HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.202102091
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
February 9, 2021
5:00 PM, City Council Chambers
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
I.CALL TO ORDER
II.ROLL CALL
III.SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES
IV.CITIZENS COMMENTS & PETITIONS
(Time for any citizen to address Council on issues NOT scheduled for a public hearing. Please
limit your comments to 3 minutes)
www.webex.com
Join from the meeting link
https://coa.my.webex.com/coa.my/j.php?MTID=mb5d9ac73bf9eeac5e7d9b1c5f7e397dc
Join by meeting number
Meeting number (access code): 126 945 4506
Meeting password: 81611
Tap to join from a mobile device (attendees only)
+1-408-418-9388,,1269454506## United States Toll
Join by phone
+1-408-418-9388 United States Toll
Join from a video system or application
Dial 1269454506@coa.my.webex.com
You can also dial 173.243.2.68 and enter your meeting number.
Join using Microsoft Lync or Microsoft Skype for Business
Dial 1269454506.coa.my@lync.webex.com
V.SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments
b) Agenda Amendments
c) City Manager's Comments
d) Board Reports
VI.CONSENT CALENDAR
1
2
(These matters may be adopted together by a single motion)
VI.A.Resolution #013, Series of 2021 - Utilities Equipment Storage Building -
Construction Contract.
VI.B.Resolution #014, Series of 2021 - Appointment of Justin Forman as City's Alternate
Representative to the Municipal Energy Agency of Nebraska (MEAN) and the
Nebraska Municipal Power Pool (NMPP.)
VI.C.Resolution #015, Series of 2021 - To Approve REMP Allocation For CORE
VI.D.Resolutions #017 & #018, Series of 2021 - Wheeler Opera House Masonry Project –
Paint Color Change (Fatigue Green) and Change Orders for Increased Scope
VI.E.Board Appointments
VI.F.Draft Minutes of January 26th, 2021
VII.NOTICE OF CALL-UP
VII.A.HPC approval of Resolution #27, Series of 2021 for 423 N. Second Street–
Conceptual Major Development, Relocation and Setback Variations
VIII.FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
IX.PUBLIC HEARINGS
IX.A.Ordinance #02, Series of 2021 - Wheeler Opera House Board of Advisors
X.ACTION ITEMS
X.A.Resolution #016, Series of 2021 - Council Authorization to Submit Code Amendment
By Private Party
XI.ADJOURNMENT
2
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:Andy Rossello, Project Manager III
THROUGH:Ryan Loebach, Sr. Project Manager
Tyler Christoff, Director of Utilities
MEMO DATE:February 9th, 2021
MEETING DATE:February 9th, 2021
RE:Resolution #013, Series of 2021 - Utilities Equipment Storage
Building -- Construction Contract
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:Staff requests a contract award to PRT Builders, LLC. in the
amount of $908,349.00 for the construction of a new equipment storage building at the
City’s water treatment facility.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council
previously approved the equipment storage building as part of the master planning for the
City’s water treatment facility approved as Ordinance #21 of 2019. Additionally, Council
has reviewed funding for this project through the 2021 budget approval process.
BACKGROUND:Currently the City of Aspen water treatment facility does not have
adequate indoor storage space for equipment and materials to meet the Utility
Department’s current and future needs. Staff worked with a design team to develop an
equipment storage building to house equipment, provide maintenance area(s), and store
materials critical to the operation of both the water and electric utility. The new equipment
storage building is the first step towards completing the City Council approved 2019 water
department campus master plan. Subsequent phases of the master plan are currently
being designed for construction within the next several years and will be delivered to
Council for approval.
DISCUSSION:City staff solicited bids from qualified construction companies to construct
this storage building. All construction activities for this project will meet current City
Building and Energy Codes, Water Distribution Standards, and Engineering Standards.
Staff has also solicited a bid for inspection services via PVCMI, utilizing the City’s as-
needed service contracts. PVCMI will be responsible for construction inspection services
including, submittal review, daily jobsite monitoring, pay application review, and
commissioning of mechanical systems.
3
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Bids received from all bidders to construct the
equipment storage building are summarized below:
PRT Builders, LLC $ 908,349.00
Gould Construction, Inc. $1,025,030.00
Heyl Construction $1,190,034.45
Aspen Constructors $1,342,432.16
Staff recommends awarding the construction contract to PRT Builders, LLC. based on
their qualifications and responsiveness to the Invitation to Bid. The proposed project
funding and expenditures are outlined below:
Total Project Expenditures
PRT Builders. LLC: Construction Contract $908,349.00
PVCMI: Inspection Contract $ 49,265.10
Contingency (15% of subtotal of contracts above) $143,642.12
Total $1,101,256.22
Funding Budgeted
Utilities 2021 Funding
Project 50132-New Equipment Storage Building $1,365,142.00
Total $1,365,142.00
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:Maintaining and preserving city equipment and materials
by keeping them out of the elements extends the useful life of the equipment and reduces
waste associated with disposal.
ALTERNATIVES: Staff believe this is a critical project to protect current assets and
provide storage for additional equipment. Alternatively, equipment and materials can
remain stored outside and funds will be utilized to replace equipment and materials as
they age and fail at shorter intervals.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:Staff request the council approve the contract with PRT
Builders, LLC for $908,349.00 for the construction of the new equipment storage building.
PROPOSED MOTION:I move to approve Resolution #013 of 2021.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Contract with PRT Builders, LLC.
B. Resolution #13 of 2021
4
RESOLUTION # 13
(Series of 2021)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND PRT BUILDERS, LLC. 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 the
construction of a new equipment storage building, between the City of Aspen and
PRT Builders, LLC., 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 construction of a new equipment storage building between the City of Aspen
and PRT Builders, LLC., 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 9
th day of February, 2021.
Torre, Mayor
I, Nicole Henning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, February 9th, 2021.
Nicole Henning, City Clerk
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:Justin Forman, Utilities Operations Manager
THROUGH:Tyler Christoff, Director of Utilities
Scott Miller, Director of Public Works
MEMO DATE:January 29th, 2021
MEETING DATE:February 9th, 2021
RE:Resolution #014, Series of 2021 - Appointment of Justin Forman as
the City’s Alternate Representative to MEAN and NMPP
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:Council is requested to approve appointment of Justin Forman
as the City’s alternate representative to the Municipal Agency of Nebraska (MEAN) Board
of Directors, Representative to the MEAN Management Committee and Representative
to the Members’ Council of the Nebraska Municipal Power Pool (NMPP).
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council previously appointed Tyler Christoff as the
primary representative to MEAN and NMPP and Margaret Medellin as the alternate
representative.
BACKGROUND:The City of Aspen is a member of MEAN and NMPP. Active
participation in the governance of these organizations is important to ensure that Aspen’s
interests are represented.
DISCUSSION:Tyler Christoff will continue to serve as the City of Aspen’s primary
representative to MEAN and NMPP. Justin Forman will replace Margaret Medellin as
the City’s alternate representative on the MEAN Board of Directors, MEAN
Management Committee and the NMPP Members’ Council.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: There is no direct financial request associated with
this resolution. All existing contracts and funding associated with MEAN and NMPP are
included in the 2021 budget.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:Ensuring an ongoing City of Aspen presence and active
participation in policies and decisions of these organizations facilitates the continuance
of a reliable, 100% Renewable Energy Electric Portfolio for the City of Aspen’s
Municipal Electric Utility.
13
RECOMMENDED ACTION:Council is requested to approve Resolution #014, Series of
2021, to appoint Justin Forman as the City’s alternate representative to MEAN and
NMPP.
PROPOSED MOTION:I move to approve Resolution #014 of 2021.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Resolution # 014 of 2021, Resolution #014, Series of 2021
14
RESOLUTION #014
(Series of 2021)
A RESOLUTION APPOINTING JUSTIN FORMAN AS THE ALTERNATE
REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE CITY OF ASPEN TO THE MUNICIPAL ENERGY
AGENCY OF NEBRASKA (MEAN), BOARD OF DIRECTORS, MANAGEMENT
COMMITTEE AND THE MEMBERS’ COUNCIL OF THE NEBRASKA MUNICIPAL
POWER POOL
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen, Colorado, is a member of the Municipal Energy Agency
of Nebraska and the Nebraska Municipal Power Pool;
WHEREAS, active participation in policies and decisions of these organizations
facilitates the continuance of a reliable, 100% Renewable Energy Electric Portfolio for the City
of Aspen’s Municipal Electric Utility;
WHEREAS, Justin Forman serves as the City’s Utilities Operations Manager;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby appoints Justin Forman as the alternate
representative to the MEAN Board of Directors, MEAN Management Committee and NMPP
Members’ Council, and does hereby authorize the City Manager of the City of Aspen to appoint
Justin Forman on behalf of the City of Aspen.
Dated: February 9th, 2021
____________________________________
Torre, Mayor
I, Nicole Henning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a
true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, at a meeting held, February 9th, 2021.
____________________________________
Nicole Henning, City Clerk
15
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor Torre and City Council
FROM: Mona Newton, ED, Community Office for Resource Efficiency
THROUGH: Ashley Perl, Climate Action Manager
MEMO DATE:February 1, 2021
MEETING DATE:February 9, 2021
RE:Administrative approval of REMP funding for CORE
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
Staff from the City of Aspen and the Community Office for Resource Efficiency (CORE)
request City Council’s approval of the attached Resolution #015_2021 that details the
planned expenditures for Renewable Energy Mitigation Program (REMP) funds by CORE
in 2021. This request is for $1,400,000 to support CORE’s carbon emissions reduction
programs. This funding amount was approved by City Council during the annual budget
process and requires this specific resolution for administrative purposes.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND:
City Council approved $1,400,000 from the City of Aspen REMP fund to be allocated to
CORE as part of the annual budget review and approval process that was conducted in
the fall of 2020. Approval of a resolution, Attachment A, is required as defined by the
REMP program foundational documents.
Prior to the annual budget process, CORE met with City Council at a work session on
August 4, 2020 and provided initial support for CORE’s carbon cutting efforts with REMP
funding and requested that CORE return to City Council in the spring of 2021 with a long
range plan for CORE’s future funding and programming.
The City of Aspen is represented on the CORE board of directors by Councilmember
Ward Hauenstein and staff member Ashley Perl. Councilmember Ann Mullins is the
alternate board member.
DISCUSSION:
CORE’s Mission: Leading the Roaring Fork Valley to a net-zero carbon free future.
CORE is a member organization and together with all of our members we work to achieve
our mission.
CORE has developed successful programs and policy options that help residents and
businesses reduce carbon emissions, improve health and safety, and save money. CORE
16
also supports innovative technologies to achieve these reductions and drive regional
change.
CORE accomplishments in 2020 include:
More than 6,438 residents, businesses and public entities have participated in
CORE programs since 2010, making energy efficiency and renewable energy
upgrades in their buildings, 27,662 MTco2 have been eliminated and
$3,879,232.90 annual savings in utility bills.
The projects implemented achieve beyond the 2x carbon offset that was set out
to achieve when REMP was developed. Analysis of past projects indicates that a
6x carbon offset was achieved through CORE’s programs between 2010 and
2015.
Each dollar provided through a grant or rebate is leveraged more than six times.
REMP funds combined with other funds typically do not exceed 50% of the cost
of a project.
Comfort and safety – our residential energy assessment identifies opportunities
to save energy and opportunities in increase comfort. Several times life
threatening issues related to natural gas appliances are also identified.
CORE remains focused on 4 strategic priorities:
1. Carbon Reduction – focus on carbon-free, net-zero energy use
1,000 MTco2e annually
2. Project Design Optimization
Actively support highly-visible projects that can be replicated with technical,
financial and publicity support
3. Carbon-Free Culture
Continue to build and broaden the base for change through creative
outreach and engagement
4. Organizational Resilience
CORE has been charged with managing the REMP funds, which have been
a stable funding source for many years. CORE is in the process of
developing new strategies to diversity its funding that include REMP to
support programs in Pitkin County, fundraising and entrepreneurial
consulting.
CORE’s 2021 Workplan:
Develop and implement the path to net-zero energy. More aggressive
energy use reduction will be sought from program participants with a more
intentional program of advising and incentive offerings for residents and
businesses.
Identify, offer technical assistance and incentives for large projects (public,
non-profit and private projects) to strive for net-zero.
Design and deliver measurable outreach and engagement programs to
support the pathway to net-zero with Imagine Climate – a month-long effort
designed to capture new program participants, print advertising, e-
17
newsletter, workshops 1/quarter to promote CORE’s services, grants,
incentives, workforce training and partnering on other events.
Develop a plan that addresses need, options and a target amount to
increase non-REMP funds by 2024.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
REMP funds are collected by the City of Aspen and Pitkin County for projects when on-
site mitigation with renewable energy systems is not an option to offset excess energy
use from snowmelt, hot tubs or spas.
CORE has requested funding from REMP in the amount of $1,400,000. While the 2020
financial audit has not yet been completed, there is still the opportunity for adjusting
entries to occur for the previous year. That stated, new collections of REMP fees in 2020
equated to $1.39M, roughly $575K above the conservative placeholder estimate. These
collections, plus funds already held in reserve from prior years, more than support this
$1.4M request that was already adopted in the 2021 Budget.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The environmental impact will be a decrease in carbon
emissions in the Roaring Fork Valley. The goal for 2021 is 1,000 MtCo2e.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Resolution #015 Series 2021
Attachment B: Program Details
18
1
RESOLUTION #015
(Series of 2021)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE
EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS GENERATED THROUGH THE RENEWABLE ENERGY
MITIGATION PROGRAM.
