HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20150413
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
April 13, 2015
5:00 PM
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Scheduled Public Appearances
a) Outstanding Employee Award Presentation (Black Diamond Award)
b) Proclamation - Architecture and Landscape Architecture Month
IV. Cit izens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues
NOT on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes)
V. Special Orders of the Day
a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments
b) Agenda Deletions and Additions
c) City Manager's Comments
d) Board Reports
VI. Notice of Call -ups
a) Notice of HPC approval: 110 E. Bleeker Street
b) Notice of HPC approval:134 W. Hopkins Ave.
VII. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion)
a) Resolution #38, Series of 2015 - Clarification to Transportation Impact Analysis
(TIA) Guidelines
b) Resolution #33, Series of 2015 - Parks Dept. Ventrac Tractor Purchase
c) Resolution #40, Series of 2015 - Revision to the EOTC 2015 Budget
d) Resolution #39, Series of 2015 - Animal Resistant Recycling and Trash
Enclosures
e) Minutes - March 16, 2015
VIII. First Reading of Ordinances
a) Ordinance #11, Series of 2015 - Public Projects Code Amendment
b) Ordinance #12, Series of 2015 - Supplemental Budget
IX. Pu blic Hearings
a) Resolution #37, Series of 2015 - Policy Resolution - HPC Work Sessions and
associated code amendments
b) Ordinance #10, Series of 2015 - 530 W. Hallam Historic Landmark Lot Split
c) Resolution #41, Series of 2015 - Lift One Lodge - Extension of Vested Rights
X. Action Items
a) Executive Session - 24-6-402.(4)(f)(I) Personnel
XI. Adjournment
Next Regular Meeting April 27, 2015
COUNCIL’S ADOPTED GUIDELINES
• Invite the Community to Participate with Us in Solution-Making
• Tone and Tenor Matter
• Remember Where We’re Living and Why We’re Here
COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M.
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
THRU: STEVE BARWICK, CITY MANAGER,
ALISSA FARRELL, SPHR, HUMAN RESOURCES
FROM: SHIRLEY RITTER, KIDS FIRST DIRECTOR
MEMO DATE: APRIL 3 rd , 2015
MEETING DATE: APRIL 13 th , 2015
The City of Aspen is fortunate to have an employee like Trevor Brown. Trevor exemplifies the City of Aspen
values through his ability to incorporate quality, service, professionalism, integrity, honesty, effectiveness, fiscal
responsibility, communications and service to the community in his work every day.
Specific to this award Trevor has completed many maintenance projects at the Yellow Brick building that in the
past would have required an outside contractor to complete. He completes his projects independently and
always with a smile. Since Trevor’s employment in 2012, the Yellow Brick maintenance expenses have been
trending downward considerably. For 2014 Kids First was $21,000 dollars below our budgeted maintenance
service amount. This savings can be credited directly to Trevor’s outstanding work.
The following is a list, of only some of the additional maintenance jobs that Trevor completed during the past
year. Each of these examples are items that did not fall within his job description as a Maintenance Technician I.
Furthermore, for each task listed, Trevor completed with a positive approach and an exceptional skill level:
• Repaired the Yellow Brick’s complex heating system computer operations, security cameras and portions of
the door security system, and the handicap door, whenever necessary to ensure high quality customer
service.
• Determined problem areas such as uncovering the source of the air handler issues. Then, proactively
researched quality and cost effective maintenance solutions.
• Whether it be installing new heating valves or rebuilding the tracking for the gym door, Trevor has always
focused on improving the Yellow Brick Building through his initiative and focus on excellence.
In short, a quote collected on Trevor’s behalf sums it up nicely,
“As someone who benefited from not only Trevor’s knowledge, but also his willingness to share that knowledge,
I am reminded of a quote from Teddy Roosevelt: ‘Nobody cares how much you know, until they know how much
you care.’”
P1
III.a
PROCLAMATION
City of Aspen, Colorado
Incorporated 1881
WHEREAS, we are shaped to great extent by our built environment—buildings, public
spaces, streetscapes, and the interaction with our natural and unique environment
through thoughtful planning, design, and careful stewardship of our state’s land and
water resources and
WHEREAS, an essential element of the City of Aspen’s character is the quality of its
architecture, historic preservation and Aspen area community plan created in
collaboration with architects of the past and the present and
WHEREAS, landscape architects are responsible for creating public parks, public
squares and thoroughfares, site planning, redeveloping blighted areas and revitalizing
towns and enhancing historic preservation and
WHEREAS, The American Institute of Architects (AIA) Colorado West Chapter dedicated
to fostering design excellence by local architects and inspiriting the next generation of
design professionals through events such as Architecture Month; and
WHEREAS, the American Society of Landscape Architects and its Colorado chapter will
join with communities across America to undertake projects to promote landscape
architecture in classrooms and communities, and
WHEREAS, Architecture and Landscape Architecture Month is intended to celebrate the
importance of architectural and landscape design in people’s everyday lives, and
impacts how we live, work, play, and preserve our natural resources for future
generations.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, by the power vested in me as Mayor of the City of Aspen,
do hereby proclaim April, 2015 as
“ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE MONTH”
in the City of Aspen and urge all citizens to recognize and support the valuable and
important contributions of landscape and architectural design in our community.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused to be affixed
the official Seal of the City of Aspen this 13 day of April, 2015.
By order of the City Council This 13 th day of April, 2015.
ATTEST:_____________________ __________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
P2
III.b
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: Notice of HPC approval of Conceptual Major Development,
Demolition and Variances for 110 E. Bleeker Street, HPC Resolution
#11, Series of 2015
MEETING DATE: April 13, 2015
BACKGROUND: On March 11, 2015, the Historic
Preservation Commission approved Conceptual
Major Development, Demolition and Variances for a
project at 110 E. Bleeker Street. 110 E. Bleeker is a
Victorian era home that was significantly altered many
years ago as a result of the demolition of the original
front porch, removal of the original street-facing bay
window, and application of paint to the masonry walls.
The house is currently very difficult to see from the
street due to spruce trees that were planted in the public
right-of-way within the last decade.
Fortunately, there are photographs (example at right),
maps, and other information available that will assist a
new purchaser who proposes to restore the home. A new addition is to be built at the rear of the
property. A problematic garage that currently sits partially in the alley and partially on a neighbor’s
property will be demolished.
Drawings representing the Conceptual approval are attached as Exhibit A. HPC Final design
review is still needed. Within the Conceptual review, HPC granted a floor area bonus in
recognition of the restoration proposal, and setback variances to allow the new construction to be
placed behind the Victorian, which is not being re-positioned on the site. The HPC Resolution
and Minutes are attached as Exhibits B and C, respectively. The board approved the project by a
7-0 vote.
PROCEDURE : This is not a public hearing and no staff or applicant presentation will be made at
the April 13th Council meeting. If you have any questions about the project, please contact the
staff planner, Amy Simon, 429-2758 or amy.simon@cityofaspen.com. Pursuant to Section
26.412.040(B), City Council has the option of exercising the Call Up provisions outlined in
Section 26.412.040(B) within 15 days of notification on the regular agenda.
For this application, City Council may vote to Call Up the project at their April 13th or April 27 th
meeting. If City Council does not exercise the Call Up provision, the HPC Resolution shall
stand.
ATTACHMENTS :
Exhibit A: Conceptual Design
Exhibit B: Draft HPC Resolution #11, Series of 2015
Exhibit C: Draft HPC minutes from March 11, 2015
P3
VI.a
Scale:
ISSUE
A 1.0
3/10/15Plotted On:T
I
T
T
L
E
S
H
E
E
T
/
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
I
N
F
O
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N DSPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORKNOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USEWHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIEDAT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THEARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOESNOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVEBEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN06/20/12
1
1
0
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
"
B
R
I
C
K
V
I
C
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
/Volumes/PROJECTS MASTER - MINI/110 BLEEKER/ PLNS/110 BLEEKER 03.05.15.pln
0103
02
04
N
1A7.1
LOCATION
1A4.1
1
A5.1
PARCEL ID NUMBER:
ZONING:
SITE AREA:
BLDG USE:
OCC. GROUP:
CONST. TYPE:
CLIMATE ZONE:
FIRE SPRINKLERS:
LEGAL DESC'N:
273512437006
####
6,121 SQ. FT.
RESIDENTIAL
####
####
####
####
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN. BLOCK:
65 LOT: L AND LOT: M PLUS 121 SQ FT PER
LOT LINE ADJ WITH 114 EAST BLEEKER
STREET CONDOS
110 Bleeker Street "Brick Vic"
ABBREVIATIONS
MATERIAL LEGEND
VICINITY MAP
SHEET INDEXPROJECT TEAMAPPLICABLE CODES PROJECT DATA
ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS
A 1.0 TITLE SHEET / GENERAL INFO
A 1.1 SITE PLAN
A 1.2 FAR CALCULATION-PROPOSED
A 2.0 EXISTING FLOOR PLANS
A 2.1 EXISTING ELEVATIONS
A 2.2 EXISTING ELEVATIONS
A 3.1 BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
A 3.2 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
A 3.3 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
A 3.4 ROOF PLAN
A 4.1 SOUTH AND WEST ELEVATIONS
A 4.2 NORTH AND EAST ELEVATIONS
A 5.1 BUILDING SECTION
A 9.1 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS: BATH 4 & BATH 5
A 9.2 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS: MEDIA ROOM &LAUNDRY
A 9.3 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS: FAMILY ROOM & POWDER
A 9.4 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS: KITCHEN
A 9.5 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS: MASTER BATH 1
A 9.6 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS: MASTER BATH 2
A 9.7 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS: BATH 3
A 9.8 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS: MASTER TV####
OWNER:
ARCHITECT:
GENERAL CONTRACTOR:
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER:
LIGHTING DESIGNER:
ALL CODES REFERENCED ARE TO BE USED AS AMENDED
BY THE STATE OF COLORADO AND LOCAL JURISDICTION.
####
FAR (FLOOR AREA RATIO)
1. THESE DRAWINGS AND ANY ACCOMPANYING SPECIFICATIONS, AS
INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY WERE
PRODUCED IS CONSTRUCTED OR NOT. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT TO
BE REUSED OR REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM OUTSIDE OF THE PROJECT
CONTRACT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ARCHITECT.
2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO INSURE THAT
CONSTRUCTION CONFORMS TO ALL FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL AND
RELATED CODES AND PRACTICES. SKILLED AND QUALIFIED WORKMEN IN
THEIR ASSOCIATED TRADES SHALL PERFORM ALL WORK AT THE HIGHEST
STANDARD OF CRAFTSMANSHIP.
3. THE ARCHITECT WILL PROVIDE DETAILS AND/OR DIRECTION FOR
DESIGN INTENT WHERE IT IS NEGLECTED IN THE DOCUMENTS OR
ALTERED BY EXISTING CONDITIONS.
4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONSDEPICTED IN THESE DOCUMENTS AND SHALL NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT OF
ANY DISCREPANCIES, OMISSIONS, AND/OR CONFLICTS PRIOR TO
PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. ALL DIMENSIONS ON STRUCTURAL
DRAWINGS SHALL BE CHECKED AGAINST ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS.
NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT AND ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO
PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK.
5. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. THE DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DRAWINGS.
6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING ALL
TRADES UNDER THEIR AUTHORITY WITH DRAWINGS AND/OR
SPECIFICATIONS.
7. THE OWNER AND/OR ARCHITECT SHALL APPROVE ANY “EQUAL”
MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, FIXTURES, ETC. PRESENTED BY THE
CONTRACTOR. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUPPLY THE ARCHITECT AND/OR
OWNER WITH SAMPLES OF ALL FINISH MATERIALS AND SHALL NOT
PROCEED WITH INSTALLATION UNTIL THE ARCHITECT AND/OR OWNER
ISSUES AN APPROVAL. ALL WORK MUST CONFORM TO THE APPROVED
SAMPLE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FORWARD ALL REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
AND VERIFICATIONS TO THE ARCHITECT WITH ADEQUATE TIME FOR
REVIEW AS NOT TO DELAY THE WORK IN PROGRESS.
8. IF REQUIRED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE BUILDING
DEPARTMENT WITH A CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN PRIOR TO
OBTAINING A BUILDING PERMIT.
9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS TO THE ARCHITECT
FOR WINDOWS, DOORS, CASEWORK, METAL DETAILING, STAIRS,
FIREPLACE, AND ANY OTHER WORK NOTED IN THE DOCUMENTS.
FABRICATION SHALL NOT PROCEED ON ANY OF THESE ITEMS UNTIL THE
CONTRACTOR RECEIVES APPROVED SHOP DRAWINGS FROM THE
ARCHITECT. ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE APPROVED SHOP
DRAWINGS.
10. THE DESIGN, ADEQUACY, AND SAFETY OF ERECTION BRACING,
TEMPORARY SUPPORTS, SHORING, ETC. SHALL BE THE SOLE
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED
BY THE ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE STABILITY OF THE STRUCTURE THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF
CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL CONFORM TO ALL FEDERAL, STATE, AND
LOCAL O.S.H.A. REGULATIONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAFETY AND CARE OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES
UNTIL THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED.
11. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REQUESTING
BUILDING INSPECTIONS AS APPLICABLE TO THE INTERNATIONAL
BUILDING / RESIDENTIAL CODE AND LOCAL ORDINANCES.
12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL OPENINGS THROUGH
WALLS, FLOORS, AND CEILINGS WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL, STRUCTURAL,
MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL, AND LIGHTING DRAWINGS. REFER
TO THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER FOR ALLOWABLE OPENING SIZES /
REQUIREMENTS IN STRUCTURAL MEMBERS.
13. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE STONE MASON’S
TAKE-OFFS AND WILL ASSUME THE RESPONSIBILITY OF COORDINATING
ANY ITEMS THAT REQUIRE CLARIFICATION DURING THE BIDDING
PROCESS.
14. THE ARCHITECT WILL VERIFY IN FIELD ALL LIGHTING FIXTURES,
SWITCHES, MECHANICAL GRILLES, REGISTERS, AND THERMOSTAT
LOCATIONS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ROUGH-IN
LIGHTING FIXTURES AND ILLUSTRATE SWITCH, REGISTER, AND GRILLE
LOCATIONS PRIOR TO THE ARCHITECT WALK-THROUGH.
15. ALL EXTERIOR PENETRATIONS SUCH AS GRILLES, BOILER FLAPS, ETC.
TO BE COPPER OR ENCLOSED BY COPPER FITTINGS.
- 2009 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE
- 2006 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE
- 2009 INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE
- PITKIN COUNTY LAND USE CODE
- PITKIN COUNTY BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION CODE
- PITKIN COUNTY PROPERTY RESOLUTIONS
OFFICE PHONE:
OFFICE FAX:
CONTACT:
KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
#Contact Address1
ASPEN, CO 81611
####
####
KIM RAYMOND / kim@krai.us
####
####
LIVABLE
LOWER LEVEL: 100 sf.
MAIN LEVEL: 1686 sf.
UPPER LEVEL: 1469 sf.
SUBTOTAL: 3255 sf.
GARAGE
MAIN LEVEL: 147 sf.
TOTAL: 3402 sf.
*REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL DOCUMENTS A1.2 AND A1.3
FOR THE FAR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION.
JST.JOIST
VINYL COMPOSITION TILEVCT
YARD
WROUGHT IRON
WOOD
WITHOUT
WITH
WEIGHT
WEATHER PROOF
WAINSCOT
WINDOW
WATER CLOSET
VERTICAL
VOLT AMPERE
VERIFY IN FIELD
VAPOR BARRIER
URINAL
UNFINISHED
TYPICAL
TRANSFORMER
TOILET
THROUGH
THICK
THREADED
THRESHOLD
TELEPHONE
TELEVISION OUTLET
TUBE STEEL
TOP OF WALL
TOP OF SLAB
TOP OF MASONRY
TOP OF JOIST
TOP OF FOOTING
TOP OF CURB
TOP OF BEAM
TOP OF
TELEPHONE MOUNTING BOARD
THROUGH BOLT
TONGUE AND GROOVE
SYSTEM
SYMMETRICAL
SWITCH
SUSPENDED
STEEL
STANDARD
SOUND TRANSMISSION CLASS
SQUARE INCHES
SQUARE FEET
SPEAKER
SPECIFICATIONS
SPACE
SIMILAR
SHEATHING
SHEET
SERVICE ENTRANCE SECTION
SECTION
SCHEDULE
SELF CLOSING
STAINLESS STEEL
SKYLIGHT
SHUT OFF VALVE
SMOKE DETECTOR
SOLID CORE
REMOVE
ROOM
REVISION
RETURN
REQUIRED
REINFORCED
REFERENCE
REFRIGERATOR
RIGHT OF WAY
ROUGH OPENING
ROOF DRAIN OVERFLOW
ROOF DRAIN LEADER
RADIUS
QUANTITY
QUARRY TILE
POWER
POLYVINYLCLORIDE
PARTITION
POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH
POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT
PREFABRICATED
PERFORATED
PORCELAIN
PLYWOOD
PLUMBING
PLASTIC
PLATE
PLASTER
PHASE
PERPENDICULAR
POINT OF CONNECTION
PLASTIC LAMINATE
PROPERTY LINE
PRECAST CONCRETE
OPPOSITE
OPENING
OVER HEAD
OUTSIDE AIR INTAKE
OUTSIDE RADIUS
ORNAMENTAL IRON
OVER HANG
OUTSIDE DIAMETER
ON CENTER
NOMINAL
NUMBER
NAILER
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NON-CORROSIVE METAL
NOT TO SCALE
NOT IN CONTRACT
MULLION
METAL
MODULAR
MISCELLANEOUS
MINIMUM
MANUFACTURER
MANUFACTURING
MEDIUM
MECHANICAL
MAXIMUM
MATERIAL
MASONRY
MARBLE
MASONRY OPENING
MALLEABLE IRON
MANHOLE
MACHINE BOLT
LAMINATED VENEER LUMBER
LIGHTING
LIGHT
LINOLEUM
LINEAR
LEAD
LAVATORY
LATERAL
LAMINATE
LINEAR FEET
LIGHT EMITTING DIODE
KNOCK OUT
KILN DRIED
KNOCK DOWN
JOINT
JUNCTION
JUNCTION BOX
INTERIOR
INSULATION
INCLUDE, INCLUSIVE
IMPREGNATED
INTERMEDIATE METALLIC CONDUIT
ISOLATED GROUND
IDENTIFICATION
INSIDE FACE
INSIDE DIAMETER
INTERCOM OUTLET
HYDRAULIC
HOT WATER
HEATING, VENTILATING & AIR CONDITIONING
HEATER
HORIZONTAL
HEIGHT
HARDWARE
HARDBOARD
HANDICAPPED
HOLLOW METAL
HOLLOW CORE
HOSE BIBB
GYPSUM BOARD
GYPSUM
GALVANIZED RIGID TUBING
GATE VALVE
GRADE MARK
GLUE LAMINATED BEAM
GLASS
GROUND FAULT INTERRUPTER
GROUND FAULT CIRCUIT INTERRUPTER
GARAGE
GALVANIZED
GAUGE
GALVANIZED IRON
FURNISH
FOOTING
FIRE PROOF
FLUORESCENT
FLOORING
FLOOR
FINISH
FIRE HOSE CABINET
FOUNDATION
FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION
FIRE ALARM CONTROL PANEL
FABRICATE
FIBERGLASS
FLOOR SINK
FACE OF
FIELD NAILING
FIRE EXTINGUISHER
FLOOR DRAIN
FLOOR CLEAN OUT
FAN COIL
FIRE ALARM
EXTERIOR
EXISTING
EXHAUST
EXCAVATE
ELECTRIC DRINKING COOLER
EVAPORATIVE COOLER
ESTIMATE
EQUIPMENT
EQUAL
ELECTRICAL NON-METALLIC TUBING
ELECTRICAL METALLIC TUBING
ELECTRICAL METALLIC CONDUIT
ELEVATOR
"ELECTRIC, ELECTRICAL"
ELEVATION
EACH
EACH WAY
END NAILING
EXPANSION JOINT
EXHAUST FAN
EXPANSION ANCHOR
DOOR
DOWN
DEAD LOAD
DIMENSION
DIAGONAL
DIAMETER
DEMOLITION
DOUBLE
DISHWASHER
DOWN SPOUT
DECOMPOSED GRANITE
DRINKING FOUNTAIN
PENNY
COPPER
CONTRACTOR
CONTINUOUS
CONSTRUCTION
CONCRETE
COMBINATION
COLUMN
CENTERED
CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT
CLEAR
CLOSET
CAULKING
CEILING
CENTERLINE
CIRCUIT BREAKER
CHANNEL
CUBIC FEET PER MINUTE
CERAMIC
CEMENT
CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION
CAMBER
CABINET
CERAMIC TILE
CLEAN OUT
CONTROL JOINT
CAST IN PLACE
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS
CONCRETE ASBESTOS PIPE
BRONZE
BEARING
BRASS
BEAM
BLOCKING
BLOCK
BUILDING
BOARD
BACK OF CURB
BUILT UP
BOTTOM OF FOOTING
BOTTOM OF
BOUNDARY NAILING
BENCH MARK
ANGLE
AMERICAN WIRE GAUGE
AVERAGE
ASPHALT
ANNEALED
ALTERNATE
ALUMINUM
AIR HANDLER UNIT
ABOVE GRADE
ADDITION or ADDENDUM
ACOUSTICAL CEILING TILE
ACOUSTIC
ASBESTOS-CEMENT BOARD
ABOVE
ACRYLONITRILE-BUTADIENE-STYRENE
AGGREGATE BASE COURSE
AIR CONDITIONING
ABOVE FINISHED GRADE
ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR
ANCHOR BOLT
AMPERES
YD.
W.I.
WD.
W/O
W/
WT.
WP
WCT
WDW
WC
VERT.
VA
V.I.F.
V.B.
UR
UNF.
TYP.
TRANS.
TLT.
THRU
THK.
THD.
TH.
TEL.
T.V.
T.S.
T.O.W.
T.O.S.
T.O.M.
T.O.J.
T.O.F.
T.O.C.
T.O.B.
T.O.
T.M.B.
T.B.
T & G
SYS.
SYM
SW
SUSP.
STL.
STD.
STC
SQ. IN.
SQ. FT.
SPKR.
SPECS
SPA.
SIM.
SHT'G.
SH
SES
SECT.
SCHED.
SC
S/S
S/L
S.O.V.
S.D.
S.C.
RMV.
RM
REV.
RET.
REQ'D.
REINF.
REF.
REF
R.O.W. or R/W
R.O.
R.D.O.
R.D.L.
R
QTY.
Q.T.
PWR.
PVC
PTN.
PSI
PSF
PREFAB.
PERF.
PORC.
PLYWD.
PLUMB.
PLAS.
PLT.
PL.
PH or Ø
PERP. or
P.O.C.
P.LAM.
P.L.
P.C.
OPPO.
OPNG.
OH
OAI
O.R.
O.I.
O.H.
O.D.
O.C.
NOM.
NO.
NLR.
NFC
NCM
N.T.S.
N.I.C.
MUL
MTL.
MOD
MISC.
MIN.
MFR.
MFG.
MED.
MECH.
MAX.
MAT'L
MAS.
MAR.
M.O.
M.I.
M.H.
M.B.
LVL
LTG.
LT.
LINO.
LIN.
LD.
LAV
LAT.
LAM
L.FT.
L.E.D.
KO
KD
K-D
JT.
JCT
J-BOX
INT.
INSUL.
INCL.
IMPG
IMC
IG
ID
I.F.
I.D.
I.C.
HYD.
HW
HVAC
HTR
HOR.
HGT.
HDW
HDBD.
H/C
H.M.
H.C.
H.B.
GYP. BD.
GYP.
