ruedi water would alleviate this condition (in part) and
increase opportunities to store water from Castle and Maroon Creeks.
P92
V.c
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director
THRU: Click here to enter text.
DATE OF MEMO: 11/15/2012
MEETING DATE: 11/26/2012
RE: 616 E. Hyman Ave., Conceptual Commercial Design - Call up
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
BACKGROUND:
DISCUSSION:
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
Click here to enter text.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINANCE REVIEW: Click here to enter text.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Click here to enter text.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
P93
V.d
Page 2 of 2
ALTERNATIVES:
PROPOSED MOTION:
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Notes:
• Please use page numbers on all memos and attachments, especially for work sessions
• The memo should be as long as it needs to be – but remember, you’re not writing a novel.
Use attachments for more detailed information, ordinances and resolutions, etc.
• Attachments: All attachments to the memo should be referenced somewhere in the body of
the memo. All attachments should be titled as “Attachment”, “Exhibit” or “Schedule” with
a letter following:
Attachments:
A - Exhibit One - Map ...
B - Property Description
C - Chart of Costs
D - Resolution #97-1
P94
V.d
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: Call-up of P&Z approval of Conceptual Commercial Design Review:
616 E. Hyman Ave., P&Z Resolution No.20, Series of 2012
MEETING DATE: November 26, 2012
COUNCIL REQUEST:
On November 12th City Council voted to call up the P&Z approval of Conceptual Commercial
Design Review to remodel the existing building with an expanded second floor and new third
story. Council is asked to proceed with the call up procedures and take action on one of the
options listed below.
REVIEW PROCESS:
During a public meeting, City Council shall consider the application de novo and may consider
the record established by the P&Z. The City Council shall conduct its review of the application
under the same criteria applicable to the P&Z.
City Council may take the following action:
1. Accept the decision.
2. Remand the application to P&Z with direction from City Council for rehearing and
reconsideration.
3. Continue the meeting to request additional evidence, analysis or testimony as
necessary to conclude the call up review.
If Council selects Option #2 and remands the application back to the Commission, the rehearing
and reconsideration of the application by P&Z is final and concludes the call up review.
Substantial changes to the application outside of the specific topics listed in the remand to P&Z
may require a new call up notice to City Council; however the call up review would be limited
only to the new changes to the application.
This application will be subject to Growth Management reviews by the Planning and Zoning
Commission to create a free market residential unit, and affordable housing unit and increased
Commercial net leasable space on the property. Subdivision review by Planning and Zoning and
City Council is also required.
BACKGROUND:
P&Z granted approval to expand the existing second story and build a new third story on the
building. The existing building sits on a 6,000 square feet lot and is located approximately at the
center of the north side of the block face of Hyman, between Hunter and Spring Streets. The
existing building includes one common street entrance with commercial space in the basement,
P95
V.d
ground and second floors. There is a second floor deck on the building, head-in parking along
the alley, and a planted public amenity space along the front façade at the southwest corner.
The applicant proposes to remodel and expand the existing building. The building would include
commercial space on the basement, ground, and second levels, an affordable housing unit on the
second floor, and a free-market residential unit on the third floor. Specifically, the footprint will
stay the same on the ground level, expand property line to property on the second level
(replacing a street facing deck and cantilevering over the current parking area), and add a new,
recessed, third level with an accessory deck along the front façade and rear facades. The
proposed building height is 38 feet.
After two public hearings, P&Z recommended in favor of the design review with conditions by a
vote of 6:1.
DISCUSSION:
Council raised concerns about the height and potential materials being proposed by the
Applicant. Conceptual Commercial Design review generally addresses height, mass and scale.
Final Commercial Design review focuses on building design and articulation, including
materials.
At Conceptual Commercial Design Review, staff recommended that the Commission require the
proposed third story to be no greater than 36’ in height. A building may be permitted to be
greater than 36’ up to 40’ in height through design review. The intent of the building height
design guidelines is to reinforce the character of the Commercial Area which has a range of
heights throughout the area and to prevent the development of one long cornice line along the
block. It was staff’s opinion that with the third story setback from the façade, the building will
generally read as a two story building and height variation is achieved between the subject
building and its neighbor to the east. The Planning and Zoning Commission felt that the height
increase was appropriate for this property and the context of the block and granted the building
height to be up to 38 feet. Staff finds that the P&Z conducted their reviews in accordance with
the Code and the Design Guidelines.