WHEREAS, on December 13, 1999, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 55 Adopting the
Aspen/Pitkin Energy Conservation Code, and
WHEREAS, the Aspen/Pitkin Energy Conservation Code allows that funds collected through the
Renewable Energy Mitigation Program (REMP) be spent in accordance with a resolution passed
by the Aspen City Council, and
WHEREAS, at its meeting on November 19, 2020 the Board of Trustees of the Community
Office for Resource Efficiency (CORE) approved the REMP spending proposals described
herein, and
WHEREAS, the specific funding amounts total $1,400,000 and are assigned in the following
way:
Randy Udall Energy Pioneer Grants: $150,000
Residential Programs: $225,000
Commercial Programs: $100,000
Small Lodge Program: $50,000
Engagement and Marketing: $75,000
New Initiatives: $75,000
Program Management: $90,000
Program Delivery: $635,000
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Aspen finds that the funding requests are
appropriate, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves the funding request from the
Community Office for Resource Efficiency that sets forth the terms and conditions of the use of
Renewable Energy Mitigation Program funds, a description of which is incorporated herein.
Dated: February 9, 2021
19
2
______________________________
Torre, Mayor
I, Nicole Henning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true
and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado,
at a meeting held February 9, 2021.
______________________________
Nicole Henning, City Clerk
20
Attachment A: 2021 Grants and Programming
2021 Randy Udall Energy Pioneer Grants
In 2020, CORE staff with approval of the CORE Board of Directors staff budgeted
$200,000 to be allocated in grants. CORE staff will develop the criteria, which will be
approved by the CORE Board of Directors. Using the criteria, grants will be identified
and awarded with contracts stipulating the project and timeframe for completion.
Amount requested $150,000
2021 REMP Programs
CORE’s focus on efficiency has shifted to beneficial electrification across all sectors.
CORE serves the residential and commercial market with outreach, advising and rebates
through a variety of programs.
CORE will continue offering Community Grants and Design Assistance Grants
CORE intends to build on our Income-Qualified Program in 2021, which serves low-to-
moderate income homeowners.
Residential
Rebates and assessments $225,000 includes energy efficiency and renewable energy
Commercial
Rebates $100,000 includes energy efficiency and renewable energy
Small Lodge Program $ 50,000
CORE’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Programs continue to grow at a steady
pace. Typically, the commercial sector represents approximately 50% of the energy
consumption in buildings. CORE continues to offer incentives to the commercial
sector and partners with City of Aspen Utilities and Holy Cross Energy to expand
these efforts. CORE will continue to leverage the impact of our resources by offering
larger rebates to owners of large buildings, which include public and private buildings
and multifamily complexes. This program enables CORE to work directly with
building owners and operators to help them implement big energy savings projects.
Funds will also be used to target multi-family unit complexes since many have sought
out our services and we would like to be able to incentivize them to invest in a
complete building retrofit for the greatest efficiency gains.
21
Other Programs
Engagement & Marketing ($75,000 Requested)
New Initiatives ($75,000 Requested)
The CORE Board and staff has had great success with project funding using
the New Initiative funds. These funds have contributed to the decrease of
carbon emissions in the Roaring Fork Valley and spurring innovation in the
building sector. These funds will be used toward projects that meet our
criteria. Any expenditure would be approved by the CORE Board of
Directors. This year funds were awarded to the Aspen Skiing Company
Housing, Marble Distilling Co. and Aspen Global Change Institute.
Administration
Program Management ($90,000)
Program Delivery ($635,000)
For each of the recommended programs, specific guidelines and eligibility standards will
be applied. CORE staff will continue to work closely with our partners to identify and
reach targets with the greatest need and the greatest opportunity for improvement.
Total amount requested by CORE is $1,400,000
22
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor Torre and Aspen City Council
FROM:Robert Schober, Capital Asset Project Manager
THROUGH:Nancy Lesley, Interim Director of the Wheeler Opera house
MEMO DATE:January 25, 2021
MEETING DATE:February 9, 2021
RE:Wheeler Opera House Masonry Project – Paint Color Change
(Fatigue Green) and Change Orders for Increased Scope
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
Request approval of a paint color change, as well as approval and execution of Summit
Sealants and Forrest Painting Change Orders due to increased scope.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND:
After extensive research and completion of the discovery process typical to historic
preservation projects, Mills + Schnoering Architect’s has recommended that the paint
color scheme on the building be changed back to a more historical representation of the
grey-green color that was found on the building previously. In conjunction with Amy Simon
(HPC) and Sara Adams (Bendon - Adams), Katherine Frey the lead project architect for
M+S, has endorsed a more historic paint scheme for the building. Their recommendation
is to return to the dark green found underneath the current paint colors for both the window
frame and the sash. Through close examination of the samples obtained during the
discovery, M+S has matched the historic color and feels comfortable moving forward.
This is outlined in the attached memo (Exhibit A) and sample building elevation (Exhibit
B) from Katherine Frey at M+S.
Due to the increased scope initiated through the discovery process, there are change
orders from both Summit Sealants for additional stone replacement and carving details
on the stone, and Forrest Painting for the change of color and additional work due to the
scope of repairs and caulking replacement required on the windows. The change orders
are attached for review (Exhibits C, D).
DISCUSSION:
Staff is requesting approval of the attached change orders from Summit Sealants and
Forrest Painting. The summary of the work to be performed is outlined in the attached
change orders.
23
FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
This request is funded through a combination of funds held within capital project #51041
Wheeler Building and Site Improvements (Phase 1) which included the mockup and
discovery process, and Project #51428 Wheeler Masonry Restoration.
Current project funding is as follows:
Council summary
Remaining Funds Project #51041 Wheeler Building & Site Improvements $615,904
Current Project Budget #51428 Wheeler Masonry Restoration $2,057,000
Current project budget $2,672,904
Currently obligated $1,584,353
Summit change order #1 $400,285
Forrest change order #2 $162,424
Total with changes $2,147,062
Remaining project funds for contingency $525,842
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: N/A
ALTERNATIVES:
We could not perform the work; however, all indications are that this is both required to
complete the historical building preservation properly as well as being the most efficient
time to complete the project.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Council to approve decision to change the building to the historical paint color
recommended by Mills + Schnoering. Council to approve both change orders from
Summit Sealants and Forrest Painting.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
24
RESOLUTION #17
(Series of 2021)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING A CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER FOR THE WHEELER OPERA
HOUSE PROJECT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND SUMMIT SEALANTS
AND RESTORATION SERVICES INC.AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS,the City and Summit Sealants and Restoration Services Inc.have
proposed a change order for the Wheeler Opera House project, a copy of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit A; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the
City of Aspen to approve the Contract Change Order for this project pursuant to the terms
thereof.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN,COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves the attached Contract
Change Order between the City of Aspen and Summit Sealants and Restoration Services Inc.
and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute the Contract Change Order on behalf of
the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED,READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on
the 9th, day of February 2021.
Torre,Mayor
I,Nicole Henning,duly appointed City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true
and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado,at a meeting held,February 9,2021.
Nicole Henning,City Clerk
25
RESOLUTION #18
(Series of 2021)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING A CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER FOR THE WHEELER OPERA
HOUSE PROJECT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND FORREST PAINTING
AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT
CHANGE ORDER ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS,the City and Forrest Painting have proposed a change order for the
Wheeler Opera House project, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the
City of Aspen to approve the Contract Change Order for this project pursuant to the terms
thereof.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN,COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves the attached Contract
Change Order between the City of Aspen and Forrest Painting and does hereby authorize the
City Manager to execute the Contract Change Order on behalf of the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED,READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on
the 9th, day of February 2021.
Torre,Mayor
I,Nicole Henning,duly appointed City Clerk,do certify that the foregoing is a true
and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado,at a meeting held,February 9,2021.
Nicole Henning,City Clerk
26
From:Amy Simon
To:Katherine Frey; Sara Adams
Cc:Michael Schnoering; Sarah Yoon
Subject:RE: Update on Wheeler green paint
Date:Friday, December 4, 2020 2:50:21 PM
Attachments:image001.jpg
Hi- this is so great! Thank you again for being on top of this issue and for recognizing the
opportunity to restore the original color scheme instead of repeating what is in place.
I’d like to see both of the greens mocked up. That seems easy enough to do.
From: Katherine Frey <katherinef@msarchitectsllc.com>
Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 12:39 PM
To: Sara Adams <sara@bendonadams.com>; Amy Simon <amy.simon@cityofaspen.com>
Cc: Michael Schnoering <mikes@msarchitectsllc.com>
Subject: Update on Wheeler green paint
Hi Sara and Amy:
We took a look at the samples under the microscope and this is what we found…
The earliest dark green layer we discussed corresponds to Munsell 5GY 3/1, which is a
dark grayish green with brown. The closest Benjamin Moore Color match is 2140-10
Fatigue Green. In certain lights, I would expect this to appear more brownish gray than
green.... but it does tend toward the green end of the yellow spectrum.
The subsequent dark green layer presents as 5GY 2/2. Also dark grayish green but with a
little more saturation. My chart says it may correspond to 2140 10 Fatigue Green, but also
possibly CW 510 Waller Green. The latter is in the Benjamin Moore Colonial
Williamsburg palette.
Attached is a photomicrograph indicating the layers we targeted. It is informal, and just
for discussion.
I have also attached a photo of the Benjamin Moore chips for 2140 Fatigue Green and CW510
Waller Green for reference. They are similar, with the Waller Green being much darker,
almost black. The Fatigue Green is the earlier finish and appears slightly more olive green.
Hopefully you have access to a Benjamin Moore fandeck and can take a look at one or both of
the actual paint chips. The photo also shows a color plate from the Roger Moss book on
Victorian Exterior Decoration showing a similar color treatment on a Victorian storefront.
Let me know what you think about proceeding with one or both of these colors in a mockup.
The window frame and sash color is in the critical path on the site. For the cornice color, I
think it would be good to have you, Sara, select a color on site from a fandeck which matches
the color of the stone or a shade darker. Please let me know if you have any questions.
27
Hope you have a good weekend.
Thanks,
Katherine Frey
Associate
katherinef@msarchitectsllc.com
200 Forrestal Road, Suite 3A
Princeton, NJ 08540
T: 609.681.2480, x114
www.msarchitectsllc.com
email logo BW
AIANJ Firm of the Year 2020
This communication is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named as the addressee. It may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential
under applicable law. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us at 609.681.2480 or via return Internet email at
admin@msarchitectsllc.com and expunge this communication without making copies. Mills + Schnoering Architects, LLC accepts no responsibility for any loss or
damage from the use of this message and/or any attachments, including damage from viruses.
28
29
30
31
32
From:Katherine Frey
To:Tim Kieffer; Robert Schober
Cc:Jack Wheeler; Sara Adams; Michael Tanguay; Michael Schnoering; Mike Bassi (mbassi@aspenconstructors.com)
Subject:Wheeler exterior paint colors
Date:Friday, December 4, 2020 5:27:00 PM
Attachments:image001.jpg
TobaccoShop2.jpg
19690130001.jpg
Wheeler-window frame-sample.jpg
fatigue green -waller green.jpg
Rob and Tim,
After reviewing the submittals on the matches for the existing paint colors (pink and cream), we
have been reexamining the exterior paint colors in conjunction with Sara and Amy Simon to arrive at
a more historic paint scheme for the building. Our review has included observations on site, historic
photographs, period color palettes, and a close examination of two samples that I took from a
window frame when I was on site.
We are recommending a return to the dark green that we have observed for both the window frame
and the sash color. We have color matched two of the earliest dark green colors under the
microscope and would like to see a mockup prepared of each color so that Sara and Amy can review
on site.
The colors are Benjamin Moore 2140 Fatigue Green and Benjamin Moore Colonial Williamsburg
CW-510 Waller Green. I am thinking of two separate mockups; a 2’ tall section or bottom corner
including both the sash and frame painted the first color and a separate mockup with the sash and
frame both painted the second color.
The cornice and entablature will be painted in one color to match the existing stone-slightly darker,
picking up the orange tone in the stone rather than the pink. Sara will need to select a color on site
with a fandeck. The custom rose color that you most recently submitted can also be evaluated, but it
is likely too pink. We may want to paint the back of the tympanum a different shade of the same
color to highlight the detail, but we do not intend to call out the modillions and ornament in a
separate color (The elements currently painted cream.)
I will prepare an elevation to show the color placement for the building including the storefront,
doors, cast iron columns, and window panels so that the color placement is clear as we move
forward.
I understand that the window painting is in the critical path. We did not want to miss this
opportunity to paint the building in a more appropriate scheme. Please let me know if you have any
questions.
Best regards,
Katherine Frey
Associate
katherinef@msarchitectsllc.com
33
200 Forrestal Road, Suite 3A
Princeton, NJ 08540
T: 609.681.2480, x114
www.msarchitectsllc.com
email logo BW
AIANJ Firm of the Year 2020
This communication is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named as the addressee. It may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential
under applicable law. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us at 609.681.2480 or via return Internet email at
admin@msarchitectsllc.com and expunge this communication without making copies. Mills + Schnoering Architects, LLC accepts no responsibility for any loss or
damage from the use of this message and/or any attachments, including damage from viruses.