GRC
GM
GM
GLB
GL
GFI
GFCI
GAR.
GALV.
GA.
G.I.
FURN.
FTG.
FP
FLUOR.
FLG.
FL
FIN.
FHC
FDN.
FDC
FACP
FAB.
F/G
F.S.
F.O.
F.N.
F.E.
F.D.
F.C.O.
F.C.
F.A.
EXT.
EXIST. or E
EXH.
EXC
EWC
EVAP.
EST.
EQUIP.
EQ.
ENT
EMT
EMC
ELEV.
ELECT.
EL
EA.
E.W.
E.N.
E.J.
E.F.
E.A.
DR
DN.
DL
DIM.
DIAG.
DIA. or Ø
DEMO
DBL.
D/W
D.S.
D.G.
D.F.
d
CU
CONTR.
CONT.
CONST.
CONC.
COMB.
COL.
CNTRD.
CMU
CLR.
CLO.
CLKG.
CLG.
CL or C.L.
CKT. BKR.
CH
CFM
CER
CEM.
CCTV
CAM.
CAB
C.T.
C.O.
C.J.
C.I.P.
C.D.
C.A.P.
BRZ
BRG.
BR
BM.
BLKG.
BLK.
BLDG
BD.
B/C
B.U.
B.O.F.
B.O.
B.N.
B.M.
AWG
AVG
ASPH.
ANL
ALT.
AL. or ALUM.
AHU
AG
ADD.
ACT
ACOU.
ACB
ABV.
ABS
ABC
A/C
A.F.G.
A.F.F.
A.B.
A
SLOPE TO DRAINS.T.D.
GENERAL NOTES
FINISH WOOD
WOOD STUD
BLOCKING
STEEL
STEEL STUD
FRAMED WALL
BATT INSULATION
OR
PLYWOOD
PLYWOOD
OR
GLU-LAM
CONCRETE
STONE
CMU
SAND
GRAVEL
GWB
COMPACTED SOIL
SPRAY-FOAM INSULATION
RIGID INSULATION
GRID LINE
BREAK LINE
MATCH LINE
REVISION
A9.1
ELEVATION MARKER
SECTION MARKER
DETAIL CUT
DETAIL
1
A6.1
ELEVATION
100
A
ROOM NAME
101
INTERIOR ELEVATION MARKER
ELEVATION NUMBER
SHEET NUMBER
SECTION NUMBER
SHEET NUMBER
DETAIL NUMBER
SHEET NUMBER
SPOT ELEVATION
DOOR MARK
WINDOW MARK
ROOM NAME AND NUMBER
ELEVATION NUMBER
SHEET NUMBER
SYMBOL LEGEND
CONSTRUCTION SET
REVISION #1
STRUCTURAL
S 1.1 ####
ELECTRICAL
E 1.1 ####
LIGHTING
LP-A ####
P
4
V
I
.
a
Scale:
ISSUE
A 1.1
3/10/15Plotted On:S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N DSPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORKNOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USEWHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIEDAT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THEARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOESNOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVEBEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN06/20/12
1
1
0
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
"
B
R
I
C
K
V
I
C
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
/Volumes/PROJECTS MASTER - MINI/110 BLEEKER/ PLNS/110 BLEEKER 03.05.15.pln
123456789
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
123456789
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
W
1
6
W1
5
W
1
4
D1
9
W
1
2
W
1
3
W
1
1
D1
2
D
1
4
W1
0
W
0
9
13
2
W0
5
W0
6
W
2
2
D1
3
D1
5
D
1
7
D1
6
D
1
1
D1
8
W5
3
W
5
4
W1
8
W1
7
D
D
B
B
E
E
F
F
G
G
22
33
44
A
A
11
55
123
N
2.
5
2.
5
1
0
1
/
2
"
3
'
-
4
1
/
8
"
1
1
'
-
7
1
3
/
1
6
"
7
'
-
9
3
/
8
"
3
'
-
1
1
/
8
"
2
4
'
-
5
/
1
6
"
1
8
'
-
9
7
/
8
"
10
1
/
2
"
1
1
'
-
1
1
3
/
8
"
1
1
'
-
9
5
/
1
6
"
7
'
-
9
7
/
1
6
"
2
4
'
-
8
1
/
4
"
5
1
/
2
"
16
'
-
3
5
/
8
"
5
1
/
2
"
7
'
-
5
7
/
8
"
1
9
'
-
4
1
5
/
1
6
"
3
'
1
0
'
5
1
/
2
"
1
7
'
-
8
5
/
1
6
"
5
1
/
2
"
9
'
4
3
'
-
1
1
5
/
8
"
1
0
'
2
4
'
3
'
-
8
1
/
8
"
1
8
'
-
3
3
/
8
"
1
8
'
-
7
5
/
1
6
"
1
6
'
-
6
3
/
4
"
1
1
'
-
7
1
/
4
"
1
5
'
-
6
1
1
/
1
6
"
23
'
-
3
7
/
8
"
6
'
-
5
"
2
1
'
-
2
"
1
'
3
'
-
3
1
/
1
6
"
4
'
-
6
3
/
8
"
1
0
1
/
2
"
7
'
-
6
"
2
'
-
6
"
3'
-
5
1
1
/
1
6
"
8'
-
9
"
3
'
-
1
1
/
1
6
"
1
0
'
-
6
"
1
1
'
-
8
3
/
4
"
3
1
/
2
"
1
8
'
-
2
1
/
2
"
4
'
-
9
3
/
8
"
5
'
-
1
1
1
/
2
"
R
E
P
A
I
R
O
R
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
O
R
I
G
I
N
A
L
FE
N
C
E
T
O
M
A
T
C
H
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
GA
T
E
M
A
I
L
B
O
X
L
I
V
I
N
G
R
O
O
M
D
I
N
I
N
G
R
O
O
M
K
I
T
C
H
E
N
F
R
O
N
T
P
O
R
C
H
E
N
T
R
Y
P
O
W
D
E
R
2
C
A
R
G
A
R
A
G
E
FA
M
I
L
Y
R
O
O
M
P
A
N
T
R
Y
M
U
D
R
O
O
M
P
A
T
I
O
T.
O
.
P
L
Y
1
0
0
'
-
0
"
T
.
O
.
P
L
Y
9
8
'
-
6
"
T
.
O
.
P
L
Y
98
'
-
0
"
DN
Y
A
R
D
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
G
R
A
V
E
L
A
L
L
E
Y
W
A
L
K
W
A
Y
9
8
'
-
2
"
W
1
9
W
2
0
W
2
1
P
5
V
I
.
a
Scale:
ISSUE
A 1.2
3/10/15Plotted On:F
A
R
C
A
L
C
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
-
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N DSPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORKNOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USEWHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIEDAT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THEARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOESNOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVEBEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN06/20/12
1
1
0
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
"
B
R
I
C
K
V
I
C
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
/Volumes/PROJECTS MASTER - MINI/110 BLEEKER/ PLNS/110 BLEEKER 03.05.15.pln
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
W0
4
W0
3
W0
2
W0
1
D09
D03
D0
6
D0
7
D0
8
D04
D0
5
D1
0
D01
D
B
2 3 4
A
1
5
52.5
N/S1/A5.1
14
'
-
8
"
8"
13
'
-
1
0
"
3
1
/
2
"
13
'
-
9
3
/
4
"
8"
14'-9"3 1/2"2'-2"3 1/2"12'-3"19'-10"8"
16'-10"3 1/2"1'-5 1/2"3 1/2"6'-7 3/8"
51'-5"
10
'
8"
22
'
-
8
"
8"
7'
-
5
1
/
2
"
3'
-
2
1
/
2
"
3'-
2
"
3
1
/
2
"
3'
-
3
7
/
8
"
2'
-
2
1
/
2
"
3
1
/
2
"
8'
4'
-
5
1
/
8
"
6'-1/8"
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
LAUNDRY
MEDIABEDROOM 4
BEDROOM 5
T.O. PLY
88'-0"
MECHANICAL
BATH 4
BATH 5
ICE/ FRIDGE
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
1,514 sq ft
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
W1
6
W15 W14
D19
W1
2
W1
3
W11
D12
D1
4
W10
W0
9
132
W05 W06
W2
2
D13
D15
D1
7
D16
D1
1
D18
W53 W54
W18 W17
F
D
B
E
F
G
2 3 4
A
1
5
1
2
3
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
10 1/2"
3'
-
4
1
/
8
"
11
'
-
7
3
/
4
"
7'
-
9
3
/
8
"
6'-11 5/8"
24
'
-
3
/
8
"
18
'
-
9
7
/
8
"
10 1/2"11'-11 3/8"
11'-9 3/8"
7'
-
9
1
/
2
"
24'-8 1/4"5 1/2"16'-3 5/8"5 1/2"6'-5 7/8"
19'-4 7/8"3'
10
'
5
1
/
2
"
17
'
-
8
3
/
8
"
43
'
-
1
1
5
/
8
"
10
'
24
'
16
'
-
6
3
/
4
"
11
'
-
7
1
/
4
"
15
'
-
6
3
/
4
"
23'-3 7/8"6'-5"21'-8"
2'
3'
-
3
"
4'
-
6
3
/
8
"
10
1
/
2
"
7'-
6
"
2'
-
6
"
3'-5 3/4"8'-9"
3'
-
5
/
8
"
10
'
-
6
"
11
'
-
8
3
/
4
"
3
1
/
2
"
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1 N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
352 sq ft
103.5 sq ft
LIVING ROOM
DINING ROOM
KITCHEN
FRONT PORCH
ENTRY
FI
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
LINE OF FLOOR ABOVE
OPENTO
ABOVE
POWDER
ACID ETCHED GLASS WALL
OPENTOABOVE
2 CAR
GARAGE
FAMILY ROOM
PANTRY
FI
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
/
M
E
D
I
A
UP DN
MUD ROOM
PATIO
CLOSET
CABINET
GL
A
S
S
W
I
N
E
R
O
O
M
CLOSETCABINET
T.O. PLY
100'-0"
T.O. PLY
98'-6"
T.O. PLY
98'-0"
DN
YARD
MWOVENCOFFEE
DW
FRIDGEFRZ ICE
DWR
TRASH
WALKWAY
98'-2"
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1 N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
720 sq ft
969.75 sq ft
522.25 sq ft
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
131
D30
W33 W32 W30D24D25
W2
9
W2
8
D21
D2
9
D2
1
D2
6
W2
3
W2
4
D3
1
D27 D28
W26
W27W58
D34 D32
D2
2
D
B
E
F
G
2 3 4
A
1
1
5
5
2
3
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1 N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
14
'
-
7
5
/
8
"
3
1
/
2
"
12
'
-
4
7
/
8
"
3
1
/
2
"
14
'
-
4
1
/
4
"
10
1
/
2
"
23'-1 3/4"25'-8 1/2"
1
0
'
-
1
/
4
"
6'
-
1
1
3
/
4
"
18
'
-
7
5
/
8
"
2'
-
1
"
15'-4 3/8"7'-6"6'-10 1/2"21'-8"
5 1/2"
5
1
/
2
"
12
'
-
8
"
5
1
/
2
"
4
'
-
7
"
5
1
/
2
"
5'
-
4
1
/
2
"
18'-5 3/8"3 1/2"5'-2 5/8"
3'
-
1
/
2
"
6'-7 1/4"
5 1/2"
2'-10 1/4"10'-10 3/8"
13
'
-
1
0
"
3'-2 7/8"15'-9"7'-4 3/4"19'-4 5/8"8'-10 1/2"
12'-1 3/8"3'-2 1/2"
3'-1 5/8"
5'-6 1/8"
1'-6 5/8"
2
'
-
9
3
/
4
"
3
1
/
2
"
2'
-
8
3
/
8
"
3
1
/
2
"
1
2
'
-
2
5
/
8
"
5
'
-
1
0
1
/
2
"
3
1
/
2
"
4'
-
9
3
/
4
"
3
1
/
2
"
3
'
-
1
"
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1 N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
N/S1/A5.1
207.25 sq ft
585.75 sq ft
132.5 sq ft
114.75 sq ft
MASTER
BEDROOM 1
MASTER
BATH
DECK ON
ROOF BELOW
BEDROOM 3
BATH 3
MASTER
BEDROOM 2
CLOSET
CLOSET
CANTILEVERED
DECK
CLOSET
DECK
DORMER WALLABOVE
DORMER WALL
ABOVE
DN
M BATH 2
T.O. PLY
110'-0"
T.O. PLY
109'-0"891.5 sq ft
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
LOWER LEVEL FAR
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
MAIN LEVEL FAR
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
UPPER LEVEL FAR
3240 ALLOWABLE FAR BASED ON 6000 SF LOT
LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA- GROSS 1,514 SF
MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA
MAIN LEVEL PATIOS- EXEMPT ON GRADE
GARAGE 522 SF
UPPER LEVEL FLOOR AREA
UPPER LEVEL DECKS 110 +112 + 207=
147 SFMINUS 250 SF = 272-125
883 SF + 586 SF=
716 SF + 970 SF=
429 SF
15% ALLOWABLE DECKS = 486 SF
104 + 352= 456 SF
(2)50'-11" X 9' = 917 SF
(2)34'-9" X 9' = 626 SF
TOTAL LOWER LEVEL WALLS
EXPOSED WALLS
14'-8" X 7' = 103 SF
1543 SF
EXPOSED/TOTAL WALLS (103 / 1543 =6.6%
1514 X 6.6%100 SF
LIVING FAR= 3255 SF
GARAGE FAR=
TOTAL FAR= 3402 SF
3740 FAR INCLUDES 500 SF HPC BONUS
338 FAR REMAINING
PROPOSED FAR
EXISTING FAR
MAIN LEVEL FAR 1105 + 115 SF = 1220 SF
UPPER LEVEL FAR 914 SF
GARAGE 480 SF
480-250 = 230/2 = 115 SF
EXISTING FAR TOTAL 2249 SF
FLOOR AREA- NET
1469 SF
1686 SF
147 SF
P
6
V
I
.
a
Scale:
ISSUE
A 1.3
3/10/15Plotted On:S
U
R
V
E
Y
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N DSPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORKNOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USEWHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIEDAT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THEARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOESNOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVEBEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN06/20/12
1
1
0
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
"
B
R
I
C
K
V
I
C
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
/Volumes/PROJECTS MASTER - MINI/110 BLEEKER/ PLNS/110 BLEEKER 03.05.15.plnSCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"
SITE PLAN
P
7
V
I
.
a
Scale:
ISSUE
A 2.0
3/10/15Plotted On:E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
S
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N DSPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORKNOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USEWHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIEDAT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THEARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOESNOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVEBEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN06/20/12
1
1
0
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
"
B
R
I
C
K
V
I
C
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
/Volumes/PROJECTS MASTER - MINI/110 BLEEKER/ PLNS/110 BLEEKER 03.05.15.pln
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
X X
112
X
X
11
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
12
2
123
12
4
X
X
06
122
12
2
123
124
X
X
X
122
X
F
D D
C C
E E
F F
G G
2
2
3
3
4
4
3'-9 1/2"5'-9"2'-2 1/2"1'-1 3/4"7 1/2"
5 1/2"12'-5 1/4"1'-1 1/2"11'-5"
15
'
-
1
1
"
7
3
/
4
"
7
'
-
4
"
7 1/2"11'-6 1/4"5 1/2"
8'
-
3
"
1
'
-
1
1
/
2
"
11
'
-
1
1
1
/
2
"
6
"
3
'
-
1
1
1
/
4
"
1
3
'
-
7
1
/
2
"
3
1
/
2
"
1
2
'
-
1
"
5
1
/
2
"
3'-3 1/2"
8
'
-
1
0
"
3
'
-
5
1
/
2
"
6
"
9
'
-
1
1
/
2
"
5
1
/
2
"
4
'
-
1
1
1
/
2
"
1
'
-
1
1
"
5
1
/
2
"
4'-3 1/4"
4
4
'
7'-8"13'5'-6"
LIVING ROOM
DINING ROOM
KITCHEN
BEDROOM
BATH
PORCH/OFFICE
DEN
UP 21 STEPS
7" RISE
8" RUN
CLOSET CLOSET
FIREPLACE
T.O. PLY
100'-0"
PORCH
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
X
125
125
12
5
125
X
12
6
X
D D
C C
E E
F F
G G
2
2
3
3
4
4
3
1
/
4
"
1
5
'
-
1
1
/
4
"
3
1
/
2
"
11
'
-
7
"
7
1
/
2
"
2
'
-
8
"
7
1
/
2
"
1
1
'
-
7
1
/
2
"
3
1
/
2
"
2'-6 1/2"5 1/2"7'-4"5 1/2"14'-11 1/4"
1
2
'
-
1
"
5
1
/
2
"
1
0
'
-
3
"
8
'
-
1
/
2
"
7
1
/
2
"
1
1
'
-
1
1
"
BEDROOM?
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
BATH
ATTIC
ATTIC
ATTIC
ATTICATTIC
61" AFF 60 1/2" AFF
7'-10 1/2 flat
ceiling bottom of wall starts at
4'-8 AFF, ceiling slopes behind
with counter below it.
gable 77 1/2" to center
spring point 50"
104" AFF
at door area
ga
b
l
e
6
'
-
5
1
/
2
"
t
o
c
e
n
t
e
r
top of shed dormer 70 1/2"
spring point
30"
10
/
1
2
s
l
o
p
e
f
o
r
c
e
i
l
i
n
g
high point 8-'9"
T.O. PLY
110'-0"
EXISTING MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN EXISTING UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
P
8
V
I
.
a
Scale:
ISSUE
A 2.1
3/10/15Plotted On:E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N DSPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORKNOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USEWHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIEDAT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THEARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOESNOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVEBEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN06/20/12
1
1
0
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
"
B
R
I
C
K
V
I
C
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
/Volumes/PROJECTS MASTER - MINI/110 BLEEKER/ PLNS/110 BLEEKER 03.05.15.pln
UPPER LEVEL T.O. PLY
110'-0"
MAIN LEVEL T.O. PLY
100'-0"
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 EXISTING SOUTH
A 2.1
P
9
V
I
.
a
Scale:
ISSUE
A 2.2
3/10/15Plotted On:E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N DSPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORKNOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USEWHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIEDAT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THEARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOESNOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVEBEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN06/20/12
1
1
0
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
"
B
R
I
C
K
V
I
C
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
/Volumes/PROJECTS MASTER - MINI/110 BLEEKER/ PLNS/110 BLEEKER 03.05.15.pln
2
3
'
-
2
3
/
4
"
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 EXISTING EAST
A 2.2
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
3 EXISTING WEST
A 2.2
ORIGINAL WINDOW
TO BE RESTORED
GARAGE: SEE PHOTOS
P
1
0
V
I
.
a
Scale:
ISSUE
A 3.1
3/10/15Plotted On:B
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
L
E
V
E
L
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N DSPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORKNOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USEWHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIEDAT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THEARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOESNOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVEBEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN06/20/12
1
1
0
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
"
B
R
I
C
K
V
I
C
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
/Volumes/PROJECTS MASTER - MINI/110 BLEEKER/ PLNS/110 BLEEKER 03.05.15.pln
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
W0
4
W
0
3
W0
2
W0
1
D09
D03
D0
6
D0
7
D0
8
D04
D0
5
D1
0
D01
D D
B B
E E
F F
G G
2
2
3
3
4
4
A A
1
1
5
5
2.5
2.5
1
4
'
-
8
"
8
"
1
3
'
-
1
0
"
3
1
/
2
"
13
'
-
9
3
/
4
"
8
"
14'-9"3 1/2"2'-2"3 1/2"12'-3"19'-10"8"
16'-10"3 1/2"1'-5 1/2"3 1/2"6'-7 3/8"
1
0
1
/
2
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
8"
2
2
'
-
8
"
8
"
10 1/2"
1 1/2"
1'-8"7'-5 1/8"5 1/2"7'-2 1/4"2"8'-2 1/4"8"
7'
-
5
1
/
2
"
3
'
-
2
1
/
2
"
3
'
-
2
"
3
1
/
2
"
3
'
-
3
7
/
8
"
2
'
-
2
1
/
2
"
3
1
/
2
"
8
'
-
0
"
4'
-
5
1
/
8
"
6'-0 1/8"
CRAWL SPACE
LAUNDRY
MEDIA
CRAWL SPACE
BEDROOM 4
BEDROOM 5
T.O. PLY
88'-0"
MECHANICAL
BATH 4
BATH 5
ICE/ FRIDGE
P
1
1
V
I
.
a
Scale:
ISSUE
A 3.2
3/10/15Plotted On:M
A
I
N
L
E
V
E
L
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N DSPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORKNOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USEWHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIEDAT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THEARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOESNOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVEBEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN06/20/12
1
1
0
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
"
B
R
I
C
K
V
I
C
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
/Volumes/PROJECTS MASTER - MINI/110 BLEEKER/ PLNS/110 BLEEKER 03.05.15.pln
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
W1
6
W15 W14
D19
W1
2
W1
3
W11
D12
D1
4
W10
W0
9
132
W05 W06
W2
2
D13
D15
D1
7
D16
D1
1
D18
W53 W54
W18 W17
X X
X
X
X
F
D D
B B
E E
F F
G G
2
2
3
3
4
4
A A
1
1
5
5
1
2
3
2.5
2.5
10 1/2"
3
'
-
4
1
/
8
"
1
1
'
-
7
3
/
4
"
7
'
-
9
3
/
8
"
2
4
'
-
0
3
/
8
"
18
'
-
9
7
/
8
"
10 1/2"11'-11 3/8"
11'-9 3/8"
7
'
-
9
1
/
2
"
24'-8 1/4"5 1/2"16'-3 5/8"5 1/2"7'-5 7/8"
19'-4 7/8"3'-0"
1
0
'
-
0
"
5
1
/
2
"
17
'
-
8
3
/
8
"
4
3
'
-
1
1
5
/
8
"
10
'
-
0
"
2
4
'
-
0
"
18
'
-
7
3
/
8
"
1
6
'
-
6
3
/
4
"
1
1
'
-
7
1
/
4
"
1
5
'
-
6
3
/
4
"
23'-3 7/8"6'-5"21'-2"
1'-0"
3
'
-
3
"
4
'
-
6
3
/
8
"
1
0
1
/
2
"
7'
-
6
"
2
'
-
6
"
3'-5 3/4"8'-9"
3'
-
0
5
/
8
"
1
0
'
-
6
"
1
1
'
-
8
3
/
4
"
3
1
/
2
"
5'-11 1/2"
LIVING ROOM
DINING ROOM
KITCHEN
FRONT PORCH
ENTRY
FI
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
LINE OF FLOOR ABOVE
OPEN
TO
ABOVE
POWDER
ACID ETCHED GLASS WALL
OPEN
TO
ABOVE
2 CAR
GARAGE
FAMILY ROOM
PANTRY
FI
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
/
M
E
D
I
A
UP DN
MUD ROOM
PATIO
CLOSET
CABINET
G
L
A
S
S
W
I
N
E
R
O
O
M
CLOSET
CABINET
T.O. PLY
100'-0"
T.O. PLY
98'-6"
T.O. PLY
98'-0"
DN
YARD
MWOVENCOFFEE
DW
FRIDGE
FRZ ICE
DWR
TRASH
PROPERTY LINE
WALKWAY
98'-2"
W
1
9
W
2
0
W2
1
P
1
2
V
I
.