With regard to materials, this issue is reviewed at Final Commercial Design review when issues
of street level character, floor stature, transparency, and storefront deign are discussed. It is often
hard to separate the mass and scale issues from the materials issue when presented with what
appears to be a polished design but there is still opportunity for the applicant to submit a
modified “skin” on the mass of the building at Final Commercial Design review.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council accept P&Z’s decision.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
“I move to accept P&Z’s decision to grant Conceptual Commercial Design.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:_____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Approved Plans
Exhibit B: HPC Resolution 20, Series 2012
Exhibit C: Minutes dated 10.16.12
Exhibit D: Minutes dated 10.30.12
P96
V.d
P97
V.d
P98
V.d
P99
V.d
P100
V.d
7 Hyman St. Rendering 38’ Parapet October 16, 2012
P101
V.d
9 Hyman St. Rendering 38’ Parapet October 16, 2012
P102
V.d
10 Aerial Rendering 1 October 30, 2012
P103
V.d
11 Aerial Rendering 2 October 30, 2012
P104
V.d
P105
V.d
P106
V.d
P107
V.d
P109
V.d
P110
V.d
P111
V.d
P112
V.d
P113
V.d
P114
V.d
Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting – Minutes October 30 2012
1
Continued Public Hearing:
616 E Hyman – Conceptual Commercial Design Review
LJ Erspamer opened the continued public hearing for 616 East Hyman –
Conceptual Commercial Design Review. Jennifer Phelan noted that this was a
continued hearing for 616 East Hyman which was last heard on October 16th and
the application was reviewed for conceptual commercial design. Jennifer said the
one issue that was not resolved was the building height, since that meeting she
asked the applicant to submit sections of the building and a roof plan so the
commission could understand better how the building will be built with floor to
ceiling heights and floor to floor heights. Jennifer said that was exhibit G of the
packet. The roof plan is included on the first page (page 25) with color coding.
Jennifer said the elevations were on pages 26 and 27 you can see the actual floor to
floor height and the floor to ceiling heights. Staff is still recommending that the
building come down to 36 feet rather than the 38 that is being requested. Staff
feels that the roof parapet which is 18 inches could be removed and it would
reduce the height right there and if you reduced 6 inches floor to ceiling height on
the 3rd floor you would be down to your 36 feet.
Cliff asked what the commercial core was for C-1 on the 1st floor are we okay.
Jennifer said the floor to ceiling heights are a discussion at final commercial
design. Jennifer said that we saw one code at the time which did not have a floor
to ceiling height but the commercial design standards talk about minimum floor to
ceiling heights.
Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning introduced Andy Wisnowski and Les
Rosenstein from Poss Architecture and Planning. Mitch said they were at 40 feet
on the building height at the highest points of the building and dropped down a
little bit. Mitch used power point to show the changes except they were in a mirror
image and with Charles Cunniffe’s Building next to it and showed the 10 foot
piece and the 9 foot. Mitch said the parapet functional purpose as a drainage
system and from the street perspective looking up from the street you won’t see the
parapet; there is a reason that all of the old buildings have parapets because they
are an important feature. There is not a parapet on the second story behind the wall
because you are recessed back.
Mitch reminded the commission that this whole block was going through a
Renaissance if you will; the building on the corner was going through a change
with a 37 foot height limit; between that building and this building, the Charles
Cunniffe Building that was approved by HPC with a 38 foot in the back portion of
P115
V.d
Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting – Minutes October 30 2012
2
the building. The Crandall Building already has portions of 38 feet and the other
side of the street has everything bigger the Garfield Hecht Building is 36 to 38 feet;
The Muse building is 38 feet and the Museum is 57 feet. Mitch said if you want to
see over that Museum you need to get as far back as you can which is what we
have tried to do. Mitch said 1.24 they have followed the letter of this one precisely
using one or more of the following; setting back upper floors to vary the building
façade profiles and the roof forms across the width and depth of the building.
Mitch said they have set back the upper floor and varied the roof form heights and
if we lower the roof to 36 feet it will be a flat roof all the way across the upper 3rd
floor. Les showed the next slides where the building drops from 40 to 38 feet; he
showed aerial views.
Cliff said the 1st floor is 12 foot from floor to floor, the 2nd floor is 11 foot and the
3rd floor is anywhere from 12 feet. Jennifer said the floor to ceiling heights are
from 9 to 11.6 feet and you add 2 feet extra feet for structure so you are going from
11.6 to 13.6 and an extra 18 inches for the parapet. LJ asked if you didn’t have the
parapet you would be within the code. Jennifer replied it would be 6 inches off;
the floor to top of the parapet runs from 12 feet 6 inches to 15 feet depending on
the area of the building because there are different floor to ceiling heights on the
3rd floor. Mitch said the qualitative measurement mitigates the quantitative;
looking at it the setback, the architecture elements, variation of the roof height
takes all of that number that we are focusing on. Andy said that you can see from
these images they are not going to be seen.
Jim said the issue is 2 feet. Mitch replied right. Jim said staff wants 36. Jennifer
replied yes. Jim asked why are you expecting 36. Jennifer said if you look at the
design guidelines granting additional range in variation in building they are talking
about the street façade so you don’t want every cornice line at the same height on
the whole block so you want undulation of different buildings. Jennifer said there
doesn’t seem the basis for height in granting the additional height variance to meet
the criteria in the commercial design standards.