34
!!#! $%!$!&# %!! %!$’&#$%(! !!’
$ )$$#’#$!!!#$!! $!
&#&$
*++, )-.
/!)01+234+
5+6527*42+
/8!0 /8!0
.( (
!9&.!#!!!%
:"
!
0;
0;
.( .( 0
0.( ),(<,.!0,
,,! 0,(&
=>>?09:,=0@.,?=:)>>
’
/8!0 >%0
!"
#$"
#%
$$#$#
Wheeler Opera House Phase 2 1909
Tim Keiffer 12/12/2020
Aspen Constructors, Inc.
309 AABC, Unit G
Aspen, CO 81611
Cell: 970-948-9006
Email
✔✔✔✔✔
Katherine Frey 114
040140-21 ACI #32
Dark green paint and Cornice color
✔
Katherine Frey 12/12/2020
1909 040140-21
Provide Benjamin Moore 2140 Fatigue Green for window frames and sash and doors.
Provide mockup of PPG 1068-5 Terrazzo Tan on cornice for review and confirmation on site.
35
309 A.A.B.C. ▪ Unit G ▪ Aspen, CO 81611 ▪ Tel: 970.925.7608 ▪ Fax: 970.925.2791 ▪ www.AspenConstructors.com
SUBMITTAL / SHOP DRAWING
Project Name WOH: Phase 2 Submittal Number WOH - 032
ACI Project # 20-004 Date Submitted: December 11, 2020
Assistant Project
Manager Tim Kieffer Date Required: December 11, 2020
Superintendent Mike Bassi Sent To:
Katherine Frey, M+Sa
Location 320 E. Hyman Ave. Date Responded:
Request to review and comment on the following submittal FOR APPROVAL:
Katherine, sending you photographs of the mockup for “Dark Green” paint color, a swatch of the cornice
color with historical photos and information related to the decision-making process. Refer to attached
for your review.
Author: Tim Kieffer Date: Dec. 11, 2020
CC: Rob Schober, City of Aspen
Jeff Pendarvis, City of Aspen;
Jack Wheeler & Kurt Kelly Concept One Group.
Mike Bassi, Mike Tanguay, Aspen Constructors Inc.
By: Signature: Date:
36
37
38
39
From:Sara Adams
To:Katherine Frey
Subject:RE: WOH: Phase 2, Submittal #32 "Dark Green" & Cornice Paint Colors
Date:Friday, December 11, 2020 2:00:05 PM
Attachments:image001.jpg
image003.jpg
Hi Katherine,
Sorry for the delay. Amy and I met onsite yesterday. We both agree that Fatigue Green is preferred.
Amy asked if the solid wood in the arched windows will be painted green as well? I said yes, but
want to confirm.
We also picked terrazzo tan as a slightly darker shade of the sandstone. We compared it to the
sandstone on the building and also the samples that we selected to replace some of the bands.
The cleaning test patches look really really good. The stone is completely clean, even the crevasses.
They did a great job. We will have to see how patchy the stone work is before we decide to put a
coating on the stone. Amy is still not a fan of any coating but agrees that it will be something we
need to decide when we see how good or how bad the stone looks with the dutchmen, etc.
Please reach out with any questions! Sara
From: Katherine Frey <katherinef@msarchitectsllc.com>
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 11:46 AM
To: Sara Adams <sara@bendonadams.com>
Subject: FW: WOH: Phase 2, Submittal #32 "Dark Green" & Cornice Paint Colors
40
Hi Sara,
I wanted to check with you to see if you and Amy had a preference between the two greens ; and
also what color looked good to you for the cornice. Tim included a color selector but I am not sure
what your preference was on site.
Thank you so much for helping us out! Hope you have a nice Friday.
Katherine Frey
Associate
katherinef@msarchitectsllc.com
Mills + Schnoering Architects, LLC
200 Forrestal Road, Suite 3A
Princeton, NJ 08540
T: 609.681.2480, x114
www.msarchitectsllc.com
AIANJ Firm of the Year 2020
From: Tim Kieffer <tkieffer@aspenconstructors.com>
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 1:05 PM
To: WOH <woh@aspenconstructors.com>
Subject: WOH: Phase 2, Submittal #32 "Dark Green" & Cornice Paint Colors
Katherine,
Sending you the paint submittal for your review.
tim
Tim Kieffer
Assistant Project Manager
Aspen Constructors, Inc.
309 AABC, Unit G
Aspen, CO. 81611
Tel: 970.925.7608
Cell: 970.618.6998
E-mail: tkieffer@aspenconstructors.com
Web: www.aspenconstructors.com
41
ADCBA12345DCBA12345Checked ByDate200 Forrestal Road
Suite 3A
Princeton, NJ 08540
T: 609.681.2480
F: 609.681.2481
www.msarchitectsllc.comDrawing TitleProject NoFile NameRevisionsDrawn ByMichael J. Mills FAIANJC - 8207Michael Schnoering AIANJC - 1216406/12/20201909EXTERIOR/INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS
WHEELER OPERA HOUSE - MASONRY DOCS
ASPEN, COLORADO ABP / TCCGSOUTH AND SOUTH EASTELEVATIONSA-3.0REV1-06/12/202042
ADCBA12345DCBA12345ABP / TCCGEAST ELEVATIONA-3.1Checked ByDate200 Forrestal Road
Suite 3A
Princeton, NJ 08540
T: 609.681.2480
F: 609.681.2481
www.msarchitectsllc.comDrawing TitleProject NoFile NameRevisionsDrawn ByMichael J. Mills FAIANJC - 8207Michael Schnoering AIANJC - 1216406/12/20201909EXTERIOR/INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS
WHEELER OPERA HOUSE - MASONRY DOCS
ASPEN, COLORADO REV1-06/12/20205543
183 N. 12th St. | Carbondale, CO 81623 | www.ConceptOneGroup.com | (970) 456-6470
January 21, 2021
Mr. Rob Schober
Project Manager
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
CITY OF ASPEN – WOH PHASE 2: SUMMIT SEALANTS CO #1
Dear Rob:
The purpose of this letter is to recommend the approval of the Summit Sealants Change Order #1.
BACKGROUND
This change order is for the costs associated with changes in scope and additional scaffolding outlined in
the attached change order.
PROJECT COSTS
The cost for this change is $400,285.00.
Total Cost of Change Order #1: $400,285.00
Best Regards,
Jack Wheeler
President
Concept One Group, Inc.
Attachment: Summit Sealants Change Order #1
Exhibit C - Summit Sealants Change Order
44
Montrose • Gypsum • Denver • Seattle
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
December 21, 2020 Wheeler Opera House Preservation CO1 Page: 1/2
"At the Top of the Sealant and Restoration Industry for 13 Years”
Denver Office
2000 W. Quincy Avenue
Englewood, CO 80110
P: 720-389-8633
F: 720-242-9276
Main Office/ Accounting
2450 North Townsend Ave
Montrose, CO 81401
P: 970-240-5971
F: Fax 970-240-0951
Seattle Office
4210 B Street NW, Ste A
Auburn, WA 98001
P: 253-243-6172
F: 253-243-6194
Dear Mr. Tanguay,
In accordance with your request to provide additional work and scaffolding for the above-mentioned property, we
are providing our Change order #1 proposal for review and approval. All work will be performed in accordance to
the
National Historic Register and workmanship of the highest quality be utilized, as directed by the City of Aspen,
Aspen Constructors and M+S Architects. All materials will be installed in accordance with manufacturer’s written
recommendation. below are based on unforeseen onsite conditions discovered on or around Nov 4th, 2020. Please
note this change order does not include newly discovered conditions after paint striping efforts nor does this
changer order reflect any additional paint stripping as we are waiting for recommendations and direction.
Additional Cost Budget
• Added cost of fabrication of the stone profiles found at the site, as
opposed to the profiles on the drawings.
+$150,000.00
• Added cost of tooling the stone, match existing combing details as
close as possible.
+$169,226.00
Additional Scaffold Cost
• Additional scaffolding rental cost for the South Elevation, South East
Elevation, East Elevation, and stair system based on scope duration
ref. project schedule revised 10-23-20
+$42,552.00
• Added cost for scaffolding stair system. +$25,382.00
• Additional Hoist rental cost based on scope duration ref. project
schedule revised 10-23-20.
+$13,125.00
Total Additional Cost for Change Order #1: +$400,285.00
The proposed work is to be completed during normal working hours M-F, 7:00 am – 3:30 pm.
Payment Terms: “Net 30 Days. Price is valid for 30 days.”
This proposal is proprietary and confidential, intended only for the recipients addressed above.
December 21, 2020 Email: mtanguay@aspenconstructors.com
Aspen Constructors, Inc.
309 AABC, Unit G
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Wheeler Opera House Preservation CO1
45
Montrose • Gypsum • Denver • Seattle
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
December 21, 2020 Wheeler Opera House Preservation CO1 Page: 2/2
"At the Top of the Sealant and Restoration Industry for 13 Years”
Denver Office
2000 W. Quincy Avenue
Englewood, CO 80110
P: 720-389-8633
F: 720-242-9276
Main Office/ Accounting
2450 North Townsend Ave
Montrose, CO 81401
P: 970-240-5971
F: Fax 970-240-0951
Seattle Office
4210 B Street NW, Ste A
Auburn, WA 98001
P: 253-243-6172
F: 253-243-6194
General Exclusions: Adequate- water, power, parking, sanitation, staging/laydown area, notifying tenants/public
of noise associated with work, landscaping, temporary storage, uninterrupted access to work location, Removal or
replication of any interior furnishings, including window treatments and coverings, multiple
mobilizations/demobilizations, Fencing, abatement.
Summit Sealants and Restoration Services Inc. proposal is based from its review of physical site conditions.
Reference of (construction drawings project # 1909) provided by M+S Architects; And our experience performing
similar scope of work. Please keep in mind exact stone details have not been provided and Should work reveal
hidden problems or defects, changes in cost and scope of work may be required.
Upon review and approval Summit Sealants and Restoration Services Inc. will submit all necessary schedules,
mock-ups, samples, technical data sheets etc.
Sincerely,
Summit Sealants and Restoration Services Inc.
Derek Reece
Derek Reece
Project Manager
970-901-6698
Derekr@summitsealants.com
46
183 N. 12th St. | Carbondale, CO 81623 | www.ConceptOneGroup.com | (970) 456-6470
February 2, 2021
Mr. Rob Schober
Project Manager
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
CITY OF ASPEN – WOH PHASE 2: FORREST PAINTING CHANGE ORDER 1/15/21
Dear Rob:
The purpose of this letter is to recommend the approval of the Forrest Painting Change Order dated
1/15/21.
BACKGROUND
This change order is for the costs associated with changes in scope outlined in the attached change
order.
PROJECT COSTS
The cost for this change is $162,424.00.
Total Cost of Change Order 1/15/21: $162,424.00
Best Regards,
Jack Wheeler
President
Concept One Group, Inc.
Attachment: Forrest Painting Change Order dated 1/15/21
Exhibit D - Forrest Painting Change Order
47
P.O. Box 3829, Basalt, Colorado 81621 (970) 927-4153 Fax (970) 927-4689 fpd@rof.net
January 15th, 2021
Aspen Constructors
309 AABC, Unit G
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Price increase
Jack,
We originally had a budget of $131,928.00 for the exterior Work of the Wheeler Opera
house. Windows, window sash, cornices, and samples.
Additional Work requested
Our original intent was to sand with 100 Grit sandpaper and feather out the existing layered paint
finishes. After reviewing the sample, we have been requested to remove additional paint layers to have
a cleaner, better-looking finish. Requested and added work requires using 5-6 coats of paint stripper to
strip away all the old paint coats and sanding the rest of the paint debris off. We will continue to apply
one coat of the exterior oil primer, followed by using the approved wood filler to repair all damaged
molding. After that, we apply the acrylic primer. Finally, another light sand before applying two coats of
the approved color.
**The procedures and products above were required and approval by the AHS. The estimate below is
for the stripping and additional work required for the windows, window frames and cornice.
The following updated estimated costs to complete the Scope of Work for the Opera Wheeler House's
exterior; due to the change of Paint removal work/approved, color scheme changes, cornice, fascia
upgrades, and protection and pedestrians’ walkways. These updated budge costs will be added to the
remaining originally budget above.
1. Window and door units: Paint removal and additional prep
o South Elevation
o South East Elevation
o East Elevation
Estimated labor and material Cost: $52,520
2. Color change:
• We were informed that there also might be a color change. From the last update, it was the
green color, and the color now is TBD.
• There will also be a color change for the cornice; also, TBD.
• We will apply a 3rd coat of finish paint approved color for better coverage and color
retention.
Estimated labor and material Cost: $19,456
48
P.O. Box 3829, Basalt, Colorado 81621 (970) 927-4153 Fax (970) 927-4689 fpd@rof.net
3. Cornice: Paint removal and additional prep as necessary
• South Elevation
• Southeast Elevation
• East Elevation
Estimated labor and material Cost: $16,100
4. Paint corridors:
• Main entrance elevation
• South elevation
Estimated labor and material Cost: $6,100
5. Remove and replace Caulking around windows and doors
o Originally Stone Masons were to remove caulking around windows and doors. Forrest
Painting does not have this scope of work either. Forrest Painting begun to remove the
caulking and install proper backing rod and proper caulking material per Aspen
Constructors request.