a
Scale:
ISSUE
A 3.3
3/10/15Plotted On:U
P
P
E
R
L
E
V
E
L
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N DSPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORKNOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USEWHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIEDAT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THEARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOESNOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVEBEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN06/20/12
1
1
0
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
"
B
R
I
C
K
V
I
C
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
/Volumes/PROJECTS MASTER - MINI/110 BLEEKER/ PLNS/110 BLEEKER 03.05.15.pln
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
131
D30
W33 W32 W30W30W30D24D25
W
2
9
W2
8
D21
D2
9
D2
1
D2
6
W
2
3
W2
4
D3
1
D27 D28
W26
W27W58
D34 D32
D2
2
D D
B B
E E
F F
G G
2
2
3
3
4
4
A A
1
1
5
5
1
2
3
2.5
2.5
1
0
1
/
2
"
1
4
'
-
7
5
/
8
"
3
1
/
2
"
1
2
'
-
4
7
/
8
"
3
1
/
2
"
1
4
'
-
4
1
/
4
"
1
0
1
/
2
"
24'-1 3/4"25'-8 1/2"
1
0
'
-
0
1
/
4
"
2
5
'
-
7
3
/
8
"
2
'
-
1
"
15'-4 3/8"7'-6"6'-10 1/2"21'-2"
5 1/2"
6
3
/
4
"
1
2
'
-
6
3
/
4
"
5
1
/
2
"
4
'
-
7
"
5
1
/
2
"
5'
-
4
1
/
2
"
18'-5 3/8"3 1/2"5'-2 5/8"
3
'
-
0
1
/
2
"
6'-1 1/4"
5 1/2"
2'-10 1/4"10'-10 3/8"
1
3
'
-
4
5
/
8
"
2'-8 7/8"15'-9"8'-4 3/4"18'-4 5/8"8'-4 1/2"
12'-1 3/8"3'-2 1/2"
3'-1 5/8"
5'-6 1/8"
1'-6 5/8"
2
'
-
9
3
/
4
"
3
1
/
2
"
2'
-
8
3
/
8
"
3
1
/
2
"
1
2
'
-
2
5
/
8
"
5
'
-
1
0
1
/
2
"
3
1
/
2
"
4
'
-
9
3
/
4
"
3
1
/
2
"
3
'
-
1
"
MASTER
BEDROOM 1
MASTER
BATH
DECK ON
ROOF BELOW
OPEN TO BELOW
BEDROOM 3
BATH 3
MASTER
BEDROOM 2
CLOSET
shed dormer
t.o. wall at 70 1/2"
gable 77 1/2" to center
ACID ETCHED GLASS
CLOSET
li
n
e
n
ca
b
i
n
e
t
be
n
c
h
CANTILEVERED
DECK
CLOSETBU
I
L
T
I
N
ST
O
R
A
G
E
ON
B
O
T
H
S
I
D
E
S
OF
F
P
/
T
V
OP
E
N
T
O
K
I
T
C
H
E
N
BE
L
O
W
F
O
R
L
I
G
H
T
DE
T
A
I
L
DECK
DORMER WALL
ABOVE
DORMER WALL
ABOVE
STEAM
SHOWER
DN
M BATH 2
REMOVE
CHIMNEY
BELOW
T.O. PLY
110'-0"
T.O. PLY
109'-0"
P
1
3
V
I
.
a
Scale:
ISSUE
A 3.4
3/10/15Plotted On:R
O
O
F
P
L
A
N
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N DSPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORKNOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USEWHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIEDAT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THEARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOESNOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVEBEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN06/20/12
1
1
0
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
"
B
R
I
C
K
V
I
C
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
/Volumes/PROJECTS MASTER - MINI/110 BLEEKER/ PLNS/110 BLEEKER 03.05.15.pln
W3
4
W3
6
D D
B B
E E
F F
G G
2
2
3
3
4
4
A A
1
1
5
5
2.5
2.5
8"51'-6 7/8"
10:12 PITCH
1/4:12 PITCH
10:12 PITCH
1/4:12 PITCH
10:12 PITCH
1/4:12 PITCH
10:12 PITCH
1/4:12 PITCH
1/4:12 PITCH
1/4:12 PITCH
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
P
I
T
C
H
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
P
I
T
C
H
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
P
I
T
C
H
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
P
I
T
C
H
EXISTING PITCH
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
P
I
T
C
H
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
P
I
T
C
H
REBUILD HISTORIC ROOF
P
1
4
V
I
.
a
Scale:
ISSUE
A 4.1
3/10/15Plotted On:S
O
U
T
H
A
N
D
W
E
S
T
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N DSPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORKNOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USEWHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIEDAT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THEARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOESNOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVEBEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN06/20/12
1
1
0
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
"
B
R
I
C
K
V
I
C
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
/Volumes/PROJECTS MASTER - MINI/110 BLEEKER/ PLNS/110 BLEEKER 03.05.15.pln
2
3
'
-
2
3
/
4
"
METALLIC TILEMETALLIC TILE
HORIZONTAL 4" SIDING
DIRECT-SET GLASS
DARK GRAY
METAL ROOF TO
MATCH ZINC
REPLACE EXISTING SKYLIGHT
EXISTING BRICK
RESTORE ORIGINAL
FRONT WINDOW
T.O. PLATE
118'-0"
T.O. PLY @ UPPER NORTH
109'-0"
T.O. SLAB @ GARAGE
98'-0"
T.O. PLY @ MAIN
100'-0"
T.O. PLY @ UPPER
110'-0"
T.O. PLATE @ DORMER
121'-10 1/2"
REPAIR OR REPLACE
ORIGINAL PORCH
COLUMNS TO MATCH
HISTORIC
REPAIR OR REPLACE
ORIGINAL PORCH
GABLE END TO
MATCH HISTORIC
REPAIR OR REPLACE
ORIGINAL SHINGLES
ATGABLE END TO
MATCH HISTORIC
REPAIR OR REPLACE
ORIGINAL SHINGLES
AT GABLE END TO
MATCH HISTORIC
REBUILD BAY
WINDOW FEATURE TO
MATCH HISTORIC
EXISTING BRICK
CHIMNEY TO REMAIN
ABOVE ROOF
ZINC ROOF
HORIZONTAL 4" SIDING
UPPER LEVEL T.O. PLY
110'-0"
MAIN LEVEL T.O. PLY
100'-0"
T.O. PLATE
118'-0"
T.O. PLY @ UPPER NORTH
109'-0"
T.O. SLAB @ GARAGE
98'-0"
T.O. PLATE @ DORMER
121'-10 1/2"
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 WEST ELEVATION
A 4.1
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
2 SOUTH ELEVATION
A 4.1
HISTORICAL PICTURE
P
1
5
V
I
.
a
Scale:
ISSUE
A 4.2
3/10/15Plotted On:N
O
R
T
H
A
N
D
E
A
S
T
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N DSPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORKNOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USEWHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIEDAT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THEARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOESNOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVEBEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN06/20/12
1
1
0
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
"
B
R
I
C
K
V
I
C
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
/Volumes/PROJECTS MASTER - MINI/110 BLEEKER/ PLNS/110 BLEEKER 03.05.15.pln
METALLIC TILE
HORIZONTAL 4" SIDING
TEMPERED GLASS AND
STEEL RAIL
DARK GRAY METAL
ROOF TO MATCH ZINC
HORIZONTAL 4" SIDING
T.O. PLATE
118'-0"
T.O. PLY @ UPPER NORTH
109'-0"
T.O. SLAB @ GARAGE
98'-0"
T.O. PLATE @ DORMER
121'-10 1/2"
2
4
'
-
1
0
1
1
/
1
6
"
1
0
1
/
2
"
REPAIR OR REPLACE
ORIGINAL PORCH
COLUMNS TO MATCH
HISTORIC
REPAIR OR REPLACE
ORIGINAL PORCH
GABLE END TO
MATCH HISTORIC
REPAIR OR REPLACE
ORIGINAL SHINGLES
ATGABLE END TO
MATCH HISTORIC
REBUILD BAY
WINDOW FEATURE TO
MATCH HISTORIC
EXISTING BRICK
CHIMNEY TO REMAIN
ABOVE ROOF
METALLIC TILE
HORIZONTAL 4" SIDING
METALLIC TILE
1/3 point roof
T.O. PLATE
118'-0"
T.O. PLY @ UPPER NORTH
109'-0"
T.O. SLAB @ GARAGE
98'-0"
T.O. PLY @ MAIN
100'-0"
T.O. PLY @ UPPER
110'-0"
T.O. PLATE @ DORMER
121'-10 1/2"
T.O. PLY @ UPPER LINK DECK
108'-6"
T.O. EXISTING RIDGE
126'-4"
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 NORTH ELEVATION
A 4.2
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
2 EAST ELEVATION
A 4.2
P
1
6
V
I
.
a
Scale:
ISSUE
A 5.1
3/10/15Plotted On:B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N DSPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORKNOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USEWHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIEDAT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THEARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOESNOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVEBEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN06/20/12
1
1
0
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
"
B
R
I
C
K
V
I
C
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
/Volumes/PROJECTS MASTER - MINI/110 BLEEKER/ PLNS/110 BLEEKER 03.05.15.pln
A
A
E
E
F
F
G
G
B
B
D
D
18'-7 3/8"10'-0"15'-6 3/4"11'-7 1/4"16'-6 3/4"
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 BUILDING SECTION
A 5.1
P
1
7
V
I
.
a
Scale:
ISSUE
A 9.2
3/10/15Plotted On:3
D
P
E
R
S
P
E
C
T
I
V
E
S
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N DSPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORKNOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USEWHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIEDAT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THEARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOESNOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVEBEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN06/20/12
1
1
0
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
"
B
R
I
C
K
V
I
C
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
/Volumes/PROJECTS MASTER - MINI/110 BLEEKER/ PLNS/110 BLEEKER 03.05.15.pln
110 BLEEKER - STREET VIEW 1
110 BLEEKER - STREET VIEW 2
P
1
8
V
I
.
a
Scale:
ISSUE
A 9.3
3/10/15Plotted On:P
E
R
S
P
E
C
T
I
V
E
S
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N DSPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORKNOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USEWHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIEDAT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THEARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOESNOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVEBEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN06/20/12
1
1
0
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
"
B
R
I
C
K
V
I
C
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
/Volumes/PROJECTS MASTER - MINI/110 BLEEKER/ PLNS/110 BLEEKER 03.05.15.pln
SCALE: 1:0.36
SE CORNER
SCALE: 1:0.36
SE CORNER
SCALE: 1:0.42
SE CORNER
P
1
9
V
I
.
a
Scale:
ISSUE
A 10.1
3/10/15Plotted On:3
D
P
E
R
S
E
P
C
T
I
V
E
S
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N DSPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORKNOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USEWHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIEDAT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THEARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOESNOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVEBEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN06/20/12
1
1
0
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
"
B
R
I
C
K
V
I
C
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
/Volumes/PROJECTS MASTER - MINI/110 BLEEKER/ PLNS/110 BLEEKER 03.05.15.plnSCALE: 1:0.33
SE CORNER
SCALE: 1:0.33
SE CORNER
P
2
0
V
I
.
a
HPC Resolution #11, Series of 2015
Page 1 of 2
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, DEMOLITION AND
VARIANCE APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 110 E. BLEEKER
STREET, LOTS L AND M, BLOCK 65, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION #11, SERIES OF 2015
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-37-006
WHEREAS, the applicant, Bleek House LLC, represented by Kim Raymond Architects, has
requested HPC approval for Conceptual Major Development, Demolition and Variances for the
property located at 110 E. Bleeker, Lots L and M, Block 65, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado;
and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that “no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;” and
WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application,
a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project’s
conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section
26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC
may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain
additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, for approval of Demolition, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen
Municipal Code Section 26.415.080.A, Demolition of a Designated Property; and
WHEREAS, in order to receive approval for a floor area bonus, the application shall meet the
requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.110.F; and
WHEREAS, the HPC may approve setback variances according to Section 26.415.110.C.1.a,
Variances; and
WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on March 11, 2015. HPC considered the application, the
staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards
and granted approval with conditions by a vote of 7 to 0.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby grants Conceptual Major Development, Demolition and Variance approval for
110 E. Bleeker, Lots L and M, Block 65, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following
conditions:
1. HPC hereby grants a 500 square foot floor area bonus.
P21
VI.a
HPC Resolution #11, Series of 2015
Page 2 of 2
2. HPC hereby allows a 3’1” east sideyard setback, a 3’8” rear setback, a 5’11” west sideyard and
a 9’ combined sideyard.
3. Specifications for paint removal and mortar repair will be required before building permit, as
will shop drawings showing the details of the reconstructed elements.
4. The fence must be constructed on the property line, not forward of it as shown in the site
plan. The fence posts must be wood, not brick as indicated.
5. Work with the Parks Department to have the spruce trees removed from the right of way in
front of the house.
6. Eliminate the skylight on the west slope of the Victorian roof.
7. Regarding window placement on the west side of the Victorian, refer to the window pattern
on the “sister” building at 126 E. Bleeker and/or determine window location after the paint
has been removed from the brick, which may reveal some clues about the historic design.
8. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1)
year of March 11, 2015, 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.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 11th day of March,
2015.
Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:
______________________________ _____________________________
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney James DeFrancia, Vice Chair
ATTEST:
___________________________
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
P22
VI.a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2015
1
110 E. Bleeker Street – Conceptual Major Development, Demolition and
Variances, Public Hearing cont’d from February 11, 2015
Gretchen was seated.
Exhibit I – Updated elevations.
Amy said this is a 6,000 square foot lot close to the yellow brick. It is an
1887 brick Victorian. The brick has been painted which isn’t healthy for the
building. The front porch was enclosed and a door obliterated. The front
bay window has been removed. There is a small addition on the back of the
house and a large structure along the alley that sits in the alley and on the
neighbors lot which has caused some distress over the past few years. The
applicant plans to demolish the problematic garage and also the non-historic
addition on the back and make a new addition. They are not picking up the
house and not moving it and not excavating a basement under it. They are
proposing a total restoration. The paint is to be stripped from the brick and
the front window reconstructed and porch reconstructed etc.
Amy said the proposed addition connects to the back of the Victorian with
the standarad one story element and it touches the building that has already
been altered and it can’t be seen from the street and we feel it is an
appropriate place to ad on. There is a deck on top of the connector that we
did not object to in this case because it is really invisible. On the new
construction there is a basement underneath it. There are some setback
variances requested. There is a request to reduce the east side yard, rear
side yard and the combined side yards. There is also a request for the 500
square foot bonus which is well deserved by the restoration work that is
being proposed. Staff recommends approval with the approval of the bonus,
side and rear yard setbacks and a combined side yard setback. When it
comes time to remove the paint from the brick they need to be careful and
not make the situation worse. We will also need specifications for mortar
repair. The applicant has proposed to reconstruct the historic fence on this
property. We need to make sure it is being built with wood posts. We have
spoken to the Parks Dept. and the applicant can remove the street trees out in
front of this house. The trees are pine and scruffy and block the view to the
house. There is an existing skylight to be replaced and staff is
recommending that it be eliminated. When the brick is stripped the
applicant would like to do some window replacement on the west side of the
P23
VI.a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2015
2
house. The original windows are gone and we need to make sure that is
done in the most informed way possible and that we look for actual physical
evidence to see how the windows were placed.
Gretchen asked about the FAR bonus being used as TDR’s.
Amy said a more recent incentive has been the TDR program where you can
sell some of your development rights. In this case they will use the FAR as
part of their project and one TDR, 250 square feet will be sold to a non-
historic site.
Sallie said the TDR program is a good incentive because it keeps
development off this piece of property. It gives them a monetary incentive
not to have more square footage effect or be a burden to the historic
resource.
John said it also off-sets the restoration costs.
Patrick asked if the trees will be replaced with deciduous trees. Amy said
the Parks Department will identify the tree replacements.
Kim Raymond, architect said the goal is to restore the house as closely as
they can back to its original state. The existing garage is 2.6 outside the
property line in the alley and 5 feet onto the neighbor’s property. Our plan
is to tear the little garage down and move our garage which is part of the
building 3.1 feet in from the site so we are actually moving it over 8 feet and
bringing it off the alley and four feet off the property line. The Victorian
will remain in its original location. There is a one story linking element with
an exposed corner of the original building and then the addition. The
addition in the back has the same simple gable link.
Vice-chair, Jim DeFrancia opened the public hearing. There were no public
comments. The public hearing was closed.
Jim said staff is recommending approval with 8 conditions. The applicant
has no disagreement with any of the conditions.
Gretchen said she feels the dormers look very high and possibly the architect
would consider removing the large arched windows on the west side which
would make the building simpler. In that way the Victorian would take a
P24
VI.a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2015
3
more dominant visual appearance from the street. The additions on the back
of Victorians need to be quiet, clean and simple. The roof addition should
be simplified and maybe the dormer on the south could be removed on the
roof. Just have the two dormers on the north side and nothing on the south
side.
Nora and Patrick said they would support Gretchen’s suggestion.
Sallie said they are trying to bring in the south light.
Jim said the board is offering the removal of the dormers as guidance and to
restudy it for the next meeting.
John said dormers are fenestration and that can be looked at for the next
meeting.
MOTION: Jim moved to approve resolution #11 granting conceptual major
development demolition and variances with the conditions as recommended
by staff and with the notation that the applicant has been given guidance to
restudy certain elements when they come back for final.
Amy said there would be a 3’1 inch east side yard setback. The rear would
be 3’8 inch. 5’11 inch side yard and a 9 foot combined.
Amy said the applicant pulled away from the east property line and pushed it
toward the west.
Jim said the motion would include the dimensional requirements. Motion
second by Nora.
Patrick asked the board to discuss the setback on the garage.
Amy said it is up to the applicant to determine if they have movability to get
in and out of the garage.
Gretchen said she feels there is no issue getting in and out.
John said the garage moving is a big improvement.
P25
VI.a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2015
4
Roll call vote: Sallie, yes; Nora, yes; Bob, yes; John, yes; Gretchen, yes;
Patrick, yes; Jim, yes. Motion carried 7-0.
MOTION: Jim moved to adjourn; second by Bob. All in favor, motion
carried.
Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk.
P26
VI.a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council
FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: Notice of Call Up - HPC approval of Conceptual Major Development,
Relocation, partial Demolition, a portion of the FAR bonus and
Setback Variances for a project at 134 W. Hopkins Avenue, HPC
Resolution #10, Series of 2015
MEETING DATE: April 13, 2015
BACKGROUND : On March 11, 2015, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) approved
Conceptual Major Development, onsite Relocation, partial Demolition of non-historic additions,
and setback variances by a vote of 4 -2.
134 W. Hopkins is located on the corner of Hopkins Avenue and First Street in a mostly
residential neighborhood. The building was constructed in 1890-1893 and is in its original
location. The applicant commissioned a comprehensive historical assessment which provides
extensive research as to original materials and to guide the proposed restoration. Setback
variances were requested for portions of the building that sit into the sideyard and front yard
setbacks. A double basement is proposed as part of the project – the application was submitted
before the Code was changed to allow double basements.
Overall HPC was supportive of the proposed mass and scale of the project and found that the
Design Guidelines were met to grant the requested approvals. A copy of the approved site plan
and elevations is attached as Exhibit A. The HPC Resolution and Minutes are attached as
Exhibits B and C, respectively.
PROCEDURE : This is not a public hearing and no staff or applicant presentation will be made at
the April 13 th Council meeting. If you have any questions about the project, please contact the
staff planner, Sara Adams, 429-2778 or sara.adams@cityofaspen.com . Pursuant to Section
26.412.040(B), notification of this HPC approval must be placed on City Council’s agenda
within 30 days, or as soon thereafter as is practical under the circumstances. City Council has
the option of exercising the Call Up provisions outlined in Section 26.412.040(B) within 15 days
of notification on the regular agenda.
City Council may vote to Call Up the project at their April 13 th meeting. If City Council does
not exercise the Call Up provision, the HPC Resolution shall stand and the applicant may move
forward with the review process.
ATTACHMENTS :
Exhibit A: Conceptual Design
Exhibit B: HPC Resolution #10, Series of 2015
Exhibit C: Draft HPC minutes March 11, 2015
P27
VI.b
02.25.2015 REVISIONS
11.25.2014 SUBMISSION DATE
WEST HOPKINS LLC.
134 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE
APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF
APPROPRIATENESS FOR MAJOR HPC DEVELOPMENT
SITE PLAN - 1/4” = 1’-0”
NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE
PROPERTY LINE
SET BACK LINE
5
'
-
0
"
5'-0"
5'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
10'-0"
5
'
-
0
"
PROPOSED PATIO W/
SKYLIGHTS TO BELOW
PROPOSED HISTORIC
RESOURCE LOCATIONPROPOSED 2-CAR GARAGE
PROPOSED
CONNECTOR
12'-7 1/2"
PROPOSED ADDITION
NEIGHBOR'S
LIGHT WELL
1ST STREET
H
O
P
K
I
N
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
EXISTING HISTORIC RESOURCE LOCATION (SHOWN HATCHED)
NORTH
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
4'
-
8
1
/
4
"
3'
-
7
5
/
8
"
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
1'
-
1
5
/
8
"
EXISTING
6'-10"
PROPOSED LIGHT WELLS
SKYLIGHT TO BELOW
LINE OF PROPOSED ADDITION ABOVE
2'
-
2
"
EXISTING
16'-10"EXISTING
26'-8 7/8"
RE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
TREE REMOVAL AND MITIGATION
RE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
TREE REMOVAL AND MITIGATION
RE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
TREE REMOVAL AND MITIGATION
RE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
TREE PROTECTION
RE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
TREE PROTECTION
RE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
TREE PROTECTION
RE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
TREE PROTECTION
FRONT ENTRY
& PORCH
REVISION:
ADDED COLUMN;
NO CANTILEVER
(2/25/15)
P
2
8
V
I
.
b
02.25.2015 REVISIONS
11.25.2014 SUBMISSION DATE
WEST HOPKINS LLC.
134 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE
APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF
APPROPRIATENESS FOR MAJOR HPC DEVELOPMENT
BASEMENT 02 PLAN - 1/8” = 1’-0”
MAIN LEVEL PLAN - 1/8” = 1’-0”
ROOF PLAN - 1/8” = 1’-0”
BASEMENT 01 PLAN - 1/8” = 1’-0”
UPPER LEVEL PLAN - 1/8” = 1’-0”
LIGHT WELL
BASEMENT LEVEL 02
LIGHT WELLSLIGHT WELL FROM BELOW
BASEMENT LEVEL 01
SKYLIGHT TO BELOW
PROPOSED LIGHT WELLS
PROPOSED PATIO W/
SKYLIGHTS TO BELOW
NEW HISTORIC
RESOURCE LOCATIONPROPOSED 2-CAR GARAGE
PROPOSED
CONNECTOR
PROPOSED ADDITION
25'-0"
REVISION:
ADDED COLUMN;
NO CANTILEVER
(2/25/15)
PROPOSED
ROOF DECK
PROPOSED ADDITION
ROOF OF HISTORIC
RESOURCE (NO PROPOSED
UPPER LEVEL)
PROPOSED
HOT TUB &
DECK
[No Slope]
[N
o
S
l
o
p
e
]
14" / 12"
16
5
/
1
6
"
/
1
2
"
14
"
/
1
2
"
5"
/
1
2
"
[No Slope]
14" / 12"14" / 12"
5 1/4" / 12"
14" / 12"
15
1
1
/
1
6
"
/
1
2
"
PROPOSED SKYLIGHT
PROPOSED
ROOF DECK
BELOW
PROP.
SKY
LIGHT
GLASS ROOF
[No Slope]
P
2
9
V
I
.
b
02.25.2015 REVISIONS
11.25.2014 SUBMISSION DATE
WEST HOPKINS LLC.