LJ said the canopy was at 36 feet. Andy said it was below that and it helps to
screen that height to some degree.
Stan asked what drove the size of the 3rd floor. Andy replied that floor area
controls the size of the area. Stan asked if there was a lot of mechanical on the
roof. Andy responded there would be a little mechanical shed in the back and we
have mechanical down in the basement. Andy said it was in the roofline section.
P116
V.d
Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting – Minutes October 30 2012
3
No public comments.
Commissioner Comments:
Jim said that he would support this application with the 38 foot height. LJ asked if
the parapet was the just going up or does it have to do with the ceiling. Bill Poss
explained the parapet was like a curb on the roof that helps control drainage, helps
screen things. LJ said and that was 18 inches high. Mitch said that was correct.
Jasmine agreed with Jim because the 38 feet is only going to be for a portion of
that top floor and seems to be a reasonable compromise and when you are faced
with a monster across the street everything is going to look minuscule. Jasmine
said that is not a reason and unlike Jim she really didn’t care for the architecture; if
there weren’t those big panels in front the top the heaviness of the building would
be greatly improved. Jasmine said the compromise fits well enough into the code.
Stan said we have to look at the intent of these guidelines and look at 1.23 the new
building should reflect variation but more importantly it is about the massing that
this building presents and there is lots of variation because of the way that this
building is designed. Stan said because the building is setback it doesn’t make
sense that the 3rd floor is set so far back.
Bert said he was reading the guideline from the 1.23 which was pretty clear when
we can grant height variances is to achieve different levels in heights; primary
function of this building is civic; some portion of the building is affected by height
restriction where it may be appropriate for affordable housing or demonstrate
energy efficiency. Jim said it makes a demonstrable contribution to the building’s
energy. LJ asked what section of the code were we talking about. Jennifer said it
was on page 24 of the guidelines. Mitch said the standard was 1.23 everything
below that were guidelines.
MOTION: Keith Goode moved to extend the meeting to 7:10pm, seconded by
Stan Gibbs. All in favor.
MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve Resolution 20 approving the
conceptual design review for 616 East Hyman shall not exceed 38 feet in height as
represented in the attached exhibits; seconded by Jasmine Tygre. Roll call: Stan
Gibbs, yes; Keith Goode, yes; Cliff Weiss, yes; Bert Myrin, no; Jasmine Tygre, yes;
Jim DeFrancia, yes; LJ Erspamer, yes. APPROVED 6-1.
P117
V.d
Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting – Minutes October 30 2012
4
Jennifer said the applicant asked for a second motion to add all other dimensional
requirements except for the height shall be at final design review and the existing
public amenity space is 420 square feet.
MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to accept the motion to add all other
dimensional requirements except for the height at 38 feet shall be at final design
review and the existing public amenity space is 420 square feet; seconded by
Jasmine Tygre. Roll call vote: Bert Myrin, no; Keith Goode, yes; Cliff Weiss, yes;
Stan Gibbs, yes; Jasmine Tygre, yes; Jim DeFrancia, yes; LJ Erspamer, yes.
APPROVED 6-1.
Adjourned at 7:20 pm.
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
P118
V.d
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Date December 3, 2012 Call to order at: m
1. Councilmembers present: Councilmembers not present:
Mick Ireland ❑ Mick Ireland
Steve Skadron ❑ Steve Skadron
Adam Frisch ❑ Adam Frisch
Torre ❑ Torre
Derek Johnson ❑ Derek Johnson
I1. Motion to go into executive session by ° l ; seconded by
Other persons present:
AGAINST:
F R:
ick Ireland ❑ Mick Ireland
,/O-Steve Skadron ❑ Steve Skadron
dam Frisch ❑ Adam Frisch
orre E] Torre
Derek Johnson ❑ Derek Johnson
III. MOTION TO CONVENE EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION OF:
C.R.s. 24-6-402(4)
(a)The purchase, acquisition, lease,transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest
0(b) onferences with an attorney for the local public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal
questions. pz-,4eo,-h(6 4 E'i C,�1
(c)Matters required to be kept confidential by federal or state law or rules and regulations.
(d) Specialized details of security arrangements or investigations, including defenses against terrorism,both domestic
and foreign, and including where disclosure of the matters discussed might reveal information that could be used for the
purpose of committing, or avoiding prosecution for, a violation of the law;
(e) Determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations; developing strategy for negotiations;
and instructing negotiators;
(f) (1) Personnel matters except if the employee who is the subject of the session has requested an open meeting, or if
the personnel matter involves more than one employee, all of the employees have requested an open meeting.
N. ATTESTATION:
The undersigned attorney, representing the Council and being present at the executive session, attests that the
subject of the unrecorded portions of the session constituted confidential attorney-client communication:
The undersigned chair of the executive session attests that the discussions in this executi ion were limited
to the topic(s)described in Section 111, above.
Adjourned at: 7�.SG ,�w^ i2-/*/2