Estimated labor and material Cost: $68,248
Work with other trades:
• We have been working with the other trades. Additional time has been required for mobilization
and protection.
Weather elements:
• We have had to work around the weather conditions, setting up protection from weather
conditions.
These items have been added into our above cost.
Cost is estimated and billed at our hourly rate of $48.00 dollars per hour on a Time and Materials basis
with 10% markup on materials. Daily reports will be initiated to track labor cost. Please call once you
have reviewed this to discuss in further detail. Thank you.
The health and safety of our employees and other around us is our top priority. We will follow all the
county’s guidelines regarding the covid-19 and their restrictions. We will have daily check-ins, with daily
temperature check ins and symptom check ins. We will disinfect our workstations prior to leaving at the
end of the workday.
Orginally Contract 131,928.00$
Items 1-5 to be added to orginal contract 162,424.00$
Total 294,352.00$
Invoice #1 Nov 17th 2020 20,098.63$
Inoive #2 As of 1/15/2021 65,196.00$
49
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM: Nicole Henning, City Clerk
DATE OF MEMO:February 1, 2021
MEETING DATE:February 9, 2021
RE:Board Appointments
By adopting the Consent Calendar, Council is making the following Board Appointments:
Next Generation – One Regular Member Nicholas Byrne
Kids First – One Regular Member Michaela Idhammar
50
1
REGULAR MEETING ASPEN CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 26, 2021
At 4:30 p.m. Mayor Torre called the regular meeting to order with Councilors Richards, Mesirow, Mullins
and Hauenstein joining via video conference.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Doug Goldsmith – Mr. Goldsmith, sales manager of Mountain Waste Recycle and Trash Company said he
has a request. He mentioned a deicing agent on Main Street. On Mill, Aspen and Monarch streets, he is
asking to also use a deicing agent because it gets very dangerous running trash trucks. This is a safety
issue for trash trucks and UPS trucks.
COUNCIL COMMENTS:
Councilwoman Mullins thanked Doug for his comments and agrees that something should be done. She
said that she just heard about Barry Crook passing away. He worked for the city for 14 years and was a
strong advocate for affordable housing. She didn’t always agree with him, but he should be
acknowledged for his work with the city. She passed along her condolences.
Councilman Hauenstein said that he is also concerned about deicing. This is important to monitor for
public safety. He also addressed the red restrictions. He hopes to have everyone open again as soon as
possible. We are at less than half of the incident rate at this time and are appreciative of the restaurants
and the efforts they are making.
Councilwoman Richards thanked Ann for sharing her comments on the passing of Barry and she shares
the same sentiments. She thanked the restaurants for the video of their dedicated staff. We are needing
to deal with the issue as a whole. She showed the NY Times Covid page, which was updated on January
24th. She talked about New York being in purple, not red. Outdoor dining and outdoor bars are unsafe.
She knows a lot of travelers look at the NY Times before they decide to go somewhere. We were 25th in
the country. San Miguel county is now the #5 hot spot. The challenge that resort communities have are
due to amount of tourists. She is presenting this snapshot, because the numbers in Aspen are being
reported nationwide. It’s a better time to sacrifice the slower times of January than the later months.
There’s a lot of PR outside of the community that our actions will impact.
Mayor Torre said there is a joint meeting next week with the BOCC and is an opportunity to discuss
issues shared by us. He is imploring the community to work together, and it goes past your personal
responsibility. It’s also about being kind and understanding to one another. We made the right decision
staying open in December. The decline we are in now is not directly related to the closures. This is good
news. Be patient and stay with the program we are on and we will be reopened very soon. We will see
more data this week. There has been a lot of press regarding donations from folks and contributions,
and he sends out a big thank you to Kenny and Robin Smith of Meridian Jewelers. Please go to the
restaurants for to go orders. There is a 1.28-million-dollar fund being set up by the county for business
relief and will be live on the Aspen community website by Friday. The applications are on a rolling basis
as they come in.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Sara Ott said that Bill Linn will speak about changes the police are making to issuing tickets for health
code violations. For the 5 star program, Cj Oliver, is serving on an administrative committee as Aspen’s
51
2
REGULAR MEETING ASPEN CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 26, 2021
representative. They are currently fine tuning the program, and an application process will open later
this week.
Mayor Torre asked about going back to the orange level and not having to do this 5 star program as
early as next week.
Ms. Ott said it’s possible, and the Board of Health will decide if we will drop back to orange. The 5 star
program will determine if businesses can operate at a yellow level. It allows businesses to prepare ahead
of time.
Bill Linn said they have given their officers an additional tool to address violations. They can now issue a
ticket for violations to the public health order. We are continuing to respond to complaints to violations,
and this might now end up with a ticket. We’re not out looking for parties in neighborhoods, we are
responding to complaints. This is about community values, and must be a shared burden.
Ms. Ott said that when individuals are witnessing a violation, we also need that person to assist in the
review of the situation and they may be asked to sign a report. Anonymous complaints are harder to
address. Officer Linn agreed.
Councilman Mesirow asked what the ticket entails. Officer Linn said it’s the highest misdemeanor with a
fine of $500-$1500 and could also require jail time and a court date.
BOARD REPORTS:
Councilwoman Richards said she was ni the Club 20 voices of rural Colorado legislative day. Tara Nelson
also attended and will provide notes from the first day. Councilwoman Richards said she attended on
the second day and heard from Governor Polis and Senator Hickenlooper among others on the
restoration of public lands.
Councilwoman Mullins said she had CML and it was a really dense meeting. They have gone to three
meetings a year now via Zoom. They made recommended changes to legislative pieces and she’s happy
they’ve become more and more involved in this group.
Councilman Hauenstein said he attend the Aspen Snowmass Nordic council meeting. He said that dogs
occupied a lot of discussion because there have been a lot of them on the Nordic trails at the golf
course. He said it’s important that people honor the no dog policy and reminded everyone to get out
there on your skis.
Mayor Torre said he attended the ACRA Chamber meeting. John Peacock spoke about the 5 star
program and vaccinations. We were fortunate to get 1200 doses previously, and we did not get that
allocation again this wk. Regarding the occupancy rate, the hotels are tracking at 20-30% through
weekdays and we are only seeing 50% on the weekends. We are still really feeling the effects of the
pandemic. Some members were advocating to take another look at the visitor affidavit and there was a
lot of support for reopening restaurants. Thursday is the Board of Health meeting. He would like to
know how the COA is going to advocate at this meeting. There are CAST meetings happening this
weekend regarding housing and a panel discussion on managing impacts on public lands.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Councilwoman Mullins would like more information on Resolution #004.
52
3
REGULAR MEETING ASPEN CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 26, 2021
Councilwoman Richards said she wonders if our GMQ allotments are way too large.
Mayor Torre said he would like more information on Resolutions #008 and #009. He asked if this is a
new cost or was it known as coming at this stage of the contracts.
Chris Everson said the original fee amounts were estimated based on the RFP the city put out in early
2019. They are currently meeting the budget for Resolution #008.
For Resolution #009, he explained the quality assurance program.
Councilwoman Richards motioned to approve the consent calendar; Councilman Mesirow seconded.
Councilwoman Mullins asked about the Wheeler imaging project and said she thought we just replaced
all the digital equipment. Nancy Lesley said the projector is about 10 years old and that is what is being
replaced now.
Roll call vote: Hauenstein, yes; Mesirow, yes; Mullins, yes; Richards, yes; Torre, yes. 5-0, motion carried.
NOTICE OF CALL UP: 227 East Bleeker HPC Approval
Sara Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner, gave a summary of this project. She said it is an Aspen
Victorian landmark and is a one-story miner’s cabin in the R6 zone district. The applicant would like to
do a full restoration and HPC approved this and the new addition which will be towards the rear of the
property with a connector. HPC approved this with a unanimous vote.
Council asked some clarifying questions. Councilman Hauenstein said he has no reason to call this up.
Councilwoman Mullins said she does not want to call this up.
Councilwoman Richards said she sees no reason to call this up.
Mayor Torre advocated for a plaque to recognize where we are going and where we’ve been.
FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE #01, SERIES OF 2021 – 100 Marolt Place – Marolt Ranch Lot 3 – Minor
Planned Development Amendment
Councilwoman Richards motioned to read; Councilman Hauenstein seconded. Roll call vote: Hauenstein,
yes; Mesirow, yes; Mullins, Richards, yes; Torre, yes. 5-0, motion carried.
City Clerk, Nicole Henning, read Ordinance #01.
Councilwoman Richards motioned to approve on first reading.
Council asked a couple of clarifying questions. Jeff Barnhill, Zoning Enforcement Officer, answered their
questions.
Councilwoman Mullins seconded the motion for approval.
Roll call vote: Hauenstein, yes; Mesirow, yes; Mullins, yes; Richards, yes; Torre, yes. 5-0, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #02, SERIES OF 2021 – Wheeler Advisory Board
53
4
REGULAR MEETING ASPEN CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 26, 2021
City Attorney, Jim True, introduced the item. He said this ordinance is to adopt some guidance and
direction based on the Wheeler’s mission statement. We also changed the board of directors, to the
board of advisors.
Council asked some clarifying questions.
Councilwoman Mullins motioned to read; Councilman Mesirow seconded. Roll call vote: Hauenstein,
yes; Mesirow, yes; Mullins, yes; Richards, yes; Torre, yes. 5-0, motion carried.
The City Clerk read Ordinance #02.
Councilman Hauenstein motioned to approve with the addition of a statement on C that email
notification is sufficient; Councilwoman Richards seconded. Roll call vote: Hauenstein, yes; Mesirow,
yes; Mullins, yes; Richards, yes; Torre, yes. 5-0, motion carried.
Councilman Hauenstein motioned to adjourn; Councilman Mesirow seconded. Roll call vote:
Hauenstein, yes; Mesirow, yes; Mullins, yes; Richards, yes; Torre, yes. 5-0, motion carried.
_______________________________
City Clerk, Nicole Henning
54
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Torre and Aspen City Council
THROUGH: Phillip Supino, Community Development Director
FROM: Amy Simon, Planning Director
MEETING DATE: February 9, 2021
RE: Notice of Call-Up, HPC approval of Resolution #27, Series of 2021 for 423 N.
Second Street– Conceptual Major Development, Relocation and Setback Variations
APPLICANT:
Smuggler FB3, LLC, P.O. Box
2097, Naples, FL 34102
REPRESENTATIVE:
Bill Guth and Ro Rockett
Design
LOCATION:
Street Address:
423 N. Second Street
Legal Description:
Lots F, G, H and I, Block 41,
City and Townsite of Aspen
Parcel Identification:
PID# 2735-124-14-003
CURRENT ZONING & USE:
Single-family home,
R-6: Medium Density
Residential
PROPOSED ZONING & USE:
No change
PROCESS SUMMARY: Certain land use approvals granted by HPC
or P&Z require that Council be notified of the decision through a brief
staff summary. The notification is not a public hearing and no applicant
presentation or public comment has been accepted in the past. During
the Call Up Notice, City Council may uphold the HPC or P&Z decision.
Alternatively, Council may request more detailed information be
provided through a presentation by staff and the applicant at a future
meeting. After hearing the additional project description, Council may
support the boards’ decision or may remand it to require
reconsideration of specific issues at a new public hearing. HPC’s or
P&Z’s decision on remand shall be final.
BACKGROUND: 423 N. Second is a landmarked property containing
a large Victorian era home moved to the site from a few blocks east
in the 1950s. Once relocated, the home was sited backwards on the
lot, with the front door facing the alley. This, along with a series of
additions, has diminished the historic integrity of the building. A new
owner plans a project that has received HPC Conceptual approval to
rotate the house to face the street, to remove numerous alterations,
and to construct a new basement and addition.
Site Location Map- 423 N. Second Street
423
55
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The applicant and staff have conducted significant research of the property to guide a restoration that will
meaningfully improve the authenticity of the original design of the home and its contribution to the historic
character of the Triangle Park neighborhood, which is ringed by Victorian era structures.
Below are a current photo of the subject home and 1950s era picture from the same vantage point along
the alley.
Staff and HPC enthusiastically support the applicant’s decision to re-orient the building so that it is placed
at the corner of the site, with the door facing Second Street, correcting the current circumstance which is
very detrimental to its historic character. Removal of additions which envelop the home and restoration or
recreation of important original features, including the open front porch will also be a very successful
preservation outcome.
The new addition is proposed to the side of the resource, extending towards the alley. This is an
appropriate siting for the expansion permitted on this large 12,000 square foot lot. It features a one story-
connector element, which is required by the HPC guidelines to provide separation between the new and
old construction. The addition is proposed to be a flat roofed structure, modern in its materiality and
fenestration. Lengthy discussion took place at the HPC hearing on this point. The guidelines require new
construction to be distinguished
from the historic, rather than
copying it. An applicant is to
consider form, fenestration and
materials as aspects of
compatibility, picking two of those
characteristics to relate directly to
the landmark and departing from
it in a third. The applicant’s choice
to use a different roof form for the
addition was approved by HPC,
with further discussion of windows
and materials to occur at Final
review, as is typical. The staff
memo noted a number of small
56
considerations that were felt to warrant continuation of this project for restudy before Conceptual approval
was granted. The applicant resolved these points with the board through discussion at the hearing,
representing corrections that will be made as part of the next design review phase.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: N/A
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Council uphold HPC’s decision.