134 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE
APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF
APPROPRIATENESS FOR MAJOR HPC DEVELOPMENT
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
UPPER LEVEL
110'-0"
BASEMENT 01
88'-0"
BASEMENT 02
76'-0"
GARAGE LEVEL
98'-0"
23
'
-
6
"
1'
-
6
"
2'-0"
PROPOSED SHORING;
TYPICAL ALL SIDES
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
UPPER LEVEL
110'-0"
BASEMENT 01
88'-0"
BASEMENT 02
76'-0"
GARAGE LEVEL
98'-0"
2'-0"
PROPOSED SHORING;
TYPICAL ALL SIDES
23
'
-
6
"
1'
-
6
"
22
'
-
2
"
.
REVISION:
REMOVED
WINDOW
(2/25/15)
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
UPPER LEVEL
110'-0"
BASEMENT 01
88'-0"
BASEMENT 02
76'-0"
GARAGE LEVEL
98'-0"
22
'
-
2
"
.
2'-0"
PROPOSED SHORING;
TYPICAL ALL SIDES
23
'
-
6
"
1'
-
6
"
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
UPPER LEVEL
110'-0"
BASEMENT 01
88'-0"
BASEMENT 02
76'-0"
GARAGE LEVEL
98'-0"
PROPOSED SHORING;
TYPICAL ALL SIDES
2'-0"
23
'
-
6
"
1'
-
6
"
22
'
-
2
"
.
REVISION:
ADDED COLUMN;
NO CANTILEVER
(2/25/15)
NORTH ELEVATION - 1/8” = 1’-0”
SOUTH ELEVATION - 1/8” = 1’-0”
EAST ELEVATION - 1/8” = 1’-0”
WEST ELEVATION - 1/8” = 1’-0”
P
3
0
V
I
.
b
02.25.2015 REVISIONS
11.25.2014 SUBMISSION DATE
WEST HOPKINS LLC.
134 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE
APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF
APPROPRIATENESS FOR MAJOR HPC DEVELOPMENT
PERSPECTIVE FROM CORNER OF 1ST STREET AND HOPKINS AVENUE
P
3
1
V
I
.
b
02.25.2015 REVISIONS
11.25.2014 SUBMISSION DATE
WEST HOPKINS LLC.
134 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE
APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF
APPROPRIATENESS FOR MAJOR HPC DEVELOPMENT
PERSPECTIVE FROM WEST SIDE OF 1ST STREET
P
3
2
V
I
.
b
RECEPTION#: 618253, 03/18/2015 at
11:20:54 AM,
1 OF 10, R $56.00 Doc Code
RESOLUTION
Janice K.Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
i APPROVING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), RELOCATION,
DEMOLITION, FAR BONUS, AND VARIANCE APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 134 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE, LOT 1 OF THE 134 AND 134.'/2 WEST
HOPKINS LANDMARK LOT SPLIT, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY
OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO
RESOLUTION #10, SERIES OF 2015
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-19-001
WHEREAS, the applicant, West Hopkins LLC; represented by CCY Architects, requested HPC
Major Development (Conceptual),.Relocation, Demolition, FAR Bonus, and Variance approval
for the property located at 134 West Hopkins Avenue, Lot 1 of the 134 and 134 '/2 West Hopkins
Landmark Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the application was determined complete on November 26, 2014; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application,
a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's
conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section
26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC
may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain
additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, in order to approve Relocation, according to Section 26.415.090.C, Relocation of a
Designated Property, it must be determined that:
1. It is considered a non-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will
not affect the character of the historic district; or
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which
it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or
property; or
3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given
the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not
adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or
diminish the historic, architectural- or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated
properties; and
134 West Hopkins Avenue
HPC Resolution#10, Series of 2015
Page 1 of 4
P33
VI.b
Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met:
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding
the physical impacts of relocation; and
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and
preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary
financial security; and
WHEREAS, in order to approve Demolition, according to Section 26.415.080.A.4, Demolition
of Designated Historic Properties, it must be determined that:
a. The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public
safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely
manner,
b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to
properly maintain the structure,
c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen
or
d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met:
a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in
which it is located and
b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of
the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent
designated properties and .
c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs
of the area; and
WHEREAS, the HPC may approve setback variances according to Section 26.415.110.C.La,
Variances. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance:
a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district;
and/or
b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural
character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic
district; and
WHEREAS, in selected circumstances, pursuant to Section 26.415.110.F, the HPC may grant up
to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving
designated historic properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated
that:
a) The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines;
i
134 West Hopkins Avenue
HPC Resolution #10, Series of 2015
Page 2 of 4
P34
VI.b
b) The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is
incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building;
c) The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance;
d) The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the
historic building's form, materials or openings;
e) The construction materials are of the highest quality;
f) An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building;
g) The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or
h) Notable historic site and landscape features are retained.
WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report to HPC dated March 11,2015, performed an
analysis of the application based on the standards and recommended approval of the project with
conditions; and
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on March 11, 2015; the Historic Preservation_
Commission considered the application, the staff memo and public comments, and found the
proposal consistent with the review standards and approved the project by a vote of four to two
4-2).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby grants Conceptual Major Development approval, Waivers, Variances, and
116.4 square feet FAR Bonus with the following conditions:
1. The site plan, mass and scale are approved as shown in Exhibit A with the following
condition:
a. The deck on top of the connecting element is approved.
2. In addition to the requirements in Land Use Code Section 26.415, the following shall be
addressed during Final Review:
a. Provide details of the fence along First Street.
b. Provide details of the at grade skylight.
c. The Hopkins Street entrance shall be the primary entrance.
d. Provide details of the foundation material and document the existing relationship
to grade.
3. Demolition of non-historic additions is approved as represented in the application.
4. Relocation of the historic home is approved:
a. Temporary storage of the home offsite is approved as represented.
b. A protection plan from an engineer or house mover shall be submitted with the
building permit.
c. Provide a letter from a structural engineer demonstrating that the building is able
to moved.
d. At building permit, provide a $30,000 letter of credit or cashier's check to insure
the safe relocation of the house.
5. A 116.4 square feet FAR bonus is granted.
6. The following setback variances summarized below and shown on Exhibit B are granted:
134 West Hopkins Avenue
HPC Resolution 910, Series of 2015
Page 3 of 4
P35
VI.b
a. Front yard (Hopkins Ave.)—9'2"
b. Side yard (First St.) - 5' up to 1'3.5"
c. Side yard (interior lot line)— 5' up to 1'3.5"
d. Combined— 27'
7. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one
1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an
application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the
Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole
discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for
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.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the
111h day of March,
2015.
L/
Jaesl)eFr ncia, Chair
Approved as to Form:
James R. True, City Attorney
ATTEST:
Kathy Stric and, hief Deputy Clerk
Exhibit A: conceptually approved site plan and elevations.
Exhibit B: approved setback variances
134 West Hopkins Avenue
HPC Resolution #10, Series of 2015
Page 4 of 4
P36
VI.b
II
o;
v, W
r
D
0
0
o
z
0
IST STREET N;R :^.
S
SITE PLAN - 1/4" = V-4"
WEST HOPKINS LLC.
134 W;-:Sr HCIFKNS
AVENUE
AF?_iCATC?'\ FOR CERTIFICATE OF x2.25.20':5 REVISIONS
AF .DCATIONFOR
FOR MAJOR
OF
DEVELOPMENT
1.25.20':4 S BMI5SICti DATE G c Y ' t. '
P
3
7
V
I
.
b
P
t AV-
x
r wan
1-__ ---—
II
III
WEST ELEVATION - 1/8" = 1'-0" SOUTH ELEVATION - 1/8"
z
1q est
f
w 0 0x.
Iz
f
l
L
hi
E
ti d t
I r
EAST ELEVATION - 1/8" = 1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION - 1/8" = 1'-0"
t
WEST HOPKINS LLC.
134 WESi'riOF'K'N5 AVENUE
APPLICATION FOR C=RTiF[CATE OF
02.25-20':5 REVISIONS C C Y A R C 1: 1 1 F r,
APPROPR ATENESS FOR MAJOR HPC DEVELOPMENT
1.25.20':4 S BMISSI N DATE
P
3
8
V
I
.
b
s
wai, Aft,
Ai
r k
IN
R Y
3f \
l i
j
14,1
1
s
k
rtSf3 ME
3
A•`
p
A
k g
Y
w
s
PERSPECTIVE FROM CORNER OF 1ST STREET AND HOPKINS AVENUE
WEST HOPKINS LLC.
t3a,WESTHOPKINS AVENU'
APP_iC AT':C)N FOR CERT F LATE OF
02.2>.20':5 REVISIONS C C Y A R r H, I I
APPROPR ATENESS FOR MAJOR HPC DEVELOPMENT
Y 1.2 20':4 SUBfVISSION DATE
E
P
3
9
V
I
.
b
r s
a y t"
s &fig„
f i ',
Ni
z
a
i
M
1.
pu gk
j
A.
PERSPECTIVE FROM WEST SIDE OF 1ST STREET
WEST HOPKINS LLC.
134 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE
AFFUCAT ON FOR CERTIF CATE OF
11.
25.20':4
c BMISSI C C Y A R H I 1 E IC I S
APFROPR:ATENESS FOR MAJOR HPC DEVELOPMENT
1.25.20':4 S;BMISSIC;N GATE
P
4
0
V
I
.
b
0l = „b/LNb
O \
fI
J
rII
5k
p, w-7;-,
7
00
000
LIL
III
loi
77,
77
u
1 r
tialtM;
I
sin
v
P
4
1
V
I
.
b
dinj
a
i snu-
i II1
ROOF PLAN - 1/8" = 1'-0"
t
UPPER LEVEL PLAN - 1/8" = 1'-0" MAIN LEVEL PLAN - 1/8"
F
BASEMENT 01 PLAN - 1/8" = 1'-0" BASEMENT 02 PLAN - 1/8" = 1'-0"
P
4
2
V
I
.
b
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2015
1
Vice-chair, Jim DeFrancia called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance were Bob Blaich, Patrick Sagal, John
Whipple, Nora Berko, Sallie Golden and Gretchen Greenwood. Willis
Pember was absent.
Staff present:
Jim True, City Attorney
Amy Simon, Preservation Planner
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
Gretchen will recuse herself on 134 W. Hopkins
Jim said he has a business relationship with CCY which is totally
independent of this project and nothing inhibits me from making good
judgement.
HPC congratulated Willis on his award for the Carbondale Library!
134 W. Hopkins Ave. – Conceptual Major Development, On-Site
Relocation and Variances, Public Hearing
Jim True said the affidavits are in order and the applicant can proceed –
Exhibit I
Sara said the property is a 3,000 square foot lot zoned R-6 and was created
from a landmark lot split. The landmark is in its current location. The
request is for relocation of the historic home, demolition of non-historic
additions, construction of a rear addition and extensive restoration to the
historic landmark, setback variances and a portion of the FAR bonus. The
proposal includes a roof deck on the new addition on the back. There is a
one story connector piece between the old construction and new
construction. Staff has some concerns about the proposed railing on top of
the connector which shortens the distance that the connector is a one-story.
The guidelines are clear that a one-story connector piece should be ten feet.
We are recommending that the deck on top of the connector be removed.
There is still a deck on top of the second story new addition which find to be
appropriate. A glass railing is being proposed so it is minimal as far as the
massing.
P43
VI.b
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2015
2
Relocation: There is a proposal to move the historic home off-site down the
street a few blocks to a vacant lot that is across from the Boomerang lodge.
Putting houses off-site has challenges but leaving it on-site when you are
doing a big excavation has more consequences and we are supportive of the
move. We have required a $30,000 letter of credit. HPC might want to
discuss whether this amount is appropriate or not. The applicant is
requesting the remaining 116.4 square feet of the FAR bonus. We find that
warranted with the restoration they are proposing. The space between the
two homes will be increased. We are also supportive of the variances
outlined and staff is recommending approval with conditions.
Chris Touchette, CCY architects
Chris said the owner is prepared to bring the house back to its historic form.
We are moving the house 2.6 to the west and 6.10 inches to the south. It
will be closer to the corner in a more prominent location. The other idea is
to get it away from the neighboring building. We focused on a
contemporary addition that is compatible with the historic resource. The
patio skylight is west of the connector in-between the addition and resource.
We have proposed a non-reflective skylight that is broken up with
interspersed beams. It will not be viewable from 1 st or Hopkins. We have
been working with staff and have eliminated a roof skylight, eliminated a
non-historic window in the gable end of the resource. We are supportive of
staff’s recommendations except for the condition of denial of the small roof
deck over the connector. There is precedence for the use of decks over
connectors.
Exhibit II - elevation of roof deck
Chris said the roof deck is 8 x 6 wide facing 1 st Street and 72 square feet in
area. The connector is 17.6 long. There is a fascia. The small roof deck in
no way encumbers the character of the connector and we would appreciate if
you would discuss the roof deck.
Vice-chair Jim DeFrancia opened the public hearing.
Exhibit III – Sara said the e-mail came from David Melton who lives at 135
Hopkins. He requests that the bonus not be granted because the lot is already
developed with two homes. Use the FAR that is allowed by code. Traffic
and noise on the street constructing the second level basement will be
P44
VI.b
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2015
3
significant and unwarranted. There are no two level basements in this
neighborhood.
Vice-chair Jim DeFrancia said there were no public comments. The public
hearing was closed.
Jim said we should focus on the condition and add or delete them.
Patrick said he agreed with Mr. Melton that the second level basement is not
necessary in that neighborhood. It can cause more people, more traffic etc.
in that area.
Sallie said the double basement has nothing to do with what we look at.
Jim said lets discuss the conditions and then come back to the double
basement.
Nora said regarding 1.a. we have had lengthy discussions about the activity
on top of connectors. Nora said she would support staff on the connector.
Sallie said we have approved two story connectors recently with glass filled
in. This seems a lot more in keeping with the project. Sallie said she has no
issue with the connector.
Bob said he agrees with Sallie that the connector is not obtrusive and you
won’t see it and it has a glass protector.
John said the connector separates the two homes and it should be a low iron
with no reflectivity to it.
Patrick said he agrees with staff and there are already two decks.
Jim said he has no issue with the connector and would approve it.
Sara said there will probably be stuff on top of the deck and that adds mass.
Railings on top of connector are not the most successful approaches to
having a connector piece. The purpose of the linking element is to separate
the mass and we are trying to learn from some of the mistakes that we have
made about allowing the space on top of the connector to be usable space.
P45
VI.b
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2015
4
Nora said this is on a corner lot and is more visible.
Sallie said she has seen a lot of decks that aren’t successful but this isn’t in
that category.
Chris said the deck it is 8x6 wide facing First Street and 72 square feet in
area.
Jim said we have the majority that would favor the connector.
Jim said condition #2 was to provide details of the fence along First Street;
provide details of the grade skylight and Hopkins St. shall be the primary
entrance.
Chris said they are fine with everything but there needs to be discussion on
the double basement.
Jim brought up the double basement and said it is permitted.
Sallie said it was allowable by code at the time the applicant applied. It
doesn’t affect anything that we are supposed to use judgement on regarding
the historic resource.
Nora said there are impacts of noise and stability going down 40 feet etc.
and the number of dump trucks every day and the impacts on the pedestrian
right-of-way. Is it going to increase the number of cars for a two car garage?
Sara said the issues were impacts constructing a double basement and how
long it takes to build up the soil.
John said one property probably didn’t use the best method of soil
stabilization and that upset numerous individuals. The Bldg. Dept. and
construction management have guidelines in place to achieve stability.
Bob said for us to go back and revisit this when it has already been dealt
with we would have a whole new process.
Patrick said he feels the construction management is half of it and it impacts
the neighborhood. The volume will affect the neighborhood.
P46
VI.b
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2015
5
Vice-chair, Jim DeFrancis opened the public hearing. There were no public
comments. The public hearing was closed.
Chris said what is inside the envelope isn’t necessarily part of your purview.
There is one bedroom above the addition and three bedrooms in the
basement and the second basement is dedicated to uses such as a spa and
theatre, wine cave and mechanical room. The density is limited to the first
level of the basement.
Jim said the construction and digging can often be unpleasant but it is also
temporary. There is not a majority to add a condition.
Chris said we would like to have 1 a deleted.
MOTION: Jim moved to approve resolution #10 for 134 W. Hopkins in
accordance with the staff recommendation and striking in 1 a, (the not) .
The character of the connector should be low iron and no reflectivity.
Motion second by Bob.
Patrick said the continued repetition of flat roof additions is destroying the
historic character of residential Aspen and is contrary to the intent of the
guidelines.
Chris said there will not be visible connections.
Roll call vote: Sallie, yes; Nora, no; Bob, yes; John, yes, Patrick, no; Jim,
yes. Motion carried 4-2.
110 E. Bleeker Street – Conceptual Major Development, Demolition and
Variances, Public Hearing cont’d from February 11, 2015
Gretchen was seated.
Exhibit I – Updated elevations.
Amy said this is a 6,000 square foot lot close to the yellow brick. It is an
1887 brick Victorian. The brick has been painted which isn’t healthy for the
building. The front porch was enclosed and a door obliterated. The front
bay window has been removed. There is a small addition on the back of the
house and a large structure along the alley that sits in the alley and on the
P47
VI.b
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2015
6
neighbors lot which has caused some distress over the past few years. The
applicant plans to demolish the problematic garage and also the non-historic
addition on the back and make a new addition. They are not picking up the
house and not moving it and not excavating a basement under it. They are
proposing a total restoration. The paint is to be stripped from the brick and
the front window reconstructed and porch reconstructed etc.
Amy said the proposed addition connects to the back of the Victorian with
the standarad one story element and it touches the building that has already
been altered and it can’t be seen from the street and we feel it is an
appropriate place to ad on. There is a deck on top of the connector that we
did not object to in this case because it is really invisible. On the new
construction there is a basement underneath it. There are some setback
variances requested. There is a request to reduce the east side yard, rear
side yard and the combined side yards. There is also a request for the 500
square foot bonus which is well deserved by the restoration work that is
being proposed. Staff recommends approval with the approval of the bonus,
side and rear yard setbacks and a combined side yard setback. When it
comes time to remove the paint from the brick they need to be careful and
not make the situation worse. We will also need specifications for mortar
repair. The applicant has proposed to reconstruct the historic fence on this
property. We need to make sure it is being built with wood posts. We have
spoken to the Parks Dept. and the applicant can remove the street trees out in
front of this house. The trees are pine and scruffy and block the view to the
house. There is an existing skylight to be replaced and staff is
recommending that it be eliminated. When the brick is stripped the
applicant would like to do some window replacement on the west side of the
house. The original windows are gone and we need to make sure that is
done in the most informed way possible and that we look for actual physical
evidence to see how the windows were placed.
Gretchen asked about the FAR bonus being used as TDR’s.
Amy said a more recent incentive has been the TDR program where you can
sell some of your development rights. In this case they will use the FAR as
part of their project and one TDR, 250 square feet will be sold to a non-
historic site.
Sallie said the TDR program is a good incentive because it keeps
development off this piece of property. It gives them a monetary incentive
P48
VI.b
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2015
7
not to have more square footage effect or be a burden to the historic
resource.
John said it also off-sets the restoration costs.
Patrick asked if the trees will be replaced with deciduous trees. Amy said
the Parks Department will identify the tree replacements.
Kim Raymond, architect said the goal is to restore the house as closely as
they can back to its original state. The existing garage is 2.6 outside the
property line in the alley and 5 feet onto the neighbor’s property. Our plan
is to tear the little garage down and move our garage which is part of the
building 3.1 feet in from the site so we are actually moving it over 8 feet and
bringing it off the alley and four feet off the property line. The Victorian
will remain in its original location. There is a one story linking element with
an exposed corner of the original building and then the addition. The
addition in the back has the same simple gable link.
Vice-chair, Jim DeFrancia opened the public hearing. There were no public
comments. The public hearing was closed.
Jim said staff is recommending approval with 8 conditions. The applicant
has no disagreement with any of the conditions.
Gretchen said she feels the dormers look very high and possibly the architect
would consider removing the large arched windows on the west side which
would make the building simpler. In that way the Victorian would take a
more dominant visual appearance from the street. The additions on the back
of Victorians need to be quiet, clean and simple. The roof addition should
be simplified and maybe the dormer on the south could be removed on the
roof. Just have the two dormers on the north side and nothing on the south
side.
Nora and Patrick said they would support Gretchen’s suggestion.
Sallie said they are trying to bring in the south light.
Jim said the board is offering the removal of the dormers as guidance and to
restudy it for the next meeting.
P49
VI.b
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2015
8
John said dormers are fenestration and that can be looked at for the next
meeting.
MOTION: Jim moved to approve resolution #11 granting conceptual major
development demolition and variances with the conditions as recommended
by staff and with the notation that the applicant has been given guidance to
restudy certain elements when they come back for final.
Amy said there would be a 3’1 inch east side yard setback. The rear would
be 3’8 inch. 5’11 inch side yard and a 9 foot combined.
Amy said the applicant pulled away from the east property line and pushed it
toward the west.
Jim said the motion would include the dimensional requirements. Motion
second by Nora.
Patrick asked the board to discuss the setback on the garage.
Amy said it is up to the applicant to determine if they have movability to get
in and out of the garage.
Gretchen said she feels there is no issue getting in and out.
John said the garage moving is a big improvement.
Roll call vote: Sallie, yes; Nora, yes; Bob, yes; John, yes; Gretchen, yes;
Patrick, yes; Jim, yes. Motion carried 7-0.
MOTION: Jim moved to adjourn; second by Bob. All in favor, motion
carried.
Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk.
P50
VI.b
TIA Guidelines update, 4.9.2015
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines clarification
Resolution 38, Series 2015
DATE: April 13, 2015
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests Council adopt a minor clarification to the City’s
year-old Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines.
PROJECT BACKGROUND: City Council approved a new system to ensure development
mitigates its transportation impacts in April 2014. City Council was interested in ensuring
fairness and consistency in the development process, particularly as it relates to transportation
impacts. The old system was unpredictable because there were no clear guidelines. This
resulted in transportation impacts being determined on an ad hoc case-by-case basis, rather than
being based on adopted standards. The new TIA Guidelines created a clear and consistent
system based on Aspen-specific trip generation data and mitigation measures specifically
tailored to the Aspen area. The system requires actual physical or programmatic improvements
related to trip impacts through Transportation Demand Management (TDM) 1 and Multi-Modal
Level of Service (MMLOS) 2 improvements. Applicants determine their project’s trip increases
and select mitigation measures by using an interactive excel-based tool. 3
The system is based on a set of Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, and an interactive
excel-based tool that allows an applicant to plug their net increase in units and/or square footage
and then select appropriate TDM and MMLOS mitigation measures.
1 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) refers to programs or services that maximize the use of alternative
transportation, including buses, carpools, biking, walking, and carshare modes. TDM techniques include programs
such as compressed workweeks, as well as outreach and education programs. Built alternatives such as Park and
Rides, bike lanes, and bike racks that encourage alternative modes of transportation are also an important element of
TDM programs. Finally, economic incentives and disincentives are part of the TDM tool-box, including things like
parking cash-out programs where an employee trades the right to free parking at their workplace for a cash payment
from the employer.
2 Level of Service (LOS) is a measurement that determines the effectiveness of transportation infrastructure. LOS A
would refer to an area that has free-flow of traffic with almost no traffic. LOS F would refer to an area where the
flow of traffic is backed up and frequent slowing occurs. Typical Level of Service figures only takes vehicle drivers
into account. In recent years, Level of Service has expanded to include multiple modes, called Multi-Modal Level
of Service (MMLOS). MMLOS takes all mode types – auto, bicycle, transit, walking - into account.
3 A copy of the interactive tool is available online at: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-
Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Current-Planning/
P51
VII.a
TIA Guidelines update, 4.9.2015
Page 2 of 3
Since its adoption, a number of land use projects have come through the system, including the
Molly Gibson Hotel, the Sky Hotel, and the Base 1 Lodge. These projects have shown that the
system is working to make the development review process more predictable for transportation
related issues. It’s also revealed areas where the approved system can benefit from changes.