Recommended Motion
“I move to uphold HPC’s approval of Resolution #27, Series of 2020 for 423 N. Second Street – Conceptual
Major Development, Relocation, and Setback Variations.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________.
EXHIBITS:
A – Staff memo to HPC, December 16, 2020
B – Approved plans
C – Meeting minutes, December 16, 2020
D – Resolution #27, Series of 2020
57
Page 1 of 4
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon, Planning Director
MEETING DATE: December 16, 2020
RE: 423 N. Second Street–Conceptual Major Development Review including
Relocation and Variations, PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICANT /OWNER:
Smuggler FB3, LLC, P.O. Box
2097, Naples, FL 34102
REPRESENTATIVE:
Bill Guth and Ro Rockett
Design
LOCATION:
Street Address:
423 N. Second Street
Legal Description:
Lots F, G, H and I, Block 41,
City and Townsite of Aspen
Parcel Identification Number:
PID# 2735-124-14-003
CURRENT ZONING & USE:
Single-family home,
R-6: Medium Density
Residential
PROPOSED ZONING & LAND USE:
No change
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The subject property is a
large Victorian era home that was moved to the existing site
in the 1950s and then significantly altered in terms of its
orientation on the lot and numerous small additions made to
the building. Despite these changes, much of the original
home remains intact and is well documented in historic
photos and maps. The applicant team on this project recently
completed a very comparable and successful restoration on
Hallam Street and the outcome of this project will be a
significant contribution to the historic character of the Triangle
Park area.
Staff has a number of resolvable concerns with details of the
restoration work, and the placement and character of the
proposed addition, therefore continuation for restudy is
recommended.
Site Locator Map – 423 N. Second Street
423
58
Page 2 of 4
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
BACKGROUND:
423 N. Second Street is a 12,000 square foot lot located in the R-6zone district. The site contains
a large Victorian era home that was relocated to this property in the 1950’s. The house was
placed on the site so that the original front door faces the alley, and numerous small additions
were subsequently made to each façade. The application includes significant documentation of
the original appearance of the house and the work planned to restore the historic design.
Past remodels of the building, which pre-date current requirements have resulted in the existing
structure being significantly over the currently allowed floor area. The applicant plans to retain an
overage of approximately 1,700 square feet through code allowances commonly employed on
remodels throughout town. According to Zoning’s preliminary review, it does appear that some
calculations require additional verification prior to the next hearing.
REQUEST OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals:
• Major Development (Section 26.415.070.D) for removal of non-historic additions,
restoration work, and an expansion towards the alley.
• Relocation (Section 26.415.090.C) to place the home on a new basement and orient the
front façade to Second Street.
• Setback Variations (Section 26.415.110.C) for rear and possible west yard reductions.
The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is the final review authority, however this project is
subject to Call-up Notice to City Council.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Following is a summary of staff findings. Please see Exhibits A, B, and C for more detail.
There are very significant, large cottonwood trees in the right-of-way on the Second Street side
of the property. These will require careful protection during the project and will greatly contribute
to the historic setting when the house is placed in its new location facing that street.
There are a number of trees along the alley that will be removed by this project. In general, the
project benefits from a large building envelope within which to accomplish the program. Staff has
identified conditions of approval suggesting a proposed raised deck adjacent to the Victorian be
removed from the design and recommends additional review of the proposed stormwater
mitigation plan.
59
Page 3 of 4
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
Regarding the proposed treatment of the
historic home, staff acknowledges the
applicant team’s diligent research and
assessment, and the effort to design a
sensitive addition. The photo at right shows
the current condition of the building,
including a large porch that faces Second
Street. In early conversations about the
property, it was stated that the new owner
appreciates the porch as a beneficial
feature of the home. The owner’s
willingness to prioritize historic preservation
goals, to remove the non-historic porch and
to invest in re-orienting the house with the
front door facing a street will make a very valuable contribution to the historic character of the City
and the neighborhood, and is appreciated.
In the attached findings on the applicable design guidelines, staff has identified areas of restudy
that are intended to strengthen this excellent project. It is recommended that HPC provide
direction to be addressed at the next hearing.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
The application was referred out to other City departments to preliminarily identify requirements
that may affect permit review. Applicant follow-up on these comments is needed prior to the next
hearing.
Zoning: As noted above, the project proposes to retain the floor area in excess of current
allowances. Zoning has indicated a concern that there is an error in floor area calculations in that
the applicant is to some degree over-estimating the square footage credit to be carried forward.
The calculations must be confirmed prior to the next hearing.
Engineering:
Prior to the next HPC hearing the following comments need to be addressed:
1. There is an existing transformer on the property that is shown on the survey but not in the
proposed drawings. Please show this transformer on the drawings or explain where it is
being relocated. Does the existing transformer have capacity for the addition and
increased use? Work with the City Electric Department to determine available capacity.
2. An easement must be established for the existing transformer. 3’ must be clear on the
sides of the transformer vault and 10’ clear at the front. If it is a 5’ vault this means the
easement must be 11’ wide by 8’ deep with the 10’ in the front remaining clear in the alley
ROW.
3. Applicant will be required to follow the requirements of a major development within the
Urban Runoff Management Plan. The conceptual HPC plan shows the installation of a
60
Page 4 of 4
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
drywell which demonstrate there is a path forward to meet stormwater requirements. Per
URMP standards the drywell lid should be at finished grade. Defer to HPC for variance
on drywell lid coverage.
As part of the building permit, resolution will be needed on the following items:
1. All utilities will need to be shown at building permit. If fire suppression is provided
calculations or a memo needs to be submitted verifying water service line size. There
does not appear to be major utility/tree conflicts so the project can move forward through
HPC approval.
2. The project is in the sidewalk deferred zone. A sidewalk is not required.
3. There is no curb and gutter on smuggler street. At building permit the project needs to
show there is conveyance for runoff from roadway.
4. A compliant stabilization plan needs to be put in place to account for the micropiles close
to the tree locations
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Historic Preservation Commission continue the project with the following
direction:
1. Eliminate the raised deck on the east side of the addition. An at grade patio of a limited
size would be more appropriate.
2. Indicate that the proposed drywell will be capped with a sod lid to eliminate visual impact.
3. Restudy the proposed new fenestration indicated on the north and west facades of the
Victorian, in areas where non-historic additions and alterations have affected the original
historic fabric. This fenestration should be subtly distinguishable as new, but compatible
in scale and placement with the original windows.
4. Propose a historically appropriate replica of a front door that would have been typical for
this type of home in Aspen.
5. Restudy the request to provide access onto the roof of the connector through a door added
to the south façade of the resource.
6. Provide additional study to accurately restore the front porch. 7. Revise the proposed foundation cladding to a painted metal, red brick or red sandstone as
appropriate to the historic palette.
8. Restudy the placement and design of the addition for greater compatibility.
9. Address referral comments provided by Zoning and Engineering.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution #__, Series of 2020
Exhibit A – Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria /Staff Findings
Exhibit B – Relocation Criteria/Staff Findings
Exhibit C – Setback Variation Criteria/Staff Findings
Exhibit D – Application
61
01 2020.11.13 HPC APPLICATION
62
XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXX
#5 REBAR &CAP FOUNDL.S. #24303#5 REBAR &CAP FOUND0.5' BELOW GROUNDL.S. #ILLEGIBLET.B.M. 7883.65'T5T6T21T22T20T23T19T18T17T14T12T24T1T3T7T8T9T10T15T2T4T13T16S 75°09'11" E 120.00'N 14°50'49" E 100.00'
S 14°5
0
'
4
9
"
W
1
0
0
.
0
0
'N 75°09'11" W 120.00'LOT F, BLOCK 41LOT G, BLOCK 41LOT H, BLOCK 41LOT I, BLOCK 415.0'22.4'F.F.7884.69'12.6'16.6'4.1'16.0'14.1'1.8'7.8'7.2'15.5'0.4'1.8'8.7'
8.0'
30.8'
24.7'0.8'7.9'F.F.7887.33'5.4'2.5'STOPSIGN3.7'4.6'10.2'10.0'24.9'DYHDYHENORT
H
S
E
C
O
N
D
S
T
R
E
E
T
75.62'
R
-
O
-
W
ASPH
A
L
T ELEC.METER#5 REBAR FOUNDL.S.# 33645BEARS N25°30'21"E 0.50'#5 REBAR FOUNDL.S.# 33645BEARS S42°19'51"W 1.03'STREETSIGNPFFLAGPOLEF.F.7887.34'FIREHYDRANTLIGHTPOLESTOPF.F.7887.29'F.F.7887.19'WRIDGE7918.58'24" DRYWELLRIM=7883.79'ALLEY BLOCK 4119.44' R-O-WGRAVELSMUGGLER STREET75.65' R-O-WASPHALTRIDGE7918.46'LANDSCAPELIGHTING TYP.IVBT11IRRIGATIONVALVE BOXELEC.BOXGAS VALVEUNDER BENCHTRASHENCLOSUREF.F.7887.23'F.F.7887.24'GAS STUBAT BBQDRIVEWAYEVE7895.91'EVE7895.9'EVE7896.04'EVE7895.90'HOTTUBRIDGE7915.62'F.F.7887.38'F.F.7887.44'WOOD DECKWOO
D
D
E
C
K
WOO
D
D
E
C
K BRICKSIDEWALKWOODDECKWOODDECKBRICKSIDEWALKSIDEWALKEVE7896.01'T T.V.DISHR-6 BUILDING SETBACK10'
10'R-6 BUILDING SETBACK5'R-6 B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
R-6 BUILDING SETBACK 5'MBMAILBOX7884.4'7884.7'7884.07885.3'7886.5'7885.4'7885.2'7884.9'7884.1'7884.1'7884.1'7884.5'7884.9'7884.2'LOT E, BLOCK 41
C.O.A. GPSMONUMENT #8C.O.A. GPSMONUMENT #9N84°08'42"W1233.00'S63°00'41"E761.90'PLANTEREVE7895.8'ELEC.TRANS.LOTS F-I, BLOCK 4112,000 S.F.±MULTI LEVELWOOD FRAME HOUSE423 N. 2ND STREET7884.7'WWWWWWWWWWWWW
W
W
W
W
W
WEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UECHIMNEY7918.5'PLANTERCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEEX-UEGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGEX-UE
EX-UE
EX-UE
EX-U
E
EX-U
E
EX-UE
EX-U
E
EX-U
E
EX-UE
EX-UE EX-UEF.F.7887.34'T T TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
TTTTT7884788578857886 78867885CTV CTVCTVCTV CTV CATV PED(TYP.)TELE.PED (TYP.)ELEC.TRANS.CATVPEDESTALWATERLINE TYP.UNDERGROUNDELECTRICTYP.EX-UEUNDERGROUNDTELEPHONETYP.UNDERGROUNDGAS TYP.UNDERGROUNDCABLE TYP.CATVPEDESTALAREA SUBJECTTO ENCROACHMENTLICENSE PER BK 727 PG 870REVOCABLE ENCROACHMENTLICENSE PER REC. NO. 521588ADJOINERPATIOSTEPS0'35.8'27'32.6'NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW, YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTIONBASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRSTDISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT INTHIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THECERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.ByNO.DateProject NO.RevisionDrawn By:Checked By:Date:Computer File:P.O. Box 1746Rifle, CO 81650Phone (970) 625-1954Fax (970) 579-7150www.peaksurveyinginc.comSNWEPeak Surveying, Inc.Since 2007190921 OF 1SMUGGLER FB3, LLC.CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADOIMPROVEMENT & TOPO SURVEYLOTS F-I, BLOCK 41, CITY OF ASPEN423 N. 2ND STREETJGJRNJANUARY 09, 2020092.DWG101/10/20UPDATE TREE CHARTJRNIMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYLOTS F-I, BLOCK 41, ORIGINAL TOWNSITE OF ASPENACCORDING TO THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLATRECORDED MARCH 08, 2006 IN PLAT BOOK 77 AT PAGE 96CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADOPROPERTY DESCRIPTIONLOTS F-I, BLOCK 41, ORIGINAL TOWNSITE OF ASPEN ACCORDING TO THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLATRECORDED MARCH 08, 2006 IN PLAT BOOK 77 AT PAGE 96, CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OFCOLORADO.NOTES:1) THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO RESERVATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, COVENANTS, BUILDING SETBACKS ANDEASEMENTS OF RECORD, OR IN PLACE AND EXCEPTIONS TO TITLE SHOWN IN THE TITLE COMMITMENTPREPARED BY LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY, ORDER NO. Q62010659-3, DATED EFFECTIVE AUGUST 16,2019.2) THE DATE OF THIS SURVEY WAS DECEMBER 18 & 23, 2019.3) BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS A BEARING OF S14°50'49"W BETWEEN THE NORTHEASTERLYCORNER OF LOT I, BLOCK 41, A #5 REBAR & CAP L.S. #ILLEGIBLE FOUND IN PLACE AND THESOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF LOT I, BLOCK 41, A #5 REBAR & CAP L.S. #24303 FOUND IN PLACE.4) UNITS OF MEASURE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON IS U.S. SURVEY FEET.5) THIS SURVEY IS BASED ON THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT RECORDED MARCH 08, 2006 IN PLAT BOOK77 AT PAGE 96 IN THE PITKIN COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER'S OFFICE AND CORNERS FOUND IN PLACE.6) ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON A GPS OBSERVATION UTILIZING THE WESTERN COLORADO RTVRN GPSNETWORK (1988 ORTHO DATUM) YIELDING AN ON-SITE ELEVATION OF 7883.65' ON A TBM AS SHOWN.CONTOUR INTERVAL EQUALS 1 FOOT.7) THERE WAS APPROXIMATELY 12" OF SNOW AND ICE ON THE GROUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY.8) ERROR ON CLOSURE FOR THIS SURVEY IS LESS THAN 1:15,000.NESW0306090120150180210240270300330P e ak
S
urveying, Inc.0101020405SUBJECTPROPERTYVICINITY MAPSCALE: 1" = 2000'IMPROVEMENT SURVEY STATEMENTI, JASON R. NEIL, HEREBY CERTIFY TO SMUGGLER FB3, LLC, THAT I AM A PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORLICENSED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF COLORADO; THAT THIS IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT ISTRUE, CORRECT AND COMPLETE BASED ON MY KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION AND BELIEF AS LAID OUT ANDSHOWN HEREON; THAT THIS IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT IS NOT A GUARANTY OR WARRANTY, EITHEREXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, THAT THIS IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT WAS MADE BY ME FROM AN ACCURATESURVEY OF THE REAL PROPERTY PERFORMED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION ON DECEMBER 18& 23, 2019 AND JANUARY 02, 2020; THAT, IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT, IRELIED UPON LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY, ORDER NO. Q62010659-3, DATED EFFECTIVE AUGUST 16,2019; THAT THE LOCATION AND DIMENSIONS OF ALL BUILDINGS, IMPROVEMENTS, EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OFWAY IN EVIDENCE OR KNOWN TO ME AND ENCROACHMENTS BY OR ON THE REAL PROPERTY ANDMATTERS REFERENCED IN SAID TITLE COMMITMENT CAPABLE OF BEING SHOWN ARE ACCURATELYSHOWN, AND THAT THIS PLAT IS IN ACCORDANCE OF AN IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT AS SET FORTH INC.R.S. §38-51-102(9). DATED: JANUARY 10, 2020 BY:___________________________________ JASON R. NEIL, P.L.S. NO. 37935 FOR AND ON BEHALF OF PEAK SURVEYING, INC.COL
O
R
ADO LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL LAND
S
U
RVEYOR
JAS
O
N R. NEIL3793563
01 2020.11.13 HPC APPLICATION
64
01 2020.11.13 HPC APPLICATION01 2020.11.13 HPC APPLICATION
65
01 2020.11.13 HPC APPLICATION
66
01 2020.11.13 HPC APPLICATION
67
01 2020.11.13 HPC APPLICATION
68
01 2020.11.13 HPC APPLICATION69
01 2020.11.13 HPC APPLICATION70
01 2020.11.13 HPC APPLICATION
71
01 2020.11.13 HPC APPLICATION
72
01 2020.11.13 HPC APPLICATION
73
01 2020.11.13 HPC APPLICATION
74
01 2020.11.13 HPC APPLICATION
75
01 2020.11.13 HPC APPLICATION
76
01 2020.11.13 HPC APPLICATION
77
01 2020.11.13 HPC APPLICATION
78
01 2020.11.13 HPC APPLICATION
79
01 2020.11.13 HPC APPLICATION
80
01 2020.11.13 HPC APPLICATION
81
01 2020.11.13 HPC APPLICATION
82
APPLICATION
83
01 2020.11.13 HPC APPLICATION
84
01 2020.11.13 HPC APPLICATION
85
01 2020.11.13 HPC APPLICATION
86
01 2020.11.13 HPC APPLICATION
87
01 2020.11.13 HPC APPLICATION
88
01 2020.11.13 HPC APPLICATION
89
01 2020.11.13 HPC APPLICATION
90
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC RESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 16 2020
Chairperson Greenwood opened the special meeting at 4:30 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Kara Thompson, Scott Kendrick, Roger
Moyer, Sherri Sanzone.
Commissioners not in attendance: Jeff Halferty
Staff present:
Amy Simon, Interim Planning Director/Historic Preservation Officer
Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner
Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney
Wes Graham, Deputy City Clerk
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Kendrick moved to approve the minutes from December 9,
2020; Ms. Thompson seconded. All in favor, motion carries.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Thompson stated that she is sad to see Ms. Greenwood
stepdown.
Ms. Greenwood said that she is sad to be leaving as well but the board is doing great. Ms.
Greenwood stated that congratulations are in order for Ms. Simon and her new position.
Ms. Simon thanked Ms. Greenwood and said that she is excited and will be advertising for a
Historic Preservation Planner position in the coming weeks.
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT: Ms. Thompson stated that she has worked on the project
being discussed previously and disclosed this information to Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson felt that this was not a conflict of interest since Ms. Thompson no longer is
associated with the project.
PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon said that communication is ongoing with project
monitors.
Ms. Yoon said that she will be reaching out to her monitors about new details.
CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Simon stated that yes one was issued to
Kenichi. She said the sushi restaurant will be expanding its footprint to address indoor dining and
COVID-19 restrictions.
STAFF COMMENTS: None
NEW BUSINESS: 925 King Street- Minor Subdivision Lot Split, Relocation, Demolition,
Historic Designation Boundary Line Amendment, Establishment of TDRs.
Mr. Moyer moved to continue 925 King Street to January 27, 2021; Mr. Kendrick seconded. All
in favor. Motion carried 3-0-2
NEW BUSINESS: 423 N. Second Street- Conceptual Major Development, Relocation. Bill
Guth and Ro from Rockett Design and Anne Mcnulty Owner.
Ms. Simon said that this is a really exciting project for HPC, that this is a really large Victorian
house, and that Aspen does not have too many of these structures left. She explained that the
house was relocated to its current location in the 50’s and for unknow reasons repositioned so the
front door faces the alley. Ms. Simon added that throughout the year's additions were added like
the wrap around porch, breakfast nook. She stated that the design team taking on this project has
worked on restoration projects successfully in Aspen, citing 124 West Hallam. Ms. Simon stated
that she appreciates how much time and research has gone into this project and the compromise
the owner has taken.
91
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC RESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 16 2020
Ms. McNulty stated that they are very appreciative of the opportunity to present the project. She
gave a brief description of her family's ties to Aspen. She said that the plan that will be present
will show a lot of improvements and be practical for her family's use.
Mr. Ro reviewed the location of the historic resource in the West End of Aspen and how the
resource sits on the lot. He showed an existing layout of the lot and indicated where key features
are like the front door opening into the alley, the added wrap around porch, and the garage
opening up on to Smuggler St. Mr. Ro reviewed the history of the resource and the original
location which was on Center St. and W. Francis S and then relocated and realigned to where it
sits today. Mr. Ro showed a historic timeline that indicated when any addition was added to the
historic resource and said that the obstacle that is at hand is removing the additions while a
historic resource is underneath. He showed a detailed list of the non-historic additions on the
outside and showed the careful probing work that was done on the internal structure to indicate
historic vs non-historic. Mr. Ro stated that the proposed plan would be to remove all the non-
historic additions, shift and rotate the historic resource lining the front entrance to Second St,
adding of the new addition that extends to the southwest corner with a one-story linking element
and garage opening to the alley. He said that due to the nature of the lot there will be a healthy
buffer between the new addition and the streets. He explained that from Second St. there is 63’-
1” buffer to the new addition and 30’-1” setback from the Victorian. He said that there is 84’-0”
from the Smuggler St. curb and just under 54’ from the front setback. Mr. Ro stated that the main
living area and hub will remain in the historic resource and the supporting facilities and garage
will make up the addition. Mr. Ro showed the proposed design for the exterior elevation showing
that the new addition will be 8’-5” lower than the resource. He showed renderings from all
angels to showcase how the resource and the new addition would sit together. Mr. Ro stated that
the flat roof form was chosen to keep a quiet form that compliments and is an appropriate
contrast to the gable pitch of the resource. He said that the material for the siding of the new
addition would be a long and skinny brick that is light and muted to complement the resource
siding. He added that there will be wood fenestrations to warm the building. Mr. Ro said that the
base of the historic home will have a painted metal base that is neutral.
Mr. Guth stated that one of the directives from the owners was to make this whole project
welcoming and friendly. He said that this is one of the last grand Victorian homes in Aspen so
there was extra thought and care when discussing and planning the new addition.
STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon stated that there are a few items that need to be restudied.
She said that the east side deck off the connecting element should be eliminated or at the least
brought down to a grade-level patio, to create a more sensitive outdoor living area. Ms. Simon
stated that the applicant submitted a stormwater mitigation plan that is simple however, there is a
dry well that is being proposed on the southeast corner of the property and typically any
foreground stormwater structures like this are to be avoided. She suggested that a sod lid could
help this situation and said that this can be resolved at the next review. Ms. Simon stated that
there is a concern with the fenestration on the non-historic bump-out that faces Smuggler St. She
explained that the plan shows for large windows that are not characteristic of the resource. Ms.
Simon pointed out that the non-historic front door will need to be redesigned to risible what was
once there, a half-light door. Ms. Simon stated that this project does not need to meet the 10’
length requirement for a linking element because the addition is not taller than the resource. She
added that there will need to be discussions about the screening element for the activities that are
planned on the roof of the connector. Ms. Simon said that the proposed metal foundation band
was expectable. She stated that there is a recommendation for a restudy for the location of the
92
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC RESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 16 2020
new addition. Ms. Simon explained moving the addition 10’ to the west so it is not encroaching
on the resource as much. She added that it is typical to see an addition come from the back not
the side of a resource and would like to give the resource as much room as possible. Ms. Simon
stated that without the gable roof form to link the two structures the material must, especially the
siding facing Second St. Ms. Simon stated that staff is recommending continuation of this
project.
Mr. Moyer asked if they discourage activities on a roof without a screening element.
Ms. Simon said that there have been times they have discouraged it, Especially when the new
addition is taller than the historical resource. She said in this case we are asking for a screening
element to obstruct partial visibility.
Mr. Moyer asked if the non-historic bump-out facing Smuggler St. should have different siding
to indicate the historic vs non-historic.
Ms. Simon stated that is not necessary nor would she want to call that much attention to it.
Ms. Greenwood stated that keeping the bump-out is wrong and does not understand the staff
position to keep it.
Ms. Simon stated that the position is, acknowledging how much is being removed from the
building successfully already, and understanding that the internal livability of that space is very
valuable.
Ms. Greenwood stated that this is a mistake and the applicant could make up the floor area in a
different area.
Mr. Kendrick asked how old is the bump-out.
Ms. Simon stated that it was added after the relocation in the ’50s.
Ms. Thompson asked if a variance is needed for the light well on a street-facing façade.
Ms. Simon stated that it is recessed behind the front-most façade.
Mr. Guth stated that he would like to address some of Ms. Simon's statements.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Greenwood stated that HPC should discuss the
guidelines 10.3 and 10.6.
Ms. Sanzone stated that it would be helpful to hear from the applicant in response to Ms. Simon's
presentation.
Mr. Guth stated that the form of the new addition was studied very heavily and had a hard time
finding something that did not compete with resources. He explained that the flat roof is quieter
and subtle. Mr. Guth said that they have no problem altering the east side deck to a stone patio
and flushing out the details. The sod lid on the dry well is not a problem and that is the intent. He
stated that the fenestration on the non-historic addition is a place holder to mimic the resource
and is intended to be refined for the final review. The front door was an oversite and is planned
to be a half-light door. Mr. Guth stated that replacing the glass railing on the connector roof with
a screen element is welcomed. He said that there will be a great detail in restoring the original
front deck. He said that the placement of the addition is in the best location. He explained that
the side where the connector is located has been altered so much already and the setbacks are
pretty large.
Mr. Moyer stated that the community will view this house as it sits now with a large welcoming
wrap-around porch. He warns of the uproar that happened with the Paepcke house project.
Mr. Kendrick stated that he agrees with Ms. Simon that this will be a successful project. He said
that the placement of the new addition is in the best placement possible. Mr. Kendrick stated that
93
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC RESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 16 2020
if the form will not be a gable relation then the material and fenestration are pretty far off. He
said he supports moving this forward while monitoring final details.
Ms. Sanzone stated that she agrees with Mr. Kendrick’s comments. She said that the placement
of the new addition works great with the resource and if moved would take away from the
simplicity of the design and not let the Victorian standout. Ms. Sanzone stated that she supports
the raised porch on the connector element. She explained that the site is very flat and to achieve
positive drainage a flat patio would make that very difficult. She commends the design team for
keeping all the historic Cottonwood and Aspen trees.