PROPOSED TIA CHANGES: Staff is requesting a change to the TIA Guidelines to clarify
that projects that do not involve new lodge or residential units or new commercial or essential
public facility space square footage are exempt from the requirements. While this is implicit,
feedback from fellow staff members as well as the development community has indicated that a
more explicit exemption is needed for clarity. A copy of the redlined changes is attached as
Exhibit A. The adopted regulations require changes to be approved by City Council by
Resolution.
The transportation mitigation system is based on the net increase in trips that result from new
development. If there is no new development there are no trips, and thus a project should be
exempt from the TIA requirements. For instance, if a property owner wishes to merge adjacent
lots, that in and of itself does not involve the creation of new units or square footage in a
building. It is simply changing where a lot line is located. If that same property owner requested
a redevelopment in the future, that application would be required to show compliance with the
TIA Guidelines by mitigating for their net trip increases.
OTHER TIA UPDATES: Based on feedback from planners, engineers, and others in the
development community, staff has made a number of minor edits to the interactive tool. No
action is required by City Council for these changes.
One of the common comments from applicants using the tool was a request to more easily create
the required narrative and project summary. The tool has been updated to automatically generate
the required narrative. The applicant is required to provide detail on why particular mitigation
measures were selected, but no longer needs to create a separate document, as it’s all contained
within the tool.
A number of changes were made to the Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS) portion of the
tool to clarify what is being requested and to remove options that were repetitive. This includes
the removal of a measure that asked “Do changes to pedestrian access points preserve or enhance
the pedestrian experience.” While this is an important metric, it was redundant with the measure
that asks “Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian access points.”
In addition, staff has added a section for “Additional Proposed Improvements” to enable project
to implement mitigation measures that might be unique to a site. A number of projects have
expressed interest in purchasing a We-Cycle station and providing a permanent location for it on
their site. The original tool did not include a provision for this, so this new section provides a
way for the site to receive points toward their mitigation requirements.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the attached Resolution.
P52
VII.a
TIA Guidelines update, 4.9.2015
Page 3 of 3
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE):
“I move to approve Resolution No. 38, Series of 2015, clarifying exempt levels of development
in the City’s TIA Guidlines.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS :_____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
P53
VII.a
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines Clarification
Resolution 38, Series 2015
Page 1 of 4
Resolution No. 38
(Series of 2015)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL CLARIFYING REQUIREMENTS IN
THE CITY’S TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS (TIA) GUIDELINES.
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen adopted Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA)
Guidelines as Chapter 26.630 of the Land Use Code on April 7, 2014; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.630, amendments to the TIA Guidelines require
review and approval by City Council Resolution; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department conducted Public Outreach with
city staff who administer the TIA Guidelines, as well as private planners and engineers who
represent projects required to comply with the TIA Guidelines and both groups identified certain
clarifications to the Guidelines; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the
proposed amendments pursuant to City of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.630; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and supports the proposed clarification;
and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1: TIA Clarification Objective
The objective of the proposed change to the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines is to
clarify that projects that do not involve development of new lodge or residential units or new
commercial or essential public facility square footage are exempt from the TIA Guidelines as they
do not result in an increase of vehicle trips.
Section 2: The following sections of the TIA Guidelines (pages 8-9) are hereby amended as
follows:
Level of Study and Mitigation
Table 1 shall be used to determine the level of transportation impact study and mitigation required for the
proposed development. These thresholds are based on the City’s Growth Management Quota System
(GMQS), and may be amended administratively over time to reflect applicable changes to GMQS. For
the purposes of this document, development is divided into three categories: Exempt Development, Minor
Development, and Major Development.
• Exempt Development: All development currently exempt under Growth Management would be
exempt from any new transportation mitigation system. This includes adding 500 sq ft or less of
P54
VII.a
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines Clarification
Resolution 38, Series 2015
Page 2 of 4
commercial space, adding a single residential unit, or adding 2 lodge units to a project. Projects
that do not involve development, for instance a lot split or lot merger, are exempt. Projects that
maintain or decrease the number or amount of development of units or square footage in a use
category are exempt. If a project falls under this category it is exempt from TIA requirements and
TDM and MMLOS mitigation. The project may proceed directly to land use review or building
permit as applicable.
• Minor Development All development exceeding the exempt thresholds above, and located
inside the roundabout, regardless of size, is considered minor development. In addition, any
development outside the roundabout (along Highway 82, or up Castle or Maroon Creek Roads),
is considered minor development if it meets the following thresholds under “Minor Development –
Outside the Roundabout” in Table 1. All minor developments are required to perform a Level
One TIA which includes mitigation using Aspen specific TDM and MMLOS mitigation tools.
• Major Development refers to any significant development located outside the Roundabout (i.e.
along the Castle Creek, Maroon Creek, and Highway 82 corridors), and is required to perform a
Level Two TIA which includes Capacity Analysis and a Site Plan Review. Additionally the
development will mitigate using Aspen specific TDM and MMLOS mitigation tools in addition to
mitigating its significant impacts.
If a project falls within multiple development categories, it will be subject to the highest requirement. For
instance, if a project located along Castle Creek Road proposed 100 lodge rooms, 8,000 sq ft of net
leasable space, and 10 residential units, the development would be required to meet the major
development requirements because the lodge and commercial components trigger that threshold. If a
project inside the roundabout decreased the amount of net leasable space by 500 sq ft, but increased the
number of lodging units by 10, the project is considered a minor development. Similarly, if a project
located inside the roundabout proposed 200 sq ft of new net leasable space, 2 new free market
residential units, and 3 new affordable housing units, the entire project would be reviewed under the
minor development requirements because the 5 new residential units trigger that threshold.
P55
VII.a
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines Clarification
Resolution 38, Series 2015
Page 3 of 4
TABLE 1: STUDY LEVELS
Study Level Criteria
Exempt Development
1) Projects that do not add any new lodge or residential units or new
commercial or essential public facility square footage.
2) All development involving Single-Family or Duplex residential dwelling units
3) All development involving the remodel or expansion of existing free-market
or affordable residential units that does not increase the total number of
free-market or affordable residential units
4) All development outlined as "exempt" in Growth Management (26.470.040)
a) Remodeling or expansion of multi-family residential development as
long as no demolition occurs and no new units are added
b) Remodeling or replacement of existing commercial and lodging
development when no new units or net leasable is added and there is
no change in use
5) All development qualifying for an "administrative" review in Growth
Management (26.470.060)
a) Change in use of historic landmark sites and structures involving no
more than 1 free-market residential unit
b) Minor enlargement of historic landmark sites and structures involving
i) no more than 1 free-market residential unit and
ii) expanding floor area or net leasable/lodge units but not both, OR
expanding both floor area and net leasable/lodge units generating
4 or fewer FTEs
c) Minor expansion of a retail, office, lodge, or mixed-use development
involving no more than 500 square feet of commercial net leasable
space OR 2 lodge units
d) Development involving no more than 500 square feet of essential public
facility space
e) Alley commercial space that is accessed entirely off an alley and has no
internal connections to other spaces in the building
f) Temporary food vending
g) Sale of locally-made products in common areas of commercial buildings
(26.470.060.7)
Minor Development – Inside
the Roundabout
(Level One TIA)
1) Any development located east of the City of Aspen Roundabout and larger
than that outlined in Exempt Development
Minor Development –
Outside of Roundabout
(Level One TIA)
1) Located outside of the City of Aspen Roundabout , and meeting one of the
following:
a) Change in use of non-historic sites and structures involving
i) Less than 11 new free-market or affordable residential unit, or
ii) 3 - 24 lodge units, or
iii) 501- 1,799 square feet of commercial net leasable space
b) Enlargement of a historic site or structure involving no more than 1 new
free-market residential or affordable unit and generating between 4 and
8 FTEs
c) Expansion or new commercial space between 501 and 2,499 square
feet
d) Development adding 3 - 24 new lodge units
e) Development of non-historic sites and structures adding 1 free-market
or affordable housing unit
f) Development adding between 501 and 2,199 square feet of new
essential public facility space
P56
VII.a
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines Clarification
Resolution 38, Series 2015
Page 4 of 4
Study Level Criteria
Major Development -
Outside of Roundabout with
Significant Development
(Level Two TIA)
1) Located outside of the City of Aspen Roundabout , and meeting one of the
following:
a) Development adding more than 2,500 square feet of commercial net
leasable space
b) Development adding 25 or more lodge units
c) Development adding 11 or more residential units (free-market,
affordable, or combination)
d) Development adding 2,200 or more square feet of new essential public
facility space
Section 3: Effect Upon Existing Litigation.
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 resolution repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior resolutions.
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.
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this the ___ day of _____, 2015.
Attest:
__________________________ ___________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
Approved as to form:
___________________________
City Attorney
P57
VII.a
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines Clarification
Exhibit A
Page 1 of 3
Exhibit A – TIA Guideline Clarification, Redlines
Level of Study and Mitigation
Table 1 shall be used to determine the level of transportation impact study and mitigation
required for the proposed development. These thresholds are based on the City’s Growth
Management Quota System (GMQS), and may be amended administratively over time to reflect
applicable changes to GMQS. For the purposes of this document, development is divided into
three categories: Exempt Development, Minor Development, and Major Development.
• Exempt Development: All development currently exempt under Growth Management
would be exempt from any new transportation mitigation system. This includes adding
500 sq ft or less of commercial space, adding a single residential unit, or adding 2 lodge
units to a project. Projects that do not involve development, for instance a lot split or lot
merger, are exempt. Projects that maintain or decrease the number or amount of
development of units or square footage in a use category are exempt. If a project falls
under this category it is exempt from TIA requirements and TDM and MMLOS mitigation.
The project may proceed directly to land use review or building permit as applicable.
• Minor Development All development exceeding the exempt thresholds above, and
located inside the roundabout, regardless of size, is considered minor development. In
addition, any development outside the roundabout (along Highway 82, or up Castle or
Maroon Creek Roads), is considered minor development if it meets the following
thresholds under “Minor Development – Outside the Roundabout” in Table 1. All minor
developments are required to perform a Level One TIA which includes mitigation using
Aspen specific TDM and MMLOS mitigation tools.
• Major Development refers to any significant development located outside the
Roundabout (i.e. along the Castle Creek, Maroon Creek, and Highway 82 corridors), and
is required to perform a Level Two TIA which includes Capacity Analysis and a Site Plan
Review. Additionally the development will mitigate using Aspen specific TDM and
MMLOS mitigation tools in addition to mitigating its significant impacts.
If a project falls within multiple development categories, it will be subject to the highest
requirement. For instance, if a project located along Castle Creek Road proposed 100 lodge
rooms, 8,000 sq ft of net leasable space, and 10 residential units, the development would be
required to meet the major development requirements because the lodge and commercial
components trigger that threshold. If a project inside the roundabout decreased the amount of
net leasable space by 500 sq ft, but increased the number of lodging units by 10, the project is
considered a minor development. Similarly, if a project located inside the roundabout along
Main Street proposed 200 sq ft of new net leasable space, 2 new free market residential units,
and 3 new affordable housing units, the entire project would be reviewed under the minor
development requirements because the 5 new residential units trigger that threshold.
P58
VII.a
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines Clarification
Exhibit A
Page 2 of 3
TABLE 1: STUDY LEVELS
Study Level Criteria
Exempt Development
1) Projects that do not add any new lodge or residential units or new
commercial or essential public facility square footage.
1)2) All development involving Single-Family or Duplex residential dwelling units
2)3) All development involving the remodel or expansion of existing free-market
or affordable residential units that does not increase the total number of
free-market or affordable residential units
3)4) All development outlined as "exempt" in Growth Management (26.470.040)
a) Remodeling or expansion of multi-family residential development as
long as no demolition occurs and no new units are added
b) Remodeling or replacement of existing commercial and lodging
development when no new units or net leasable is added and there is
no change in use
4)5) All development qualifying for an "administrative" review in Growth
Management (26.470.060)
a) Change in use of historic landmark sites and structures involving no
more than 1 free-market residential unit
b) Minor enlargement of historic landmark sites and structures involving
i) no more than 1 free-market residential unit and
ii) expanding floor area or net leasable/lodge units but not both, OR
expanding both floor area and net leasable/lodge units generating
4 or fewer FTEs
c) Minor expansion of a retail, office, lodge, or mixed-use development
involving no more than 500 square feet of commercial net leasable
space OR 2 lodge units
d) Development involving no more than 500 square feet of essential public
facility space
e) Alley commercial space that is accessed entirely off an alley and has no
internal connections to other spaces in the building
f) Temporary food vending
g) Sale of locally-made products in common areas of commercial buildings
(26.470.060.7)
Minor Development – Inside
the Roundabout
(Level One TIA)
1) Any development located east of the City of Aspen Roundabout and larger
than that outlined in Exempt Development
Minor Development –
Outside of Roundabout
(Level One TIA)
1) Located outside of the City of Aspen Roundabout , and meeting one of the
following:
a) Change in use of non-historic sites and structures involving
i) Less than 11 new free-market or affordable residential unit, or
ii) 3 - 24 lodge units, or
iii) 501- 1,799 square feet of commercial net leasable space
b) Enlargement of a historic site or structure involving no more than 1 new
free-market residential or affordable unit and generating between 4 and
8 FTEs
c) Expansion or new commercial space between 501 and 2,499 square
feet
d) Development adding 3 - 24 new lodge units
e) Development of non-historic sites and structures adding 1 free-market
or affordable housing unit f) Development adding between 501 and 2,199 square feet of new
essential public facility space
P59
VII.a
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines Clarification
Exhibit A
Page 3 of 3
Study Level Criteria
Major Development -
Outside of Roundabout with
Significant Development
(Level Two TIA)
1) Located outside of the City of Aspen Roundabout , and meeting one of the
following:
a) Development adding more than 2,500 square feet of commercial net
leasable space
b) Development adding 25 or more lodge units
c) Development adding 11 or more residential units (free-market,
affordable, or combination)
d) Development adding 2,200 or more square feet of new essential public
facility space
P60
VII.a
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Chris Forman, Parks Department Operations Manager
THRU: Tom Rubel, Parks and Open Space Director
Jeff Woods, Manager of Parks and Recreation
DATE OF MEMO: March 9, 2015
MEETING DATE: April 13, 2015
RE: Ventrac Tractor Purchase Contract Approval
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff recommends approval of the contract for the purchase of
one (1) Ventrac Tractor with affiliated work implements/attachments.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: This fleet addition was approved in the 2015 Asset
Management Plan. City Council approved this management plan within the 2015 Budget.
BACKGROUND:
This vehicle was included within the fleet management plan to accommodate new areas of
responsibilities within the Department, specifically snow removal on crosswalk ramps, alleyway
crossings, and street crossings within the commercial core of town. This vehicle is not just a
seasonal piece of equipment but is used on a daily basis throughout the year for maintenance
operations including snow plowing/blowing, sweeping, mowing, fertilizing, and aerating.
DISCUSSION:
The tractor described in this memo is part of the identified fleet needs for the Parks Department.
The tractor and its implements are used for the maintenance tasks mentioned above, as well as to
move personnel, tools and materials throughout our parks, trails, and athletic field systems.
Continuing the use of Ventrac brand tractors will allow Parks to utilize a vast array of
implements we currently own which are specific to Ventrac brand tractors. In addition, the
implements purchased with this tractor can also serve as backup when others within our fleet are
being serviced or in a state of disrepair.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: C&M Golf and Grounds Equipment was awarded the bid
for the utility tractor and implements described in this memo. Total cost is $42,391.00. These
purchases are allocated within the Parks Department fleet budget. These purchases are the result
of discounted governmental pricing provided by Ventrac’s authorized dealer in Colorado.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The selection of this type of gas powered tractor, as
opposed to the diesel powered version, provides the horsepower necessary to drive the associated
P61
VII.b
Page 2 of 2
implements in a more efficient manner. The newly developed diesel version was demonstrated
here in Aspen, and resulted in higher fuel consumption and the production of continuous black
smoke due to the diesel engine being underpowered at our elevation. There is currently no
electric version of this tractor that will provide the services necessary for our operations.
RECOMMENDED ACTION : Staff is recommending that Council approve the contract for the
purchase of this tractor and its implements.
ALTERNATIVES : Council could choose to not approve this contract which would result in
less efficient management of added responsibilities and higher maintenance costs due to
extensive wear and tear of existing equipment.
PROPOSED MOTION : I move to approve Resolution #33, series of 2015, on the Consent
Calendar of Monday, April 13, 2015.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
P62
VII.b
RESOLUTION # 33
(Series of 2015)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND C&M Golf and Grounds Equipment 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 a
Ventrac Tractor , between the City of Aspen and C&M Golf and Grounds
Equipment, 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 a Ventrac Tractor, between the City of Aspen and C&M Golf and Grounds
Equipment, 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 13 th day of April 2015.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, April 13, 2015.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P63
VII.b
CITY OF ASPEN STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT
SUPPLY PROCUREMENT
City of Aspen Project No.: 2015-021.
AGREEMENT made as of 13 th day of April , in the year 2015 .
BETWEEN the City:
Contract Amount:
The City of Aspen
c/o Parks
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: (970) 920-5055
And the Vendor:
C&M Golf and Grounds Equipment
c/o Bruce Smith
6395 E. 56 th Avenue
Commerce City, CO 80022
Phone: 303-375-4913
Summary Description of Items to be Purchased:
Ventrac 4500Z, 32hp, gas engine, liquid cooled, high altitude kit, tractor
____________________________________________________________________________
Exhibits appended and made a part of this Agreement:
If this Agreement requires the City to pay
an amount of money in excess of
$25,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid
until it has been approved by the City
Council of the City of Aspen.
City Council Approval :
Date: April 13, 2015
Resolution No.:___________________
Exhibit A: List of supplies, equipment, or materials to be purchased.
Total: $42,391.00
P64
VII.b
The City and Vendor agree as set forth below.
1. Purchase . Vendor agrees to sell and City agrees to purchase the items on Exhibit A
appended hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if fully set forth here for the sum
set forth hereinabove.
2. Delivery . (FOB 585 Cemetery Lane, Aspen, Colorado 81611)
[Delivery Address]
3. Contract Documents . This Agreement shall include all Contract Documents as the
same are listed in the Invitation to Bid and said Contract Document are hereby made a part of
this Agreement as if fully set out at length herein.
4. Warranties . (See Warranty attachment).
5. Successors and Assigns . This Agreement and all of the covenants hereof shall inure
to the benefit of and be binding upon the City and the Vendor respectively and their agents,
representatives, employee, successors, assigns and legal representatives. Neither the City nor the
Vendor shall have the right to assign, transfer or sublet its interest or obligations hereunder
without the written consent of the other party.
6. Third Parties . This Agreement does not and shall not be deemed or construed to
confer upon or grant to any third party or parties, except to parties to whom Vendor or City may
assign this Agreement in accordance with the specific written permission, any right to claim
damages or to bring any suit, action or other proceeding against either the City or Vendor
because of any breach hereof or because of any of the terms, covenants, agreements or
conditions herein contained.
7. Waivers . No waiver of default by either party of any of the terms, covenants or
conditions hereof to be performed, kept and observed by the other party shall be construed, or
operate as, a waiver of any subsequent default of any of the terms, covenants or conditions herein
contained, to be performed, kept and observed by the other party.
8. Agreement Made in Colorado . The parties agree that this Agreement was made in
accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and shall be so construed. Venue is agreed to
be exclusively in the courts of Pitkin County, Colorado.
9. Attorney’s Fees . In the event that legal action is necessary to enforce any of the
provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its costs and reasonable
attorney’s fees.
10. Waiver of Presumption . This Agreement was negotiated and reviewed through the
mutual efforts of the parties hereto and the parties agree that no construction shall be made or
presumption shall arise for or against either party based on any alleged unequal status of the
parties in the negotiation, review or drafting of the Agreement.
P65
VII.b
11. Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility, and Voluntary
Exclusion . Vendor certifies, by acceptance of this Agreement, that neither it nor its principals is
presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily
excluded from participation in any transaction with a Federal or State department or agency. It
further certifies that prior to submitting its Bid that it did include this clause without modification
in all lower tier transactions, solicitations, proposals, contracts and subcontracts. In the event
that Vendor or any lower tier participant was unable to certify to the statement, an explanation
was attached to the Bid and was determined by the City to be satisfactory to the City.
12. Warranties Against Contingent Fees, Gratuities, Kickbacks and Conflicts of Interest.
(A) Vendor warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to solicit
or secure this Contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission,
percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide
established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Vendor for the purpose of
securing business.
(B) Vendor agrees not to give any employee of the City a gratuity or any offer of
employment in connection with any decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation,
preparation of any part of a program requirement or a purchase request, influencing the
content of any specification or procurement standard, rendering advice, investigation,
auditing, or in any other advisory capacity in any proceeding or application, request for
ruling, determination, claim or controversy, or other particular matter, pertaining to this
Agreement, or to any solicitation or proposal therefore.
(C) Vendor represents that no official, officer, employee or representative of the City during
the term of this Agreement has or one (1) year thereafter shall have any interest, direct or
indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof, except those that may have been
disclosed at the time City Council approved the execution of this Agreement.
(D) In addition to other remedies it may have for breach of the prohibitions against contingent
fees, gratuities, kickbacks and conflict of interest, the City shall have the right to:
1. Cancel this Purchase Agreement without any liability by the City;
2. Debar or suspend the offending parties from being a vendor, contractor or
subcontractor under City contracts;
3. Deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the value of
anything transferred or received by the Vendor; and
4. Recover such value from the offending parties.
13. Termination for Default or for Convenience of City . The sale contemplated by this
Agreement may be canceled by the City prior to acceptance by the City whenever for any reason
and in its sole discretion the City shall determine that such cancellation is in its best interests and
convenience.
P66
VII.b
14. Fund Availability . Financial obligations of the City payable after the current fiscal
year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise
made available. If this Agreement contemplates the City using state or federal funds to meet its
obligations herein, this Agreement shall be contingent upon the availability of those funds for
payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
15. City Council Approval . If this Agreement requires the City to pay an amount of
money in excess of $25,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid until it has been approved by the City
Council of the City of Aspen.
16. Non-Discrimination . No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, marital
status, affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry, handicap,
or religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform under this Agreement.
Vendor agrees to meet all of the requirements of City’s municipal code, section 13-98, pertaining
to nondiscrimination in employment. Vendor further agrees to comply with the letter and the
spirit of the Colorado Antidiscrimination Act of 1957, as amended and other applicable state and
federal laws respecting discrimination and unfair employment practices.
17. Integration and Modification . This written Agreement along with all Contract
Documents shall constitute the contract between the parties and supersedes or incorporates any
prior written and oral agreements of the parties. In addition, vendor understands that no City
official or employee, other than the Mayor and City Council acting as a body at a council
meeting, has authority to enter into an Agreement or to modify the terms of the Agreement on
behalf of the City. Any such Agreement or modification to this Agreement must be in writing
and be executed by the parties hereto.
18. Authorized Representative . The undersigned representative of Vendor, as an
inducement to the City to execute this Agreement, represents that he/she is an authorized
representative of Vendor for the purposes of executing this Agreement and that he/she has full
and complete authority to enter into this Agreement for the terms and conditions specified
herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The City and the Vendor, respectively have caused this Agreement
to be duly executed the day and year first herein written in three (3) copies, all of which, to all
intents and purposes, shall be considered as the original.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
P67
VII.b
FOR THE CITY OF ASPEN:
ATTEST: By: ________________________________
City Manager
__________________________________
City Clerk
VENDOR:
C & M GOLF AND GROUNDS EQUIPMENT
By: _____________________________
___________________________________
Title
P68
VII.b
Exhibit A Supply Procurement Agreement
Model Description List Price
Quoted
Price Quantity Extended
39.51208
Ventrac 4500Z, 32hp Kubota industrial gas
engine, liquid cooled, with high alt kit $ 22,840.00
$
21,700.00 1 $ 21,700.00
70.2009
KW450 all weather cab, includes: work
lights, strobe beacon, slope indicator $ 8,320.00 $ 7,904.00 1 $ 7,904.00
directional signals/flashers, console mt.
heater, exterior mirrors, directional defrost
arm rest for deluxe seat, 12volt acuator and
12volt front kit
39.554 HB580, 58" broom reversible $ 4,140.00 $ 3,933.00 1 $ 3,933.00
39.55427 KX523, snow blower $ 4,595.00 $ 4,365.25 1 $ 4,365.25
39.55251 KD482, 48" dozer blade $ 1,355.00 $ 1,287.25 1 $ 1,287.25
39.55105 HM602, 60" mower $ 3,370.00 $ 3,201.50 1 $ 3,201.50
$ 42,391.00
P69
VII.b
VENTRAC TRACTOR WARRANTY INFORMATION
All new Ventrac tractors and attachments purchased in the United States and Canada
are covered by Ventrac’s V-Plus Warranty .
3-Year Residential Limited Warranty
3000/4000 series tractors and attachments
• 3 years with unlimited hours
2-Year Commercial Limited Warranty
3000/4000 series tractors and attachments
• 2 years with unlimited hours
Engine Warranty*
Covered by engine manufacturer
• B&S Vanguard 3/LC = 2-year
w/ 3rd major parts only
• B&S Vanguard V-twins = 3-year
• Kawasaki V-twins = 3-year
• Kubota 3 cylinder = 2-year or 2000 hours** with 3rd year major parts only or
3000 hours**
Exclusions
Rental equipment - limited to 180 days
Replacement parts - limited to 90 days
Limitations and Conditions
Ventrac equipment, including defective parts, must be returned to your authorized Ventrac dealer
within the warranty period. The warranty extends to the cost to repair or replace (as determined
by V.P.I.) the defective part. The expense of pickup and delivery of equipment, service call drive
time or any transportation expense incurred for warranty repair is the responsibility of the owner.
Proof of purchase may be required. Warranty work must be completed by an authorized Ventrac
dealer.
This warranty extends only to Ventrac turf equipment operated under normal conditions and
properly serviced and maintained. The warranty does not cover repair of damage due to normal
use, wear and tear, maintenance services, repair of damage related to abuse, neglect, accident or
use of the turf equipment which is not in accordance with operating instructions in the operator’s
manual, or damage resulting from repair of Ventrac turf equipment by person or persons other
than an authorized Ventrac service dealer or the installation of parts other than genuine Ventrac
parts or Ventrac recommended parts.
P70
VII.b
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager
FROM: John D. Krueger , Director of Transportation
DATE OF MEMO: April 2, 2015
MEETING DATE: April 13, 2015
RE: Revision to the EOTC 2015 1/2% Transit Sales and Use Tax Budget
_______________________________________________________________________________
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Attached for your review and approval is resolution #40 series 2015
and budget which, if approved, would authorize the following supplemental 2015 ½-cent transit
sales and use tax budgets:
1. Increase Rubey Park construction contribution by $1 million to $4.9 million total (funded
from Aspen Transportation Savings Fund)
2. Add $280,000 for Buttermilk Transit Parking Lot paving (funded from 2015 annual
surplus)
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
The Pitkin County Commissioners, Snowmass Village Town Council and Aspen City Council meet
together as the Elected Officials Transportation Committee (“EOTC”) to oversee the budget for
the Pitkin County 1/2 cent transit sales and use tax. City Council, as a member of the EOTC,
approved the proposed $1 million additional contribution for Rubey Park construction and
$280,000 for Buttermilk Transit Parking Lot paving at the March 5, 2015 EOTC meeting. Also
approved at that meeting was a $750,000 contribution for the Basalt pedestrian underpass
construction in 2016. As a future-year project it does not require budget approval at this time but
has been included in the multi-year plan.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Aspen as a member of the EOTC is required to approve the budget by resolution. Each
other member of the EOTC is also required to approve the budget by resolution before the budget
can be considered adopted.
DISCUSSION:
The mission of the EOTC is to “work collectively to reduce and/or manage the volume of vehicles
on the road system and continue to develop and support a comprehensive multi-modal, long-range
strategy that will ensure a convenient and efficient transportation system for the Roaring Fork
Valley.” The 2015 budget provides for a use of the funds in a manner consistent with the EOTC
mission.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPLICATIONS:
There are no financial implications to the City as these are EOTC funds and not City funds.
P71
VII.c
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
By encouraging mass transit and working to manage or reduce the number of vehicles on the road
system, the EOTC is having positive impacts on the environment.
RECCOMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends that Council approve the attached resolution #40 series 2015 to revise the 2015
EOTC budget.
ALTERNATIVES:
Council can decide not to approve the budget revision and send it back to the EOTC for further
discussion and approval.
PROPOSED MOTION:
“I move to approve Resolution # 40 series 2015 to approve a revision to the 2015 EOTC Budget.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution #40 Series 2015: Approving a Revision to the 2015 Budget for the ½-Cent Transit Sales
and Use Tax Fund
EOTC 2015 Budget and Multi-year Plan
P72
VII.c
2015 EOTC BUDGET AND MULTI-YEAR PLAN
EOTC Transit Project Funding
Actual Budget Budget Plan Plan Plan Plan
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
FUNDING SOURCES:
a)Pitkin County 1/2% sales tax 4,185,934 4,433,000 4,655,000 4,888,000 5,059,000 5,236,000 5,419,000
b)Pitkin County 1/2% use tax 813,034 878,000 918,000 946,000 974,000 1,003,000 1,033,000
c)Investment income & misc.41,522 56,000 61,000 123,000 218,000 284,000 334,000
Total Funding Sources 5,040,490 5,367,000 5,634,000 5,957,000 6,251,000 6,523,000 6,786,000
FUNDING USES:
1)Use tax collection costs 46,874 111,796 85,100 87,653 90,283 92,991 95,781
2)Administrative cost allocation & meeting costs 16,725 18,827 17,937 18,475 19,029 19,600 20,188
2a) Planning retreat 6,800
3)Cab ride in-lieu of bus stop safety imprvs 5,527 8,000 10,000 10,300 10,609 10,927 11,255
4)X-Games transit subsidy 100,000 100,000 115,000 115,000 115,000 115,000 115,000
5)Brush Creek Intercept Lot operating costs 18,057 35,000 36,000 37,080 38,192 39,338 40,518
6)RFTA contribution (81.04% of 1/2% sales tax)3,392,281 3,592,503 3,772,412 3,961,235 4,099,814 4,243,254 4,391,558
7)No-fare Aspen-Snowmass-Woody Creek bus service - year-round 551,900 551,900 551,900 551,900 551,900
7a) requested increase 69,758 132,479 195,199 204,959 215,207
8)No-fare bus service - winter, spring, fall 478,148 476,211
9)No-fare bus service - summer (funded from Snowmass Village Savings)75,689 75,689
10)Capital projects pool (advanced equally from Aspen & Snowmass Savings)
10a) AABC pedestrian crossing design & engineering (addtl $125,000)20,720
10b) AABC pedestrian crossing construction contribution 2,025,000
10c) AABC pedestrian crossing construction - savings returned (100,000)
11)AABC ped. crossing design & engineering ($250k advanced from Aspen Savings)
12)Rubey Park (funded from Aspen Savings)
12a) scoping & conceptual design 204,216
12b) final design, land use & permitting 650,000
12c) construction 4,900,000
13)Regional Travel Patterns study 30,000
14)Buttermilk lot paving 280,000
15)Basalt pedestrian underpass 750,000
Total Uses 6,383,237 5,104,826 9,738,107 5,664,122 5,120,026 5,277,970 5,441,407
EOTC ANNUAL SURPLUS/(DEFICIT)(1,342,747) 262,174 (4,104,107) 292,878 1,130,974 1,245,030 1,344,593
EOTC CUMULATIVE SURPLUS FUND BALANCE 9,423,154 9,685,328 5,581,221 5,874,100 7,005,073 8,250,104 9,594,696
a)sales tax 7.0%5.9%5.0%5.0%3.5%3.5%3.5%
b)use tax 3.6%8.0%4.5%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%
c)investment earnings rate 0.5%0.5%0.6%2.2%3.7%4.1%4.1%
DISTRIBUTION OF ANNUAL SURPLUS (excludes projects funded from savings funds)695,893 292,878 1,130,974 1,245,030 1,344,593
25% to Snowmass Village Savings until restored to $6,278,787 173,973 73,220 282,743 311,258 183,789
remainder to Aspen Savings 521,920 219,659 848,230 933,773 1,160,803
Revenue projections:
3/25/2015 15b EOTC.xlsx
P
7
3
V
I
I
.
c
2015 EOTC BUDGET AND MULTI-YEAR PLAN
Actual Budget Budget Plan Plan Plan Plan
Savings Fund for greater Snowmass Village Area 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
less summer no- fare service (75,689) (75,689) - - - - -
less 1/2 of advance to capital pool (1,022,860) - 50,000 - - - -
plus reimbursement of advance to capital pool - - 173,973 73,220 282,743 311,258 183,789
Savings Fund for greater Snowmass Village Area ($6,278,787 max)5,279,493 5,203,804 5,427,777 5,500,997 5,783,740 6,094,998 6,278,787
Actual Budget Budget Plan Plan Plan Plan
Calculation of amount allocated to Savings Fund for greater Aspen Area 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Pitkin County 1/2% sales tax 4,185,934 4,433,000 4,655,000 4,888,000 5,059,000 5,236,000 5,419,000
Pitkin County 1/2% use tax 813,034 878,000 918,000 946,000 974,000 1,003,000 1,033,000
Investment income & misc.61,000 123,000 218,000 284,000 334,000
less committed funding (187,183) (280,423) (1,165,695) (1,702,887) (1,020,212) (1,034,716) (1,049,849)
less RFTA contribution (81.04% of 1/2% sales tax)(3,392,281) (3,592,503) (3,772,412) (3,961,235) (4,099,814) (4,243,254) (4,391,558)
Annual Surplus to be allocated 1,419,504 1,438,074 695,893 292,878 1,130,974 1,245,030 1,344,593
Annual 2/3's allocation to Aspen Savings through 2014 946,336 958,716
Annual surplus remaining after reimbursement of advances - - 380,515 933,773 1,160,803
plus reimbursement for $250,000 pedestrian crossing funding 36,542 29,147 184,311 - - -
less 1/2 of advance to capital pool (1,022,860) - 50,000 - - - -
plus reimbursement of advance to capital pool - - 337,609 219,659 467,715 - -
less Rubey Park funded from Aspen Savings (204,216) (650,000) (4,900,000)
Savings Fund for greater Aspen Area 4,143,661 4,481,524 153,444 373,103 1,221,333 2,155,106 3,315,909
Actual Budget Budget Plan Plan Plan Plan
Advances from Aspen and Snowmass Village Savings Funds 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
remaining balance to reimburse Snowmass Savings for advance to capital pool 1,074,983 1,074,983 851,010 777,790 495,047 183,789 -
remaining balance to reimburse Aspen Savings for advance to capital pool 1,074,983 1,074,983 687,374 467,715 - - -
remaining balance to reimburse Aspen Savings for 2011-12 $250,000 advance 213,458 184,311 - - - - -
Actual Budget Budget
Calculation of amount allocated to discretionary funding (N/A after 2014)2013 2014 2015
EOTC ANNUAL SURPLUS (after funding operations)(1,342,747) 262,174
less annual 2/3's allocation to Aspen Savings through 2014 (946,336) (958,716)
plus advance for capital projects pool 2,045,720 - (100,000)
plus Rubey Park planning funded from Aspen Savings 204,216 650,000
plus summer no-fare bus service funded from Sowmass Village Savings 75,689 75,689
Remaining annual discretionary funding 36,542 29,147
less reimbursement to Aspen Savings for $250,000 ped crossing funding (36,542) (29,147)
less reimbursement of advance to capital pool -
Net annual discretionary funding after reimbursements - -
Cumulative remaining discretionary funding after reimbursements - -
3/25/2015 15b EOTC.xlsx
P
7
4
V
I
I
.
c
RESOLUTION NO. 40
SERIES OF 2015
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING A REVISION TO THE 2015 BUDGET FOR THE PITKIN COUNTY 1/2 CENT
TRANSIT SALES AND USE TAX
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council, the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners
and the Town Council of Snowmass Village (the "Parties") have previously identified general
elements of their Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan (the "Plan") which are eligible for
funding from the Pitkin County one-half cent transit sales and use tax; and
WHEREAS, by intergovernmental agreement dated September 14, 1993, the Parties agreed:
a. to conduct regular public meetings as the Elected Officials Transit
Committee (“EOTC”) to continue to refine and agree upon proposed projects and
transportation elements consistent with or complimentary to the Plan; and
b. that all expenditures and projects to be funded from the County-wide one-
half cent transit sales and use tax shall be agreed upon by the Parties and evidenced
by a resolution adopted by the governing body of each party; and
WHEREAS, at the EOTC meeting held on March 5, 2015, the Parties considered and
approved the following supplemental budget requests for 2015: (1) increase Rubey Park
construction contribution by $1 million to $4.9 million (funded from Aspen Transportation Savings
Fund), and (2) add $280,000 for Buttermilk Transit Parking Lot paving (funded from 2015 annual
surplus); and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen wishes to ratify the approvals given at the EOTC meeting by
adoption of this resolution.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, that the following increases to the 2015 budget for the one-half cent transit sales and use
tax are hereby approved as summarized below:
Additional contribution for Rubey Park construction $1,000,000
Buttermilk Transit Parking Lot paving 280,000
RESOLVED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 13 th day of April, 2015, by the City
Council for the City of Aspen, Colorado.
_________________________
Steve Skadron, Mayor
I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk, do certify that the foregoing is a
true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, at a meeting held April13 th , 2015.
______________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P75
VII.c
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Chris Forman, Parks Department Operations Manager
THRU: Tom Rubel, Parks and Open Space Director
Jeff Woods, Manager of Parks and Recreation
DATE OF MEMO: March 30, 2015
MEETING DATE: April 13, 2015
RE: Bear Proof Trash Can Replacement Contract Approval
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff recommends approval of the contract for the purchase of
BearSaver brand trash and recycle cans to replace existing noncompliant and nonmatching cans
within the mall and core areas of town.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: There has not been a prior Council action regarding the
purchase of this type of bear proof can.
BACKGROUND:
There are several different sizes, shapes, and styles of trash/recycle cans found throughout the
City of Aspen parks and trails systems. Some of these cans are compliant with the City of Aspen
code mandating animal resistance, while others do not meet the criteria. For many years, the
noncompliant cans have functioned in a way that bears were unable to access them on a regular
basis. Over the past two years, this has not been the case, and the bears have become more adept
in accessing the contents of these cans. In response to this, the Parks Department placed a
retrofitted lid on these cans in hopes that it would resolve the issue of bears accessing their
contents. That fix was not adequate based upon the strength of materials used as well as the
inadvertent access provided by people not getting the lid closed after using the cans. Another
retrofit was pursued to fix this issue, but after 8 months of waiting and not receiving any viable
solutions, the option to provide a permanent fix for these cans was abandoned. The Parks
Department contacted the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Division (CPW) to seek input on a style
of can approved by their wildlife biologists. The can style proposed in this memo was fully
supported by CPW staff, provides a uniform product for functionality and aesthetics, and fully
complies with City code language regarding animal resistance. A rendering of these cans can be
found as Attachment A. The trash cans will be black with the word ‘trash’ on the lid, while the
recycling can will be green with the word ‘recycling’ and the recycling symbol on the lid. Both
cans will have the customized leaf design with a silver background.
P76
VII.d
Page 2 of 2
DISCUSSION:
The Parks Department has an opportunity to replace the trash and recycling cans this spring in
order to provide the level of animal resistance required within our City Code language. In
addition to this compliance issue, we would be installing cans which are consistent in design and
function throughout the mall and core areas of town. An additional benefit of installing the new
cans will be the ability to eliminate the separate paper recycling cans which currently exist in
some areas. The single stream recycling program provides an opportunity to utilize one recycle
can, resulting in less maintenance, fewer cans, and less confusion for users. The replacement
effort this spring will incorporate 50 new cans and cover all of the mall and core areas of town.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The Parks Department anticipates being able to replace
50 trash and recycle cans with the custom, animal resistant cans shown in this memo for
approximately $50,000. These purchases are allocated within the Parks Department budget by
utilizing trash can maintenance funds as well as the funds appropriated for costs associated with
trying to retrofit existing cans. Replacement of these cans will reduce labor costs by eliminating
the need to empty cans outside of normal working hours as well as costs associated with cleaning
up when bears gain access to existing cans.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The selection of this type of can will provide great benefits
to the City due to its effectiveness in preventing wildlife access to their contents. Bear
interactions in the downtown area has been an ongoing problem for several years and access to
trash/recycling can contribute to the issue. Replacement of current cans will eliminate bear
access and hopefully aid in reducing the amount of bear activity in the mall and downtown areas.
RECOMMENDED ACTION : Staff is recommending that Council approve the contract for the
purchase and installation of these new trash and recycling cans.
ALTERNATIVES : Council could choose to not approve this contract which would result in
ongoing bear interactions, noncompliant and nonuniform cans throughout the downtown area,
and higher labor costs associated with emptying cans outside of normal working hours to cut
down on bears accessing the cans throughout the night/early morning.
PROPOSED MOTION : I move to approve Resolution #39, series of 2015, on the Consent
Calendar of Monday, April 13, 2015.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Attachment A: Rendering of new cans
P77
VII.d
RESOLUTION # 39
(Series of 2015)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND BEAR SAVER 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
animal resistant recycling and trash enclosures, between the City of Aspen and
Bear Saver, 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 animal resistant recycling and trash enclosures, between the City of Aspen and
Bear Saver, 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 13 th day of April 2015.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, April 13, 2015.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P78
VII.d
P79
VII.d
P80
VII.d
P81
VII.d
P82
VII.d
P83
VII.d
P84
VII.d
P85
VII.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 16, 2015
1
CITIZEN COMMENTS AND PETITION ................................................................................................... 2
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS – ........................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
BOARD REPORTS ...................................................................................................................................... 2
CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................. 3
Ordinance #10, Series of 2015 – 530 W. Hallam Historic Landmark Lot Split ........ Error! Bookmark not
defined.
Ordinance #5, Series of 2015 – Utilities Development Review Fees ......... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Ordinance #9, series of 2015 – Limits on Variations Code Amendment ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Ordinance #7, Series of 2015 – 1450 Crystal Lake Road, Aspen Club & Spa – Planned Development
Amendment ................................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
P86
VII.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 16, 2015
2
At 5:00 pm Mayor Skadron called the meeting to order with Councilmembers Frisch, Mullins, Romero
and Daily present
CITIZEN COMMENTS AND PETITION
1. Jasmine Depocter said Bert has lots gotten a lot of traction from the petition and a lot of traction
from the size of the art museum. Now may be a good time to rethink the 50,000 square foot
public building. It will be awfully big. 50,000 square foot is really big.
2. Torre told the Council he would like to comment about consent items C, F and G. He also said at
last Monday’s regular meeting Councilwoman Mullins commented she was in favor of the Castle
Creek bridge process with engineering. She said it was 2.7 million dollars and if it didn’t work it
could be reversed. He said he is concerned that it is a big expense and two Councilmembers view
it as an experiment. He asked for clarity from the other Councilmembers. Councilwoman
Mullins replied she is not sure she used word experiment. It is an attempt at a solution. She
agreed to take more time and spend more money for a more permanent solution. After the
meeting she heard from many cyclists that it needs done sooner rather than later. She does not
consider it an experiment but a possible solution. If compromises are too difficult we have not
made permanent changes so we can go back and reline the bridge. In the meantime it is increased
safety of cyclists and the way to go. She said she stated what she thought should be done.
Councilman Daily said it is a work in progress. Councilman Frisch replied his assumption is the
bridge could better enhance safety for the cyclist without harming traffic. He is waiting to hear
back on further studies. Mayor Skadron stated he would never treat the City budget different than
his own. Torre said it has been suggested that engineering is looking at a traffic study. He
suggested putting orange cones on the bridge and we will find out what the impacts are. He sent
an email today about land use code changes and said to let the petition run its course.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
There were none.
BOARD REPORTS
1. Councilman Romero stated at the RFTA board there continues to be deliberation and debate
around the master plan and access control plan which is a vital compliance element. They are
standards and specifications of the Rio Grande rail line. There are conversations with Glenwood
and Carbondale and the standards do require physical requirements that might trigger public
improvement projects that cross over the rail line. They are in final negotiations with the
Clean Energy Collective. There is a 20 year plan for a hybrid contract with mostly solar arrays.
2. Councilman Frisch said Council met last week and lot of the members are going on spring break
and Council needs to have two meetings a month.
Jim True stated the charter requires two meetings a month.
3. Mayor Skadron attended the CAST meeting in Denver. They are legislative meeting with ski
towns and there are 34 members. Mayor Skadron is president of CAST. The mission is to
strengthen the relationship of the front range and mountain communities. Michael Berry, Fiona
Arnold, Shailen Bhatt, CDOT director, and Kevin Bommer from the Colorado Municipal League
were in attendance.
P87
VII.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 16, 2015
3
CONSENT CALENDAR
Resolution #30 – Contract for Virtualization Upgrades
Jim Considine, IT department, told the Council they provide services including pc’s, wireless, SIRE
agenda application and they are all hosted on servers. Each application typically has its own server.
There are around 25 City workgroups and all have at least one application. The virtualization system
hosts the servers that run the applications. In 2008 we had 40 physical servers. This brings in three
physical servers that host all of those applications and soft wares. It will eliminate 35 physical
devises. This will take the servers and data and replicate it to a disaster recovery site that will be
located at the Red Brick. If the data center here can’t function all the applications could run out of the
Red Brick.
Councilwoman Mullins asked where the data center is. Mr. Considine replied here. Councilwoman
Mullins asked if there is anything at the Red Brick now. Mr. Considine said three physical hosts will
be repurposed there. Councilwoman Mullins asked how often will we be upgrading and can we
anticipate it. Mr. Considine stated we replace the physical servers every five years. This is a
replacement of what was in place five years ago. Councilwoman Mullins said there is 33,000 dollars
for implementation. How many people does that include and for how long. Mr. Considine replied it
is one engineer for eight to ten days.
Mayor Skadron asked if it a necessary backup. Mr. Considine stated it is an insurance policy and
absolutely necessary. Mayor Skadron asked if there is an alternative. Mr. Considine said we could
run on the old equipment and take the risk without any backup. Mayor Skadron asked if it is the
industry standard. Mr. Considine said we had it with Pitkin County. This is the best practice and
virtualization has saved us lots of energy over the past five years. Most businesses operate this way
these days. We now have the ability to move the backup anywhere. It is minimizing the cost
associated with a disaster recovery site. Part of every new technology is to look at what can be hosted
externally. This is not one of them. Mayor Skadron said we have a data center with a redundant
system. Mr. Considine said it is redundant cooling. We also implemented a stand by generator.
Mayor Skadron said it is a necessary back up but needs a simple explanation. Mr. Considine said the
server systems we are replacing are replacements. We are upgrading to the latest operating systems.
This is standard business. Councilwoman Mullins said it has to be upgraded every five years not
surprising. It’s hard to see so much money going towards it but it is a shift in business. Mr. Barwick
said we are creating a separate backup center. Mayor Skadron stated it is replacement of hardware
that outlived its useful life and the creation of a backup system were losing with the split from the
County.