Ms. Thompson said that she agrees with the staff and previously made comments. She said that
form and fenestration is the biggest topic for this project. Ms. Thompson stated that the material
and fenestration should be restudied. She said that the relocation is very successful and the site
plan as well. Ms. Thompson said that she is not opposed to keeping the non-historic bump-out on
the Victorian in light of how much work is going into the restoration. Ms. Thompson stated that
she agrees with Ms. Sanzone about the east side deck however, it should not meet the resource.
Ms. Greenwood stated that she agrees with Ms. Thompson. She said that the form and
fenestration have not been met but the location of the new addition and the linking element is
perfect. Ms. Greenwood said the relationship between the new architecture and the old
architecture is pretty strong when viewed on Second St. except for 10.3 in the design guideline.
She explained that in 10.3 a corner lot new addition cannot deviate in form from the historic
resource. Ms. Greenwood further explained since the project does not meet the guideline it must
be continued and restudied. Ms. Greenwood asked the board how they feel about continuation in
regards to design guidelines.
Mr. Kendrick stated that there is no need to continue, the applicant has addressed enough of the
issues that it can move forward.
Ms. Greenwood stated that they have not addressed 10.3 and 10.6. She said that the new addition
as a stand-alone is a great building however, with the resource there is no story to tell.
Mr. Kendrick asked if this issue could not be addressed with fenestration and materials.
Ms. Greenwood said that she droughts that they will do tiny little windows on a modern flat roof
building. She said that you almost have to do a roof form that relates to the resource citing 10.3.
Mr. Guth stated that these are guidelines and not strict rules. He reiterated that there has been
extensive study done on the form and believed that all competed with the resource.
Ms. Greenwood stated that Ms. Thompson and herself are architects, and they are sharing their
opinion on what will make this a better project.
Mr. Moyer stated that he would rather see the new addition be its own element and not fully
relate to the resource.
Ms. Greenwood disagreed with Mr. Moyer and stated that there does need to be a visual link
between the two.
Mr. Moyer said that is true and the project at hand, the new addition does not take away fr the
resource.
Ms. Thompson stated that how she interoperates the guidelines is not to the letter rather a
principle application. She said that there needs to be sensitivity to how the two relate.
Mr. Kendrick stated that he agrees with Ms. Thompson. He said it does not have to have a gable
and if you do that you will lose another part of 10.3 in terms of being subordinate and differential
and modest because you will be adding more mass to the additions.
Ms. Thompson said she agrees with Ms. Greenwood and the staff to continue.
94
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC RESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 16 2020
Ms. Sanzone stated that she is torn between moving forward and continuation. She said she
would support moving this forward. She explained that the applicant has heard HPC’s concerns
and trusts that they will be addressed.
Mr. Moyer stated that he is in support of moving this forward and has addressed almost all of the
staff's concerns.
Mr. Kendrick stated he agrees that this could move forward and with the feedback given they
will be able to address the concerns.
Ms. Greenwood stated that this is sending a strong message to architects that guidelines don’t
matter.
Mr. Kendrick stated that he does not agree with Ms. Greenwood that they are that far off the
guidelines.
Ms. Thompson stated that this does not set a precedent for the board.
Ms. Simon stated that the guideline will have to be addressed at final that the decision that is
being made now is for the form and that cannot be changed.
Ms. Greenwood said that her stance has changed since they have to meet the guideline
regardless.
Mr. Kendrick stated that he is reconsidering for a continuance so the applicant can address the
concern for the form if needed.
Ms. Greenwood stated that the staff’s recommendations are good.
Ms. Simon stated that she forgot to mention that there is a setback variance being asked for. She
explained that the garage, deck on the garage, and basement are intruding on the 10’ setback by
5’. Ms. Simon said that the staff supports the request.
Ms. Greenwood said that she always supports the alignment of the garage and basement. She
said that is just good building practices.
The board agreed with variance.
Ms. Sanzone moved to approve Resolution #027-2020 with added condition #3; Mr. Moyer
seconded.
Ms. Thompson asked if this was a resolution of approval or continuance.
Ms. Greenwood stated it was for approval as presented.
Roll Call: Mr. Kendrick, Yes; Mr. Moyer, Yes; Ms. Thompson, No; Ms. Sanzone, Yes, Ms.
Greenwood; Yes. All in favor, Motion carried 4-1.
Mr. Guth thanked Ms. Greenwood for her service on HPC and stated that it was a pleasure to
work with her.
Ms. Thompson asked if there could have a discussion in the new year about the approval process.
Mr. Moyer stated that he would like to have this discussion as well. He said he will miss Ms.
Greenwood.
Ms. Johnson thanked Ms. Greenwood for her service.
Mr. True thanked Ms. Greenwood for her service.
Adjourn: All in favor, Motion carried
95
RESOLUTION #27, SERIES OF 2020
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW INCLUDING
RELOCATION AND A SETBACK VARIATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
423 N. SECOND STREET, LOTS F, G, H AND 1, BLOCK 41, CITY AND TOWNSITE
OF ASPEN
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-14-003
WHEREAS, the applicant, Smuggler FB3, LLC, P.O. Box 2097, Naples, FL 34102, represented
by Bill Guth and Ro Rocket Design, has requested HPC approval for Conceptual Major
Development, Relocation and a Setback Variation for the property located at 432 N. Second
Street, Lots F and G, H and I, Block 41, City and Townsite of Aspen; 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, HPC must 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; and
WHEREAS, for approval of Relocation, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen
Municipal Code Section 26.415.090.C, Relocation of a Designated Property; and
WHEREAS, for approval of Setback Variations, the application shall meet the requirements of
Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.110.C, Setback Variations; and
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, a staff analysis report, evidence presented at the
hearing and public comments, HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or
continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision.. At their
hearing on December 16, 2020, HPC found the application to be consistent with the review
standards and granted approval with conditions by a vote of 4 to 1.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
Section 1: Approvals
HPC hereby approves the proposed project with the following conditions:
1. A rear yard setback variation is granted to allow the structure to sit within 5' of the rear lot
line, above and below grade.
2. As part of the approval to relocate the historic house on the site, the applicant will be
required to provide a financial security of $30,000 until the house is set on the new
IIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIII II IIII IIIII IIIII IIIIIIIII IIIII IIII
RECEPTION#: 672889, R: $18.00, D: $0.00
DOC CODE: RESOLUTION
Pg 1 of 2, 0112512021 at 02:18,27 PM
Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
HPC Resolution #27, Series of 2020
Page 1 of 2
96
foundation. The financial security is to be provided with the building permit application,
along with a detailed description of the house relocation approach.
3. 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 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.
Section 2: Material Representations
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation
presented before the Community Development Department, the Historic Preservation
Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development
approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by
other specific conditions or an authorized authority.
Section 3: Existine Litieation
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4: Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be
deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 16th day of December,
2020.
AE
d as to Form•
e JoAssistant City Attorney ATTEST:
Wes
Graham, Deputy City Clerk ApCet:
Gretq
Greenwo air HPC
Resolution #27, Series of 2020 Page
2 of 2
97
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor Torre and City Council
FROM:Nancy Lesley, Interim Wheeler Opera House Executive Director
THROUGH:Jim True, City Attorney
Diane Foster, Assistant City Manager
MEMO DATE:January 28, 2021
MEETING DATE:February 9, 2021
RE:Ordinance #2, Series of 2021
Updating Wheeler Advisory Board Ordinance - Second reading
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:Staff is requesting Council adopt the latest Ordinance as the
guiding document for the Wheeler Advisory Board.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND: On January 27, 2020 the Wheeler Advisory Board
had a joint meeting with City Council and requested changes be made to the current
guiding document. At that meeting, the latest Ordinance was not being referenced.
DISCUSSION:Ordinance #2, Series of 2021, is designed to repeal and reenact the
previous actions of the City Council in establishing a Board of Advisors for the Wheeler
Opera House, updating and changing some issues that were raised in the previous work
session.
This is the second reading for this Ordinance. Council passed this on the first reading at
the Council meeting on January 26, 2021, requesting the following language be added
“Notice by email shall be deemed acceptable.” On August 5th Jim True discussed the
changes proposed, using the correct Ordinance, with the Wheeler Advisory Board and
received approval to move forward and ask Council to adopt this proposed Ordinance. A
primary change requested by the Wheeler Advisory Board is the ability adopt or modify
the Wheeler’s Mission Statement. The proposed Ordinance allows the Wheeler Advisory
Board to make a change to the Mission Statement, but only with City Council approval.
The new ordinance will also reflect the “Advisory” status of the Advisory Board.
ALTERNATIVES:Council could decline to adopt the new ordinance and Ordinance 50
would be the guiding document for the Wheeler Advisory Board.
RECOMMENDATIONS:Staff recommends using the proposed Ordinance to guide the
Wheeler Advisory Board.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
98
ORDINANCE NO. 2
(Series of 2021)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 50
(SERIES OF 2013) AND RE-ENACTING AN ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE THE AUTHORITY AND
DIRECTION FOR THE WHEELER BOARD TO BE GUIDED BY THE ADOPTED WHEELER
MISSION AND GOAL STATEMENTS, TO RECONFIRM THE COMPOSITION OF THE WHEELER
BOARD AND TO ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR POSITION AS A BOARD OF ADVISORS OF THE
WHEELER OPERA HOUSE TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen owns the historic structure known as the Wheeler Opera
House, located at the corner of South Mill Street and East Hyman Avenue in the City of Aspen,
Colorado, and has the right and responsibility to manage the same; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did appoint a Board of Directors of the Wheeler Opera House to
undertake the management of the Wheeler Opera House in accordance with Ordinance No. 10 (Series
of 1982); and
WHEREAS, the City Council repealed Ordinance No 10 (Series of 1982) and re-enacted an
ordinance (Ordinance 63 of 1992) to clarify that the Board of Directors is to function as an advisory
board and not a managing board; and
WHEREAS, the City Council repealed Ordinance No.63 (Series of 1992) and re-enacted an
ordinance (Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2004) to change the powers and duties of the Board of Directors
to clarify its role in establishing policies for the Wheeler Opera House and to expand the membership
of the Board of Directors fromseven (7) to nine (9) members; and
WHEREAS, the City Council repealed Ordinance No.5 (Series of 2004) and re-enacted an
ordinance (Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2005) to decrease the membership of the Board of Directors
from nine (9) to seven (7) members, one of which was designated as a youth representative, and
modified the qualification requirements to eliminate members or candidates that have a conflict of
interest as described in the City Charter (Section 4.7) as “a substantial personal or financial interest” in
the Wheeler Opera House; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance #50, Series of 2013, removed the designation of one of the voting
members as a youth representative and returned such board seat to another community representative;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council, at the request of the Wheeler Board, desires to readopt and
codify all pertinent provisions outlined in the previous ordinances and provide within this Ordinance
the authority and direction for the Wheeler Board to be guided by the adopted Wheeler Mission and
Goal Statements and to acknowledge their position as a Board of Advisors to the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Ordinance #50, Series of 2013, is hereby repealed, and the following is enacted:
99
Section 1. Establishment of the Board of Advisors.
There is hereby established the Board of Advisors of the Wheeler Opera House for the City of Aspen,
Colorado, which Board of Advisors shall serve for an indefinite term and at the pleasure of the City
Council. This board shall also be known as The Wheeler Advisory Board.
Section 2. Composition; Term; Qualification.
The Board of Advisors shall be constituted as follows:
(a) Board of Advisors of the Wheeler Opera House shall consist of seven (7) regular
members and one (1) alternate member, all of whomshall serve overlapping three (3)-year terms.
The Board shall be appointed by the City Council with all appointees designated as at-large
appointees who shall be selected primarily for their knowledge of and experience in the
performing arts and/or financial, management or marketing capabilities.
(b) Except for the filling of vacancies, all terms of appointment shall be for three-year periods,
commencing at the time of appointment.
(c) The Aspen Music Festival and School (AMFS) or its successor organization that may have the
right to the exclusive use of the Wheeler Opera House during the summer season, as per contract
through August 2034, shall appoint a representative to fill a permanent, non-voting, ex-officio
seat on the Board of Advisors. By virtue of AMFS’s Wheeler Opera House management
responsibilities for a significant portion of the year, the AMFS representative shall be entitled to
participate in any of the activities and deliberations of the Board but shall not vote.
(d) All members of the Board of Advisors shall serve at the pleasure of the City Council and may be
removed by majority vote thereof.
(e) The Board of Advisors is declared not to be a permanent board within the meaning of Section
8.2 of the Charter of the City of Aspen and, therefore, there shall be imposed no age or residency
requirement for membership on the Board of Advisors nor shall candidates for appointment be
required to be qualified electors.
Section 3. Powers and Duties.
Generally, the Board of Advisors is empowered to advise the City of Aspen on the planning
and policy related to the daily and long-term operations of the Wheeler Opera House, guided by the
adopted Wheeler Mission and Goal Statements, as may be amended from time to time by the Board of
Advisors and approved by City Council . These advisement duties shall include the following:
(a) Recommend scheduling policy, priorities and rates for the theatre operations; and
(b) Recommend operating policy and rental rates for the commercial space in the Opera
House building.
Section 4. Rules of Procedure.
(a) A quorum to transact the business of the Board of Advisors shall consist of four (4)
members.
100
(b) At its first meeting (which shall be called by the City Manager), the Board of
Advisors shall elect a chairperson, vice-chairperson, and secretary.