Resolution #27 - RLB Contract
Jack Wheeler, asset, stated at the November 17 work session Council authorized the RFP for the
building replacement project. There were six responses with RLP coming in at the middle of the
pack. They interviewed three firms and selected RLB.
Councilman Frisch said the police department is losing space. Other city departments are losing
office space including engineering and it needs to add up to 50,000 unless there are other aspects.
There is a lack of efficiency of current space and it needs to be laid out clearly. The problem is not
understood and we need to break down what is being replaced and what is being added. He supports
the project but is not sure the problem is understood. It needs more community buy in.
Mr. Wheeler said they explained the problem to people who participated. Who is losing space and
when. If city hall is taken out of play the square footage grows. The overall criteria grows with a
renovation or move. The design team includes public outreach consultants. We understand not
P88
VII.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 16, 2015
4
everyone understands the problem and wants to continue dialog further. Mr. Barwick stated housing
has already been moved out. The office spaces in the Yellow Brick are inappropriate with child
centers upstairs. We are faced with losing all the office in down town except the Wheeler and this
building. You can’t build modern offices to standards of this building. He pointed out there is no
increase in the average office size in the new building. There will be more meeting rooms. The only
growth in office space is 3,000 square feet for all additions of staff over the next 40 years. The rest is
all public space. Councilman Frisch said the difference between replacement and expansion will be
laid out.
Councilman Romero said the construction manager contract is for 470,000 dollars and the proposed
design contract is for 2.3 million. Would the combination of nearly 2.8 million dollars get us to the
level of conceptual or building permit. Mr. Wheeler replied construction documents. Councilman
Romero said it feels like a large risk commitment in the face of not a lot of strong will to get to the
yes. He understands we have to advance the intelligence of options and the need to inform the
community with data and concepts. It seems we would want to have milestones built in to hedge the
risk. That should be brought back to Council with an exit ramp for each milestone. There needs to be
an appropriate mechanism to protect the community. Mr. Wheeler said it is built in. We can
terminate at any point. It is better to buy the whole package than to piecemeal. There is a specific
schedule with design milestones. He cautions we need to go slow and circle back to pick up as much
of the community as possible and define the problem.
Councilman Frisch said we do all the studies but don’t know where the buildings are going to go. He
asked if we are studying both locations. Mr. Wheeler said there are two options that Council pointed
to that match what was heard from the public. The first stakeholder meetings for this phase are
coming up in April.
Councilman Daily asked for a sketch of what role the construction manager project services group
will do. Mr. Wheeler said they will manage and compile the budget and cost controls for the long
term and short term. They will ensure the payments are consistent with the services. They will write
memos to Council and be involved with public outreach. The first step will be overall program level
budgets with ancillary costs.
Councilwoman Mullins stated she does not want the public to think we made assumptions that have
not come from a consensus. She objects to calling this a building replacement project. It is more
talking about utilization of the buildings we have than building replacement. We are not building
something new just to build something new. She agrees that we need to have milestones for Council
and the public with a decent exit strategy. She would rather the process take longer than shorter. As
far as the role of RLB she asked what is the scope of work, cost estimating, public outreach. Rob
Taylor, RLB, said they are trying to put their arms around the entire project. There are miscellaneous
sub-contractors to manage. Getting the right team in place and monitoring of them. Cost estimating is
a key component and so is public outreach. Mr. Wheeler said it is cost containment and keep track of
what the systems are costing. They are also helping with sustainability efforts. Validate what the
design team comes back with. Keep everyone on the same page all the time including accountability
of the team. It is not an extension of staff. Councilwoman Mullins pointed out page 155 of the packet
has a picture of art museum. She is not sure if it’s in there as a good example or bad example but
would steer clear of it.
Torre stated he met with Jack and Jeff last week. He thinks the public is not aware as we would want
them to be. This is another example of his concern of the city’s dollars. This process has gone
quickly. Council narrowed it down to two options and hired a project manager and architect firm. Is
P89
VII.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 16, 2015
5
there directive to take both options to construction drawings. The schedule is super aggressive.
Two options were chosen, option one is most intensive and burdensome to go through and is literally
making city hall bigger. Option four proposes that police is the furthest away it could be from the
actual police campus. He proposed option two. His concern is about the contract. RLB is 470,000
dollars for a 20 month period. He believes this is an extension of city hall. It is worthy of three or
four FTE’s. It is premature right now. The Cunniffe contract is 2.2 million. Is he working two
different options to construction drawings. How can we be moving forward when we have not picked
an option.
Mayor Skadron said we are dealing with the realities of the marketplace and swiftly changing market.
There are pressures of the police department also. We are under a burdensome deadline. Scott
Miller, asset, said the RLB contract and the scope of work as is more commonly called an owners rep.
When Burlingame one was completed they decided all large projects would have an owners rep to
keep everyone accountable and financially accountable. Mr. Wheeler said they didn’t start with four
options. They listened to the needs and space analysis for the City. It is a through process tied to a
Council top 10 goal. They found deficiencies that needed addressed and some were brought on by
lost space including the loss of police and building, engineering, city manager and canary space.
They looked at our assets and how are we going to solve the problem. The four options came out of
need. It was vetted by Council, staff and the public. It seemed like two options met the needs with
currently held assets with goals formed along the way. The direction from Council is to put police at
540 Main. The County is building a new public safety building behind the courthouse annex. It
made sense to put police there. The RFP for design and construction manager as advisor were very
specific. The first milestone is to take options one and four to conceptual level design and cost
programing to make an informed decision as a community for what is best.
Charles Cuniffee said the two concepts with pricing first and community feedback will come first
before Council choses an option. The contract is 12 firms working in collaboration. There will be an
excess of 30,000 man hours involved in the next few years. The sense of urgency is from police and
where are they going. It is not building replacement but space relocation. This is a 50 year outlook
not just a fix for today. We need to act as good stewards for this town’s fate.
Torre stated option four does not represent police going to 540 Main. Does the ancillary building
next to Mill Street still stay. In option four and one it says “assumes reuses of armory for public
benefit” and not sure what that means. A lot of this is employee generation and where does the City
see that in 50 years. LEEDS certification is part of the contract. There is a lot of talk these days if
that is necessary or just build to those standards and may want to look at that for going forward.
More public vetting is appropriate. The space needs are there. Less is more, small is good. Mayor
Skadron said it is the best way for accurate pricing and through community feed back to prepare the
two options. Mr. Cunniffe said we have to study what the options mean. The work is necessary to
make intelligent next decisions. Mr. Barwick said there are options four A and four B. Four B puts
the police on Zupancis. Mayor Skadron said we are responding to market realities and attempting to
solve the problem in a way that achieves program efficiencies using our own assets. Council is
attempting to make an informed decision by preparing two options. It is an appropriate degree of
stewardship and is necessary to make intelligent decisions.
Resolution #32 – Construction Contract for Galena plaza
Mr. Wheeler said this is to repair the water proofing on the garage. They have been talking about
since 1999. It has come to a point where it needs repaired and the work is in conjunction with the
P90
VII.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 16, 2015
6
library project. The library will take around 30 percent of the cost. It is just sodding the north end
until further discussion on municipal offices. It also leaves the stairs for further evaluation.
Councilman Romero said it is a healthy contingency given the conditions. Mr. Wheeler said the
contingency is around 500,000 dollars or about 10 percent. There are unforeseen conditions in the
alley. They are doing everything they can to minimize risk. There will be Mill Street closures from
April 1-10. Mr. Miller said the Sanitation District is replacing the sanitary line down the alley and it
ties in to the middle of Mill Street. The connection is 15 feet deep in Mill Street. Due to soil
conditions there will be an open excavation for up to 10 days. April 1-10 is the Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District closure. April 6-10 CDOT is working on the signal poles and there will be
closures in the turn lanes at Main Street. April 11-24 ACSD and City of Aspen partial closure of
Mill. Three to four weeks after April 10 CDOT will set the poles on Main Street. There will be one
way traffic in and one way traffic out. Traffic in on North Spring to Rio Grande. Parking will be
eliminated. Bleeker is one way behind the Jerome and loading zone. Trucks will go down North
Aspen Street. The schedule time of the closure is approximately seven days but they are saying 10 to
be safe. They are asking for a variance on work hours to seven to seven Monday through Saturday.
Mr. Miller stated they are rebuilding the alley and all the infrastructure will be replaced and at the
same time the Sanitation District has a sewer that needs replaced. It is not a development project but
a replacement and repair. Councilwoman Mullins asked is CDOT work a separate reason. Mr. Miller
said it is to replace the traffic signal poles. Councilman Frisch asked if the variance for construction
is part of this or separate thing. Mr. Wheeler said the city engineer will approve it. Councilman
Romero asked about the public outreach plan. Mr. Wheeler said they had dialogs with businesses
along the alley. They are starting the 300 foot radius outreach. They are doing everything they can to
minimize the impacts. Councilman Frisch asked if this can be done in May. Mr. Wheeler said there
are several things driving this including food and wine. The library has constraints and steel
deliveries in April. There is additional utility work in May. Councilman Frisch asked what are the
current approved construction hours. Tyler Christoff, engineering, replied 7:30 to 5:30 Monday
through Friday and 9 -5 on Saturday. Mr. Wheeler said the construction schedules are built from 7:30
to 5:30 right now. The only reason they would go into the hour and day variance is if they hit
unforeseen conditions. They are asking for this as an insurance policy. Councilman Daily said it is a
complex infrastructure project. Other than CDOT and San District does the PCL contract cover all
the work for this project. Mr. Wheeler replied yes. Trish Aragon, city engineer, stated we have sites
asking for extended hours all the time when they run into certain situations. This is not an unusual
request that is approved. Jack is being proactive and we appreciate that. Councilman Frisch said he
would rather they work later than start earlier.
Mayor Skadron said this is significant. First is the full lane closure with the left turn down Main to
Mill having both lanes closed for 10 days. He asked for sign that makes announcement starting on
Wednesday. Mr. Christoff said they are working on outreach with the county for the caucus on Red
Mountain. Mayor Skadron said he does not want to have one person show up to Council saying they
did not know about this. CDOT is replacing the stop light towers. Work will continue to prepare the
infrastructure in the alley through April 10 th . Mr. Barwick said the reason for one way is semis will
be using these streets. Councilman Daily asked if Spring Street can handle this traffic. Mr. Wheeler
replied the road bed can. Councilman Daily asked if there is any need for temporary controls. Mr.
Christoff said there will be a flagger at Spring and Main for peak hours. Mayor Skadron said we will
get through this.
P91
VII.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 16, 2015
7
Resolution #28 – Amendment to Resolution 10, Additional Vote Centers
Linda Manning, city clerk, told the Council Health and Human Services in not available on election
day or the potential run off day. The available vote center options include The Aspen Chapel, Cross
Roads Community Church, Aspen Jewish Community Center, the Red Brick and the Truscott
meeting room. Truscott is not ADA accessible and Staff does not recommend it. Councilman Frisch
said for this transition year having one or two vote centers would be helpful. Councilman Romero
said he is ok with adding a second vote center. Mayor Skadron said his preference is the traditional
way but he is good with one additional center. Torre said when we looked at HHS it saw turnout of
150 voters where the Red Brick sees between 300 and 400 voters on election day. He asked Council
to consider another vote center. We could see up to 1000 voters on election day. People can register
on election day and vote. You can go to any place to vote. Torre mentioned govotecolorado.com is
the easiest place to register to vote. Mayor Skadron and Council agreed on the Red Brick as the
additional vote center.
Resolution #35 – Complete Streets Project
Mr. Christoff said this is the second phase of the Mill Street complete street project. It was originally
identified by Council in 2009. Currently they are looking to proceed with phase two improvements
from Rio Grande Place to Puppysmith. Councilwoman Mullins asked about the funding allocated.
There was 698,000 dollars in 2015 and the total is still 698,000 and she asked why. Mr. Christoff
said he would clarify it.
Torre commented he is concerned with the design elements. His biggest concern is the center median
and whether it is grass or raised concrete. There was a long discussion at Council about medians on
Main Street. He also has concerns with the edge grass areas and irrigation. He stated his reason for
concern is what happened at Gondola plaza. The design there was afoul of what the conversation was
and questioned the end product. It is Councils obligation and responsibility to find the solution that
best works for us in Aspen. He is checking in with Council to see if they did due diligence.
Mr. Christoff said complete streets are a national concept. It take streets that were not specifically
designed for conveyance of motorists and designs them so they are friendlier for everyone. It allows
for equal and safe access for pedestrians, cyclists and cars. Staff has heard from the community about
the median. They will place a temporary curb structure to try it out. If favorable feedback they
would go to a more permanent solution. The landscape is irrigated and tied to the parks irrigation in
Rio Grande park. Ms. Aragon said we learned from Gondola Plaza and can do and will do better at
this intersection.
Councilman Romero moved to adopt the consent calendar; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor,
motion carried.
• Resolution #29, Series of 2015 – Toro Utility Cart Purchases
• Resolution #30, Series of 2015 – Contract for Virtualization Upgrades
• Resolution #27, Series of 2015 – RLB contract project #2014-158 Aspen Building Replacement
Project – Construction Manager as Advisor
• Resolution #32, Series of 2015 – Construction contract PCL for Galena Plaza project #2014-133
• Resolution #26, Series of 2015 – Design contract Charles Cunniffe Architects – Aspen Building
Replacement Project #2014-157
• Resolution #28, Series of 2015 – Amendment to Resolution #10, Series of 2015 for additional
vote centers
P92
VII.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 16, 2015
8
• Resolution #35, Series of 2015 – Mill Street Complete Street Phase II construction contract
• Resolution #34, Series of 2015 – Development Review and Model Civil submittal – Contract for
professional services
• Board Appointments -2nd alternate for HPC and P&Z
• Minutes – March 9, 2015
• Resolution #36, Series of 2015 – Concrete replacement and pedestrian improvement project
• Cozy Point Ranch Historic Red Barn – History Colorado State Historic Fund award acceptance
Resolution #31, Series of 2015 – Public Projects Code Amendment, Policy Resolution
Justin Barker, community development, told the Council this proposed policy resolution to amend the
land use code to align with state statures. The amendment will establish a review process for public
entities that will be completed within the 60 day max as required by the state. Staff conducted an open
house for potentially effected entities, met with P&Z and a work session with Council. If Council adopts
the policy resolution, Staff will bring back the proposed ordinance.
Councilwoman Mullins asked if we can actually turn around in 60 days. Mr. Barker said they can at lease
render a decision. Councilwoman Mullins said the jurisdiction can overturn our decision and this is more
as in good faith.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment.
1. Marcia Goshorn said this does need to be passed but if a district decides to build something they
don’t need to ask. They do it to be nice.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Resolution #31; seconded by Councilman Daily. Roll call vote.
Councilmembers Romero, yes; Frisch, yes; Daily, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion
carried.
Ordinance #9, Series of 2015 – Limitations of Variances Code Amendment
Jessica Garrow, community development, stated this is a code amendment that amends the code in four
ways. It provides limitations on height and floor area, provides limitations for reductions on affordable
housing, establishes the P&Z as BOA, and updates grammar and cleans up the code. It will limit variance
requests and create clarity in the code for Council and community members. Council has reviewed this
twice and has expressed some desire to have some flexibility but send the message that zoning is zoning
and extra needs to be proved.
Section one relates to housing mitigation and prohibits reductions in mitigation. There are two exceptions
for essential public facilities and Aspen Modern designations.
Section two is related to heights and floor area. An applicant can only request two feet in additional
height and five percent additional floor area. This puts a cap or limit on the request. Currently there is no
max on height or floor area. Staff has removed the public vote provision.
Section three is new review criteria. In addition to placing a cap on what can be requested through
planned development Staff added two criteria the applicant needs to meet. The first is the proposed
increase is necessary related to unique site condition. The second would allow Council to approve the
increases if it furthers a stated community goal like affordable housing.
Section four and five designate Planning and Zoning as BOA.
Staff thinks the ordinance is ready and there is not much more to do without further direction.
P93
VII.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 16, 2015
9
Councilman Frisch asked about the process an applicant goes through if they are not asking for two feet
or five percent. The pushback to the up zoning is if someone wants the extra they have to spend the time
and money to go to Council. Ms. Garrow said unless you need the height for a true site constraint the
applicant will not voluntarily come to Council.
Councilman Daily said he likes the additional review criteria staff proposed. It is healthy and balanced.
It is a little additional flexibility and only when appropriate. It is healthier for Council to have a small and
measured level of discretion. Shutting it all off is not good for the community. Council does not want
broad unfettered authority. Council should be thoughtful governance with a small measure of discretion.
Councilman Romero said section three defines two criteria that an applicant can request. For furthers
stated community goals, is it staffs intent to tie back to the AACP. Ms. Garrow said it refers to the
AACP and Council top 10 goals that are adopted annually. The community plan is no longer a regulatory
document.
Councilwoman Mullins stated she concurs with Councilman Daily. She is a little uncomfortable with the
change to the BOA. There are arguments for and against the change. She is still not clear what the right
decision is. Councilman Frisch said a few planners commented they don’t bother going there because
they are too tough. Staff said it is easier to go through them. P&Z meets regularly and the community is
better served going to a board that meets regularly and up on the code. Ms. Garrow replied it makes sense
to have P&Z and HPC for historic properties. There are a lot of qualified folks on the BOA did not meet
last year or this year and we are not using that board. They can become part of active boards.
Councilman Frisch said nonprofessional developers who want to come and ask for an adjustment view
P&Z too complicated how do we deal with this. Ms. Garrow said it is a misconception. It is the same
process with either board and a better utilization of city resources.
Councilman Frisch said he is ok with Staffs suggestion.
Mayor Skadron said it should be removed. It clutters the specific objective of the land us code change.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment.
1. Marcia Goshorn said the land use code does need rewritten so it is understandable. If you had an
addendum that allowed variances for ADA compliance or energy efficiency you wouldn’t need
this. The County has a separate section of the code that deals with ADA and energy efficiency.
A vent cap is counted in the height of a building. If it is a health and safety issue it should be
allowed. It needs to be written clearly. She does not agree with getting rid of the BOA. It is a
safety valve.
Ms. Garrow stated the BOA does not review P&Z decisions. Those go to City Council. The
BOA only reviews hardships not related to height and floor area. Our code has similar
provision as the County for ADA and energy efficiency.
2. Torre stated that Ordinance 9 has become very restrictive. He feels like Council is tying their
own hands. Someone can’t come in with an application for a variance for affordable housing
mitigation. He said he thinks Council should let the referendum run its course. The Board of
Adjustment only meets once or twice a year. What a great volunteer opportunity. Keep the
BOA.
3. Neil Segal said the deliberative process this ordinance has taken demonstrates that the
representative form of government works very well. It is fully consistent with the City charter
section 3.4 which has never been amended. This Council is the governing body of the City and
has the power to adopt laws and resolutions as it deems proper. It doesn’t say as the people deem
proper. It has served us well for 45 years. The charter amendment like to cut that authority away.
It forces Aspen to evolve to a series of votes. In the end, the phrase keep Aspen, Aspen really
P94
VII.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 16, 2015
10
means keeping the process that has served us well since 1970. The passage of this ordinance is
important.
4. Phyllis Bronson stated she basically agrees with Ann and Art. There needs to be some
discretionary aspects. She is concerned that Council needs to have discretion to a point. She is
not sure this is the best way to do it only because of the timing. She is not happy with not seeing
the AACP be reintroduced as an integral part of this discourse. The AACP has been dropped out.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
Ms. Garrow said there is a deleted word on page 759 of packet. In Section two the word “no” needs
added in.
Mayor Skadron asked how the two feet above zoning allowance and five percent don’t become the basis
of the application. Ms. Garrow said it adds additional scrutiny and review. Instead of just P&Z the
applicant will come to Council for a much more lengthy and time consuming process. It only pertains to
a unique site constraint or further some community goal.
Mayor Skadron said this is quite complicated and he is proud of council. What you are seeing here is the
most significant tightening of the land use code ever. What happened in 2003 was Council allowed
heights to go bigger. All the big stuff built today came in under the old code. Previous Council rolled
back those heights. Now you can only build a 28 foot tall building. This Council is taking a further step
to ensure the character and built environment is appropriate, relevant that speaks to the tourist, guests and
community. It is a significant tightening of the code as it relates to height, bulk and mass. Today a
developer can ask for the moon. We are saying you can only ask for this much if there is a site specific
constraint. Attempting to address land use codes in the charter undermines the entire principle of
representative democracy. The charter is the City’s most important legal document and effects everything
City government does. The charter amendment is the wrong place for land use code. It is absolutely
intolerant for other views. He believes this ordinance is appropriate and he will support Staff’s
recommendation with the exclusion of the BOA.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance 9, Series of 2015 with amendment to Section two to
add “no” and deletion of sections four and five. Seconded by Councilman Frisch.
Councilman Frisch thinks the BOA is the right decision at the wrong time. At some point, relatively
soon, he would like to see it brought back. Hats off to Mayor Skadron for his eloquent defense of the
ordinance. He is supportive of keeping heights around 28 feet and FAR roughly the same. He would still
like to see the housing discussion go away like the parking discussion. This assumes or validates we have
the exact housing mitigation needed for all cases at all times. Councilman Frisch moved to strike that
aspect from the ordinance. Councilman Romero appreciates that perspective, however there is lots of
realization on hosing in various zone districts. Tone and tenor do matter. There have been quality
decisions that reflect the greatest good for the greatest amount. He hope they have been a decent role
model in exercising good discretion, well measured and well reasoned. His heart and head can get behind
this. He does not support having dramatic changes appear in the charter.
Councilman Daily stated he thinks housing requirements in the code are a critical component of land use
policy. He does not want to leave it up to an application by application basis like parking. He would like
to leave affordable housing untouched. If we want to do that do it on a broader basis. He is happy to
keep the BOA and is in favor of the ordinance.
P95
VII.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 16, 2015
11
Councilwoman Mullins said in terms of parking versus housing requirements the parking needs will
change in town over the next 20 years. Housing requirements are going to continue to increase. In the
next six months to a year we need to make sure to validate and reconfirm what we are asking as far as
mitigation. We need to confirm we are asking for the right amount. For now it should be as stated in the
ordinance.
Mayor Skadron said he understands the sentiment. At this point he will concur with the rest of Council
and take the lead from the AAC P. Housing is the responsibility of the entire community and we should
have development that carries its own weight.
Councilman Frisch appreciates housing and parking are different and a major part of the ordinance is
FAR and bulk and mass. He will support staff’s recommendation but would rather have the other one and
wants to have the support of the entire council table. He does believe development needs to pay its way
on housing.
Motion without a second dies and it goes back to the original motion.
Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Frishc, yes; Daily, yes; Romero, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes.
Motion carries.
Councilman Frisch moved to adjourn at 7:40 pm; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor,
motion carried.
Linda Manning
City Clerk
P96
VII.e
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Justin Barker, Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: Public Projects Code Amendment
Ordinance 11, Series of 2015, First Reading
MEETING DATE: April 13, 2015 (Public Hearing scheduled April 27, 2015)
SUMMARY:
Staff is proposing a code amendment to bring the City’s Land Use Code into alignment with
State Statute. Currently, there is a conflict between State Statute requirements and what the Land
Use Code requires regarding land use review process. For certain projects submitted by a
governmental entity, quasi-municipal organizations or public agency (hereinafter called “public
entities”), the State requires a decision (approval or not) within 60 days of a submitted complete
application. This is often referred to as a location and extent review. However, the review
process required by the Land Use Code can often exceed this timeline. The applicable entity has
the ability to overturn whatever decision is made, but it is imperative that the City have a process
in place to comply with State regulations, while providing adequate review of the projects. The
proposed ordinance establishes a review process for projects submitted by public entities that
complies with State Statute.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Ordinance on First Reading.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
This is the 1st reading of a proposed code amendment to the Land Use Code. Pursuant to Land
Use Code Section 26.310, City Council is the final review authority for all code amendments.