(c) The Board of Advisors shall establish regular meeting times and days. Special meetings
may be called by the chairperson or at the request of any two (2) members on at least
twenty-four (24) hours written notice to each member of the Board of Advisors, provided
that a special meeting may be held on shorter notice if all members of the Board of
Advisors waive notice in writing. No business shall be transacted at any special meeting
unless it has been stated in the notice of such meeting. Notice by email shall be deemed
acceptable.
(d) All regular and special meetings of the Board of Advisors shall be open to the public
except for executive (closed door) meetings as are permitted by law. Citizens shall have a
reasonable opportunity to be heard and all minutes and other records of action of the
Board of Advisors shall be made available to the public.
(e) The Board of Advisors may adopt by-laws for the conduct of its business not inconsistent
with this ordinance and the Charter of the City of Aspen and shall adopt such rules of
procedures as it deems necessary.
Section 5. Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be
deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
Section 6. Public Hearing
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 9th day of February 2021, in the City
Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
INTRODUCED, READ, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 26
th day of January 2021.
Torre, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nicole Henning, City Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed and ordered published this 9
th day of February 2021.
Torre, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nicole Henning, City Clerk
101
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Torre and Aspen City Council
FROM: Ben Anderson, Principal Long-Range Planner
Community Development
THROUGH: Phillip Supino, Community Development Director
MEMO DATE: February 2, 2021
MEETING DATE: February 9, 2021
RE: Resolution # 016, Series of 2021; Action Item
Council authorization to submit Code Amendment proposed by a
private party
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The Land Use Code (LUC) allows for private parties to propose
Amendments to the LUC if the process is authorized by City Council.
This resolution, if approved, would allow the applicant, in working with staff, to propose a
formal LUC Amendment that would then utilize the typical provisions and process for
amending the LUC. Specifically, the resolution would do the following:
1)Authorize submission of a Land Use Application for a proposed LUC Amendment.
This does not suggest or infer that Council would approve the Code Amendment –
only that the process could be pursued.
2)Establish Council expectations for degree of outreach/input in amendment
process.
3)Establish if applicant shall pay LU application fees.
Staff recommends Council support the applicant’s request to pursue an amendment to
the LUC by approval of Resolution # 016, Series of 2020.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND: In late 2020, Community Development staff received
a request from Chris Bendon of BendonAdams, LLC (on behalf of a client) to consider the
possibility of amending the LUC to accommodate multi-family housing on lots less than
6,000 square feet in the Residential Multi-Family (R/MF) and Residential Multi-Family-A
(RMFA) Zone Districts. Unlike other zone districts, RMF and RMFA have a scaled
intensity (allowable floor area) depending on the lot size and proposed density (# of units).
This relationship was created specifically to encourage multi-family housing. Due to the
intersection of the current zone district limitations and the non-conformities chapter, on a
lot of less than 6,000 square feet in these zone districts, the only allowed use would be a
single-family residence.
102
Staff Memo – Resolution # 016
Page 2 of 3
Exhibit A to this memo provides a narrative from Mr. Bendon that outlines and explains
the issue and the basis of the proposed amendment. In essence, the proposal would
amend three sections of the LUC: 26.312, Non-conformities; 26.710.090, Residential
Multi-Family; and 26.710.100, Residential Multi-Family. The outcome of an approved
code amendment would allow multi-family development on lots of less than 6,000 square
feet in these zone districts. In the proposal, all other dimensional limitations in the zone
districts would remain applicable and unchanged. It should be noted for Council’s
consideration that this type of development is currently allowed in these zone districts on
lots designated to Aspen’s Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. Despite the intent
of the RMF and RMFA zones to permit the development of multi-family housing, the same
development benefit is not afforded to non-historic lots.
DISCUSSION: Staff does believe that this type of amendment could be consistent with
conversations that Council has had related to coordination of the Land Use Code and
Affordable Housing goals. It is possible that the outcomes of this proposed amendment
would be included in an eventual package of recommendations from staff related to zone
district limitations on the development of affordable housing. However, this type of
change is planned for staff’s second phase of work (likely to be initiated in mid-2021) on
LUC/AH coordination. This timeline does not meet the needs of Mr. Bendon’s client, so
they seek the code amendment as a standalone item.
The evaluation for Council tonight is not whether the details of a proposed Amendment
are sound or if it might meet the established review criteria for amendments to the LUC.
Instead, it is whether the applicant can pursue a code amendment as specified in the
LUC.
Staff recommends the following (as outlined in Resolution #016):
1) Council authorize the applicant to pursue the Amendment to the LUC.
2) Council grants flexibility to staff and the applicant to identify appropriate
community outreach efforts but requires that any proposed amendment will first
receive a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission before
returning to Council for consideration.
3) The applicant shall submit a deposit for LU application fees as identified in
26.104.070; ($7,800 for 24 hours of Planning staff time).
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: N/A
ALTERNATIVES: Council may choose to deny Resolution #016 or approve with
amendments.
103
Staff Memo – Resolution # 016
Page 3 of 3
RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of Resolution # 016, Series of 2021,
as provided.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
EXHIBIT A: Narrative from BendonAdams regarding the proposed amendment
104
RESOLUTION # 016,
(SERIES OF 2021)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL PROVIDING
AUTHORIZATION FOR A PRIVATE PARTY TO PURSUE AN AMENDMENT TO
THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE.
WHEREAS,pursuant to multiple chapters of Title 26 (Land Use Code) of the City of
Aspen Municipal Code, The Community Development Department is given responsibility to
regulate broad range of development outcomes; and,
WHEREAS,Section 26.310.020, Amendments to the Land Use Code procedure for
amendment, of the Land Use Code allows for the submission of an application for a Land Use
Code Amendment from a private party if authorized by City Council; and,
WHEREAS,Community Development staff received a request related to a proposed
amendment from Chris Bendon of BendonAdams LLC, on behalf of a client, Tri Dal Real Estate,
Ltd; and,
WHEREAS,the Community Development Director has reviewed the request for the
proposed amendment and recommends that an application be authorized; and,
WHEREAS,at a regularly scheduled meeting on February 9, 2021, City Council
considered the request and by a X-X (X-X) vote, approved Resolution #016, Series of 2021,
authorizing that an application for an amendment can be submitted and reviewed; and,
WHEREAS,the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the
promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Authorization for Submission of a Code Amendment Application
A. This resolution authorizes BendonAdams, on behalf of Tri Dal Real Estate, Ltd., to submit an
application for a proposed amendment to the following Land Use Code Sections:
26.312.050 – Non-conforming lots of record
26.710.090 – Residential Multi-Family (RMF) Zone District
26.710.100 – Residential Multi-Family – A (RMFA) Zone District
B. The applicant and staff shall pursue an appropriate community outreach effort on the
proposed code amendment that will include a recommendation to City Council from the
Planning and Zoning Commission on the proposed amendment.
C. The applicant shall submit a deposit for land use review fees, consistent with 26.104.070,
Land Use application fees.
105
D. The authorization to submit an application does not provide or suggest Council support or
approval for a code amendment, only that an application may be submitted.
Section 2:
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the resolutions or ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior
resolutions or ordinances.
Section 3:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held
invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
thereof.
FINALLY, adopted this 9th day of February, 2021.
_______________________________
Torre, Mayor
ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________________________________
Nicole Henning, City Clerk James R True, City Attorney
106
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
January 11, 2020
Ben Anderson
Long-Range Planner
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Application for Code Amendment
Mr. Anderson,
Please accept this proposal to amend the City of Aspen Land Use Code (“Code”). The
City’s Residential Multi-Family (RMF) and Residential Multi-Family A (RMFA) Zone District
contain the City’s most-dense neighborhoods. These areas are also where the City should
expect high-density projects to be developed. In fact, the City’s zoning incorporates height
and floor area incentives for higher-density projects.
However, smaller parcels (sub-6,000 square feet) in the RMF zones appear restricted to
a single-family home. There are two specific sections of the Code that present a barrier
to developing multi-family residential housing in the City’s high-density zone districts: This
application respectfully requests to amend one or both of these sections to allow multi-
family developments in high-density residential zones and to align the Code with the goals
and objectives of the 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan and City Council initiatives. This
proposal is submitted on behalf of Tri Dal Real Estate, Ltd.
Introduction
The purpose of both the RMF and RMFA Zone districts is “for intensive long-term
residential purposes, short term vacation rentals, and customary accessory uses.”
Permitted uses include single family, duplex, and multi-family residential among other
accessory uses such as accessory dwelling units and home occupations. Both zone
districts are located within walking distance to transportation routes and are surrounded
by residential uses as illustrated in Figure 1.
107
The Code specifies a minimum lot size of 6,000sf for non-historic lots (and a minimum lot
size of 3,000sf for historic lots created as part of a historic landmark lot split) in the RMF
and RMFA Zone Districts. Non-historic lots that are smaller than 6,000sf are considered
“non-conforming lots of record” which are only allowed to be developed as a single-family
home. Non-conforming historic lots of record that contain a historic resource are allowed
to be developed pursuant to the permitted uses in the zone district. The specific language
in the Nonconformities Chapter is noted below, bold added for emphasis:
Sec. 26.312.050. - Nonconforming lots of record.
(a) General. A detached single-family dwelling and customary accessory
buildings may be developed on a lot of record if:
1) The lot of record is in separate ownership and not contiguous to lots in
the same ownership; and
2) The proposed single-family dwelling can be located on the lot so that
the yard, height, open space and floor area dimensional requirements
of the zone district can be met or a variance is obtained from said
dimensional requirements pursuant to Chapter 26.314.
(b) Undivided lot. If two (2) or more lots or combinations of lots with continuous
frontage in single ownership (including husband and wife as in all cases a single
owner) are of record as of November 22, 1971, regardless of time of acquisition
Figure 1: Aerial view of City of Aspen. RMF and RMFA are highlighted in beige, and the red line delineates the City of Aspen boundary.
108
and if all or parts of the lots do not meet the requirements established for lot width
and area, the lots shall be considered an undivided parcel and no portion shall be
used or occupied which does meet the width and area requirements of this Title.
(c) Historic property. A lot of record containing a property listed on the Aspen
Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures need not meet the
minimum lot area requirement of its zone district to allow the uses that are
permitted and conditional uses in the district subject to the standards and
procedures established in Chapter 26.415.
Proposal
A Code amendment to allow multi-family residential use on lots smaller than the minimum
lot area requirement in the RMF and RMFA zone districts is proposed. There are roughly
24 lots with RMF and RMFA designations that we have identified as not meeting the
6,000sf minimum size requirement, of which 9 are historic properties.
Coordination with Aspen Area Community Plan
Allowing multi-family residential on substandard lot sizes aligns with the 2012 Aspen Area
Community Plan that states a commitment to “achieving sustainable land use practices
that support a healthy year-round community and a thriving, vibrant visitor-based
economy.” Higher density residential compared to single family development is more
environmentally and socially sustainable.
The Housing Chapter of the Aspen Area Community Plan elaborates on the importance
of multi-family housing to the local economy: “we believe that a strong and diverse year-
round community and a viable and healthy local workforce are fundamental
cornerstones for the sustainability of the Aspen Area community.” In addition, the 2019
Greater Roaring Fork Regional Housing Study directly addresses the impact of
affordable housing on local employers and on local employees: “In a key finding from
the research, there is broad agreement among employers of all sizes that affordable
housing is a problem for residents. This opinion is shared by residents. Most employers
feel that affordable/employee housing is a serious issue, with 28% rating it as ‘the most
critical problem in the area,’ and 48% rating it as ‘one of the more serious problems.’”
Permitting only single-family homes on substandard lot sizes, as the Code is written
today, excludes the potential for onsite affordable housing in the RMF and RMFA zone
district.
Mass and Scale Impacts
Amending the Code to allow multi-family residential calls into question potential concerns
about mass, scale, and neighborhood compatibility with high density buildings on small
(less than 6,000sf) lots. Mitigation requirements in the current Code determine maximum
density for a lot – for example, onsite parking standards are the most influential
requirement to establishing maximum potential density for a lot. There are only so many
8.5 feet x 18 feet parking spaces that will fit across the rear of a small lot; and the Code
has a 1 space per unit mitigation requirement which means that smaller lots will be limited
in the number of units that can be parked onsite.
109
The existing floor area and height limitations in the RMF and RMFA Districts are based on
density and lot size which results in smaller projects on smaller lots. More units equal a
higher allowable floor area with a maximum floor area cap of 1.5:1, and maximum height
is also based on density and has a limit of 32 feet. These restrictions encourage density
but at the same time encourage neighborhood compatibility by relating floor area directly
to lot size.
Overall, current mitigation requirements, design standards, and zone district requirements
control density, and in turn, keep mass and scale of multi-family residential projects within
reason. A Code amendment to allow multi-family projects on lots smaller than 6,000sf
should not result in large projects that are out of scale with the neighborhood.
We look forward to a policy level discussion with City Council and Community
Development about this topic. The proposed concept is simple with an expected positive
impact on the community and affordable housing goals. Current Code limitations and
restrictions already in place control unintended consequences associated with allowing
multi-family on smaller lots. Thank you for your consideration of this amendment and
please reach out with any questions or for additional analysis or information.
Sincerely,
Chris Bendon, AICP
BendonAdams, LLC
Attachments:
1. Land Use Application
2. Authorization to represent
3. Pre-application summary
110