All code amendments are subject to a three-step process. This is the third step in the process:
1. Public Outreach
2. Policy Resolution by City Council indicating if an amendment should the pursued
3. Public Hearings on Ordinance outlining specific code amendments.
DISCUSSION:
The purpose of the proposed code amendment is to create a process that provides adequate
review of certain projects proposed by public entities (and certain private development projects),
in order to eliminate conflict between State requirements and the City of Aspen Land Use Code.
This memo outlines the proposed code amendment.
Page 1 of 3
P97
VIII.a
Expansion of COWOP Chapter: Staff believes that the existing COWOP (Development
Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public) Chapter 26.500 is the
most appropriate location in the Code to include this amendment, as this is a similar existing
review process. The proposed code amendment includes restructuring the existing review
process, and creating two new levels of review in this Chapter to create a total of a three-tier
review system for public projects: Administrative, Minor, and Major. Administrative review is
for very simple projects such as trail construction or adding ramps for accessibility requirements.
Minor review includes most remodels, minor expansions, and some new construction. Major
review would replace the existing COWOP process as the highest level of review for large new
construction projects that would benefit from more extensive public exposure and involvement.
Review authorities: Administrative reviews would be completed by the Community
Development Department and mostly include minor or no visual change to a property. This
review type would be in line with many approval types that are typically already administrative.
Minor review is a one-step review at City Council, with optional input from other City boards.
Major review is a two-step process, with reviews before either HPC or P&Z, as applicable, and
City Council. An optional advisory group may be used for additional input. The advisory group
would consist of members of other City boards, key referral agencies, and other interested
parties, as applicable. The purpose of the advisory group is to review the application, provide
feedback to the applicant, and create a recommendation to the review boards. A private
development project under this review would be required to use the advisory group.
Review process: All reviews must be completed within sixty (60) days. This should be
reasonable, as the most extensive review only requires two public hearings.
On some projects, the applicant may decide a longer timeline may be acceptable. This would be
negotiated with the City. Any private development project that is reviewed under this process
would not be required to be reviewed within sixty (60) days.
Applicability & Exemptions: A private development project has the opportunity to use this
review process if certain criteria are met. This would either be authorized by the Community
Development Director or City Council, depending on the scope.
Certain projects are not required to go through the public projects process. Projects located
within the right-of-way are not traditionally subject to land use reviews, so routine maintenance
and/or upgrades within the right-of-way are exempt.
Additionally, a public entity has the option to elect to go through the standard review process
that is outlined in the Land Use Code instead. The public projects review only serves as an
opportunity to expedite review and not a requirement if it is not desired by the entity proposing a
project.
PUBLIC OUTREACH:
Staff requested feedback from the public entities that this code amendment may affect and held a
meeting with P&Z to obtain feedback. Those public entities providing comment were generally
Page 2 of 3
P98
VIII.a
in support of the concept and direction suggested by staff. P&Z was also generally in support of
the concept and direction suggested by staff. A work session was also held with City Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the attached Ordinance to amend the Land Use Code to comply
with State Statute regarding review of public projects.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
“I move to approve Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015 approving amendments to the Land Use
Code upon first reading. Second Reading is scheduled for April 27, 2015.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Staff Findings
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Amendment Language
Page 3 of 3
P99
VIII.a
ORDINANCE No. 11
(Series of 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO
CHAPTER 26.500 – DEVELOPMENT REASONABLY NECESSARY FOR THE
CONVENIENCE AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND
USE CODE.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.208 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen
Land Use Code, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the Community Development
Department to prepare an amendment to the Development Reasonably Necessary for the
Convenience and Welfare of the Public Chapter of the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the
Municipal Code shall begin with Public Outreach, a Policy Resolution reviewed and acted on by
City Council, and then final action by City Council after reviewing and considering the
recommendation from the Community Development; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development
Department conducted Public Outreach regarding the code amendment; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing
on March 16, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution No.31, Series of 2015, requesting code
amendments to the Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the
Public Chapter of the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the
proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.500 – Development
Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendments and
finds that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310.050;
and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1: Code Amendment Objective
The objective of the proposed Land Use code amendment is to bring the Land Use Code into
compliance with State Statute regarding the review of projects submitted by public entities.
Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015
Code Amendment – Public Projects
Page 1 of 8
P100
VIII.a
Section 2:
Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.500 in its entirety shall read as follows:
Chapter 26.500
PUBLIC PROJECTS
Sections:
26.500.010 Purpose
26.500.020 Authority
26.500.030 Applicability
26.500.040 Procedures for review
26.500.050 Advisory group
26.500.060 Timing requirements
26.500.070 General review standards
26.500.080 Application
26.500.090 Appeals
26.500.010 Purpose
It is the purpose of this Chapter to exempt certain types of development from applicable sections,
except as noted herein, of Title 26 and to establish an alternative process and standards for the
review, analysis and approval of those types of developments determined to be eligible for such
alternative review and analysis. The purpose in identifying and applying alternative review
standards for certain developments eligible for such treatment is to provide a more flexible,
streamlined, thorough and coordinated review of public projects or when it is determined by the
City Council to be in the best interests of the community to do so.
26.500.020 Authority
Public Project review of certain public and quasi-public projects is mandated by State law,
including, but not limited to, C.R.S. §31-23-209. As a home rule municipality organized and
operating under Article XX of the Colorado Constitution, the City of Aspen is vested with the
authority and power to exempt certain types of development from the Aspen Land Use Code,
Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code. See Clark v Town of Estes Park, 686 P.2d 777 (Cob.
1984); City of Colorado Springs v Smartt, 620 P.2d 1060 (Colo. 1980).
26.500.030 Applicability
This Chapter shall apply to any development proposed within City limits if the Applicant for
development is a governmental entity, quasi-municipal organization, or public agency providing
essential services to the public and which is in the best interests of the City to be completed. The
Community Development Director or City Council may authorize a private development to be
reviewed as a Public Project pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D). By way of example and not
limitation, Public Project development shall include:
1. Affordable housing projects developed by the City, governmental entity, quasi-municipal
organization, or public agency, by itself or in conjunction with an agent or private
developer.
Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015
Code Amendment – Public Projects
Page 2 of 8
P101
VIII.a
2. Public buildings, structures, and facilities developed by the City, governmental entity,
quasi-municipal organization, or public agency.
3. Park and recreational facilities development.
4. Development applications determined by the Community Development Director or City
Council, pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D), to support important community goals and
to be reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public.
Routine maintenance and upgrades within the public right-of-way are exempt from this Chapter.
An application for development that is eligible for review as a Public Project is not required to be
reviewed as a Public Project. The Applicant may elect to have their development proposal
reviewed according to the standard procedures set forth by the Land Use Code.
26.500.040 Procedures for review
The Community Development Director shall make a determination that the proposed
development application qualifies for Administrative, Minor, or Major Public Project Review.
The necessary steps for each type of review are outlined below:
A. Administrative Public Project Review. The following types of Public Projects may be
approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Community Development Director:
1. Projects necessary to achieve compliance with building, fire, or accessibility codes on an existing
property or building; or
2. The addition of energy production systems or energy efficiency systems or equipment on an
existing property or building; or
3. Projects that do not change the use, character, or dimensions of the property or building, or
represent an insubstantial change to the use, character, or dimensions of the property or building.
The Community Development Director may seek advisory comments from the Historic Preservation
Commission, Planning & Zoning Commission, City Council, neighbors, or the general public as may be
appropriate.
The Community Development Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for
Administrative Public Project Review, based on the standards of review in Section 26.500.070, General
review standards.
B. Minor Public Project Review. An application for Public Project review that the Community
Development Director finds is generally consistent with the existing development, but does not qualify
for Administrative Public Project Review shall qualify for Minor Public Project Review. City Council,
during a duly noticed public hearing, shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for
Minor Public Project Review, based on the standards of review in Section 26.500.070, General review
standards. The review process is as follows:
Step One – Public Hearing before City Council.
Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015
Code Amendment – Public Projects
Page 3 of 8
P102
VIII.a
1. Purpose: To determine if the application meets the standards for Minor Public Project
Review.
2. Process: The City Council shall approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the
proposed development, after considering the recommendations of the Community
Development Director and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed
public hearing.
3. Standards of review: The proposal shall comply with the review standards of Section
26.500.070.
4. Form of decision: City Council decision shall be by Ordinance.
5. Notice requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph
26.304.060.E.3, the requirements of Section 26.304.035 – Neighborhood Outreach as
applicable, and the requisite notice requirements for adoption of an ordinance by City
Council.
The Community Development Director may seek advisory comments from the Historic
Preservation Commission, Planning & Zoning Commission, neighbors, or the general public as
may be appropriate.
C. Major Public Project Review. An application for Public Project review that the Community
Development Director finds represents a significant change to the property shall qualify for Major Public
Project Review. City Council, during a duly noticed public hearing, shall approve, approve with
conditions, or deny an application for Major Public Project Review, based on the standards of review in
Section 26.500.070, General review standards. The review process is as follows:
Step One – Public Hearing before Planning & Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation
Commission.
1. Purpose: To determine if the application meets the standards for Minor Public Project Review.
2. Process: The Planning and Zoning Commission, or Historic preservation Commission if the
property is designated or is located within a historic district, shall forward a recommendation of
approval, approval with conditions, or denial to City Council after considering the
recommendation of the Community Development Director and comments and testimony from the
public at a duly noticed public hearing.
3. Standards of Review: The proposal shall comply with the review standards of Section
26.500.070. Private development projects authorized to be reviewed as Major Public Projects,
pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D) shall also be required to comply with the review standards of
Section 26.500.075.
4. Form of Decision: The Planning and Zoning Commission, or Historic Preservation Commission
recommendation shall be by resolution.
5. Notice requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3
and the provisions of Section 26.304.035 – Neighborhood Outreach as applicable.
Step Two – Public Hearing before City Council.
1. Purpose: To determine if the application meets the standards for Major Public Project Review.
Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015
Code Amendment – Public Projects
Page 4 of 8
P103
VIII.a
2. Process: The City Council shall approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the proposed
development, after considering recommendations of the Community Development Director, the
advisory group (if applicable), and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed
public hearing.
3. Standards of Review: The proposal shall comply with the review standards of Section
26.500.070. Private development projects authorized to be reviewed as Major Public
Projects, pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D) shall also be required to comply with the
review standards of Section 26.500.075.
4. Form of decision: City Council decision shall be by Ordinance.
5. Notice Requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph
26.304.060.E.3, the requirements of Section 26.304.035 – Neighborhood Outreach as applicable,
and the requisite notice requirements for adoption of an ordinance by City Council.
D. Private Development Authorization. A private development project that meets the established
thresholds for Administrative or Minor Public Projects, and meets the criteria found in Section
26.500.040.D.3, may be authorized for Public Project review by the Community Development
Director. A private development project that does not meet the established thresholds for
Administrative or Minor Public Project Review may be reviewed as a Major Public Project, pursuant
to Section 26.500.040(C), only after authorization from City Council during a duly noticed public
hearing. The authorization process is as follows:
Step One – Public Hearing before City Council.
1. Purpose: To determine if the application is eligible for Public Project Review.
2. Process: The City Council shall authorize or deny authorization for the proposed private
development project to be reviewed as a Major Public Project, after considering
recommendations of the Community Development Director, and comments and testimony from
the public at a duly noticed public hearing.
3. Standards of Review: The proposal shall comply with the following review standards:
a. The proposed development would provide an essential service to the public.
b. The public project review process is in the best interest of the City to be
completed.
c. The proposed development furthers community goals as articulated in the Aspen
Area Community Plan, the Civic Master Plan, or other neighborhood, master, or
city plan.
4. Form of decision: City Council decision shall be by Resolution.
5. Notice Requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph
26.304.060.E.3, the requirements of Section 26.304.035 – Neighborhood Outreach, and the
requisite notice requirements for adoption of a resolution by City Council.
6. Effect of Authorization: If City Council authorizes a private development to be reviewed as a
Major Public Project, it shall be subject to the review procedures of Section 26.500.040(C),
Major Private Projects, and shall be required to use an Advisory group as outlined in Section
26.500.050, Advisory Group.
26.500. 050 Advisory group
Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015
Code Amendment – Public Projects
Page 5 of 8
P104
VIII.a
For Major Public Projects Reviews, the Applicant may elect to have an advisory group review
the project prior to public hearings. The members of the advisory group shall be appointed by the
City Manager and shall consist of members of City boards, commissions and other interested
parties (including at least two (2) members of the public at large) not already involved in the
review process outlined in Section 26.500.040(C). The chair of the advisory group shall be the
Community Development Director. The chair of the advisory group shall prepare meeting
agendas, coordinate meeting dates for the advisory group and facilitate all meetings. The
decision by the Applicant to create an advisory group shall constitute an agreement to extend the
timing of the review beyond that required in Section 26.500.060, Timing requirements.
The advisory group shall meet and review the proposed development application prior to Section
26.500.040(C), Step One. The standards of review in Section 26.500.070, General review
standards shall be used as a guide.
Following a review of the proposed development and at such time as the Community
Development Director believes that further review by the advisory group would not significantly
improve the overall development proposal, the Community Development Director shall create a
report of the recommendations of the advisory group. The Community Development Director's
report shall include:
1. All of the land use decisions and approvals that would otherwise be required for the
proposed development.
2. A report of the deliberations and recommendations made by the advisory group.
3. A recommendation to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposed development.
26.500.060 Timing requirements
Unless an alternate timeframe is agreed upon between the Applicant and Community
Development Director, City Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an
application for Public Project Review within sixty (60) days of the Community Development
Director’s acceptance of a complete land use application. Private development projects
authorized to be reviewed as Major Public Projects pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D) shall not
require a decision within sixty (60) days.
26.500.070 General review standards
The following review standards shall be used in review of any application for Public Projects:
1. The proposed project complies with the zone district limitations, or is otherwise
compatible with neighborhood context; and
2. The proposed project supports stated community goals; and
3. The proposed project complies with all other applicable requirements of the Land Use
Code; and
4. The proposed project receives all development allotments required by Chapter 26.470,
Growth Management Quota System.
26.500.075 Review standards for private development projects
The following review standards shall be used in review of any private development application
authorized to be reviewed as a Major Public Project:
Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015
Code Amendment – Public Projects
Page 6 of 8
P105
VIII.a
1. The proposed project meets all requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota
System, and Chapter 26.480, Subdivision.
2. The proposed development would provide an essential service to the public.
3. The proposed development is in the best interest of the City to be completed.
4. The proposed development furthers community goals as articulated in the Aspen Area
Community Plan, the Civic Master Plan, or other neighborhood, master, or city plan.
26.500.080 Application
An application for Public Projects Review shall include the following:
1. The general application information required in common development review procedures
set forth at Section 26.304.030.
2. Any documents required for recordation meeting the requirements of Chapter 26.490 –
Approval Documents.
3. Any additional materials, documentation or reports that would otherwise be required and
is deemed necessary by the Community Development Director.
26.500.090 Appeals
An applicant aggrieved by a decision made by the Community Development Director regarding
administration of this Chapter may appeal such decision to the City Council, pursuant to Chapter
26.316, Appeals. Other administrative remedy may be available pursuant to C.R.S. §31-23-209.
Section 3:
Any scrivener’s errors contained in the code amendments herein, including but not limited to
mislabeled subsections or titles, may be corrected administratively following adoption of the
Ordinance.
Section 4: Effect Upon Existing Litigation.
This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 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: Effective Date.
In accordance with Section 4.9 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter, this ordinance shall
become effective thirty (30) days following final passage.
Section 7:
Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015
Code Amendment – Public Projects
Page 7 of 8
P106
VIII.a
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 27th day of April, 2015, at a meeting of the
Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall,
Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the 13th day of April, 2015.
Attest:
__________________________ ____________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of ______, 2015.
Attest:
__________________________ ___________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
Approved as to form:
___________________________
James R True, City Attorney
Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015
Code Amendment – Public Projects
Page 8 of 8
P107
VIII.a
EXHIBIT A
STAFF FINDINGS
26.310.050. Amendments to the Land Use Code standards of review – Adoption.
In reviewing an application to amend the text of this Title, per Section 26.310.020(B)(3), Step
Three – Public Hearing before City Council, the City Council shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this
Title.
Staff Findings: There are no known conflicts with any other portions of this Title. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
B. Whether the proposed amendment achieves the policy, community goal, or objective
cited as reasons for the code amendment or achieves other public policy objectives.
Staff Findings: Staff finds that it is necessary to update the Land Use Code to include a process
that complies with State Statute requirements. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with the community character of the
City and is in harmony with the public interest and the purpose and intent of this
Title.
Staff Findings: The proposed amendment provides a venue for public review of certain projects
that might not otherwise be accomplished under the current Land Use Code, while still meeting
State requirements. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
Public Projects Code Amendment
Exhibit A
Page 1 of 1
P108
VIII.a
EXHIBIT B
Chapter 26.500
PUBLIC PROJECTS
Sections:
26.500.010 Purpose
26.500.020 Authority
26.500.030 Applicability
26.500.040 Procedures for review
26.500.050 Advisory group
26.500.060 Timing requirements
26.500.070 General review standards
26.500.080 Application
26.500.090 Appeals
26.500.010 Purpose
It is the purpose of this Chapter to exempt certain types of development from applicable sections,
except as noted herein, of Title 26 and to establish an alternative process and standards for the
review, analysis and approval of those types of developments determined to be eligible for such
alternative review and analysis. The purpose in identifying and applying alternative review standards
for certain developments eligible for such treatment is to provide a more flexible, streamlined,
thorough and coordinated review of public projects or when it is determined by the City Council to be
in the best interests of the community to do so.
26.500.020 Authority
Public Project review of certain public and quasi-public projects is mandated by State law, including,
but not limited to, C.R.S. §31-23-209. As a home rule municipality organized and operating under
Article XX of the Colorado Constitution, the City of Aspen is vested with the authority and power to
exempt certain types of development from the Aspen Land Use Code, Title 26 of the Aspen
Municipal Code. See Clark v Town of Estes Park, 686 P.2d 777 (Cob. 1984); City of Colorado
Springs v Smartt, 620 P.2d 1060 (Colo. 1980).
26.500.030 Applicability
This Chapter shall apply to any development proposed within City limits if the Applicant for
development is a governmental entity, quasi-municipal organization, or public agency providing
essential services to the public and which is in the best interests of the City to be completed. The
Community Development Director or City Council may authorize a private development to be
reviewed as a Public Project pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D). By way of example and not
limitation, Public Project development shall include:
1. Affordable housing projects developed by the City, governmental entity, quasi-municipal
organization, or public agency, by itself or in conjunction with an agent or private developer.
2. Public buildings, structures, and facilities developed by the City, governmental entity, quasi-
municipal organization, or public agency.
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 500, Page 1
P109
VIII.a
3. Park and recreational facilities development.
4. Development applications determined by the Community Development Director or City
Council, pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D), to support important community goals and to be
reasonabl y necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public.
Routine maintenance and upgrades within the public right-of-way are exempt from this Chapter. An
application for development that is eligible for review as a Public Project is not required to be
reviewed as a Public Project. The Applicant may elect to have their development proposal reviewed
according to the standard procedures set forth by the Land Use Code.
26.500.040 Procedures for review
The Community Development Director shall make a determination that the proposed development
application qualifies for Administrative, Minor, or Major Public Project Review. The necessary steps
for each type of review are outlined below:
A. Administrative Public Project Review. The following types of Public Projects may be
approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Community Development Director:
1. Projects necessary to achieve compliance with building, fire, or accessibility codes on an
existing property or building; or
2. The addition of energy production systems or energy efficiency systems or equipment on an
existing property or building; or
3. Projects that do not change the use, character, or dimensions of the property or building, or
represent an insubstantial change to the use, character, or dimensions of the property or
building.
The Community Development Director may seek advisory comments from the Historic Preservation
Commission, Planning & Zoning Commission, City Council, neighbors, or the general public as may
be appropriate.
The Community Development Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an
application for Administrative Public Project Review, based on the standards of review in Section
26.500.070, General review standards.
B. Minor Public Project Review. An application for Public Project review that the Community
Development Director finds is generally consistent with the existing development, but does not
qualify for Administrative Public Project Review shall qualify for Minor Public Project Review. City
Council, during a duly noticed public hearing, shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an
application for Minor Public Project Review, based on the standards of review in Section 26.500.070,
General review standards. The review process is as follows:
Step One – Public Hearing before City Council.
1. Purpose: To determine if the application meets the standards for Minor Public Project
Review.
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 500, Page 2
P110
VIII.a
2. Process: The City Council shall approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the proposed
development, after considering the recommendations of the Community Development
Director and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public hearing.
3. Standards of review: The proposal shall comply with the review standards of Section
26.500.070.
4. Form of decision: City Council decision shall be by Ordinance.
5. Notice requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph
26.304.060.E.3, the requirements of Section 26.304.035 – Neighborhood Outreach as
applicable, and the requisite notice requirements for adoption of an ordinance by City
Council.
The Community Development Director may seek advisory comments from the Historic Preservation
Commission, Planning & Zoning Commission, neighbors, or the general public as may be
appropriate.
C. Major Public Project Review. An application for Public Project review that the Community
Development Director finds represents a significant change to the property shall qualify for Major
Public Project Review. City Council, during a duly noticed public hearing, shall approve, approve
with conditions, or deny an application for Major Public Project Review, based on the standards of
review in Section 26.500.070, General review standards. The review process is as follows:
Step One – Public Hearing before Planning & Zoning Commission or Historic
Preservation Commission.
1. Purpose: To determine if the application meets the standards for Minor Public Project
Review.
2. Process: The Planning and Zoning Commission, or Historic preservation Commission if the
property is designated or is located within a historic district, shall forward a recommendation
of approval, approval with conditions, or denial to City Council after considering the
recommendation of the Community Development Director and comments and testimony from
the public at a duly noticed public hearing.
3. Standards of Review: The proposal shall comply with the review standards of Section
26.500.070. Private development projects authorized to be reviewed as Major Public
Projects, pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D) shall also be required to comply with the review
standards of Section 26.500.075.
4. Form of Decision: The Planning and Zoning Commission, or Historic Preservation
Commission recommendation shall be by resolution.
5. Notice requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph
26.304.060.E.3 and the provisions of Section 26.304.035 – Neighborhood Outreach as
applicable.
Step Two – Public Hearing before City Council.
1. Purpose: To determine if the application meets the standards for Major Public Project Review.
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 500, Page 3
P111
VIII.a
2. Process: The City Council shall approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the proposed
development, after considering recommendations of the Community Development Director,
the advisory group (if applicable), and comments and testimony from the public at a duly
noticed public hearing.
3. Standards of Review: The proposal shall comply with the review standards of Section
26.500.070. Private development projects authorized to be reviewed as Major Public
Projects, pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D) shall also be required to comply with the review
standards of Section 26.500.075.
4. Form of decision: City Council decision shall be by Ordinance.
5. Notice Requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph
26.304.060.E.3, the requirements of Section 26.304.035 – Neighborhood Outreach as
applicable, and the requisite notice requirements for adoption of an ordinance by City
Council.
D. Private Development Authorization. A private development project that meets the established
thresholds for Administrative or Minor Public Projects, and meets the criteria found in Section
26.500.040.D.3, may be authorized for Public Project review by the Community Development
Director. A private development project that does not meet the established thresholds for
Administrative or Minor Public Project Review may be reviewed as a Major Public Project,
pursuant to Section 26.500.040(C), only after authorization from City Council during a duly
noticed public hearing. The authorization process is as follows:
Step One – Public Hearing before City Council.
1. Purpose: To determine if the application is eligible for Public Project Review.
2. Process: The City Council shall authorize or deny authorization for the proposed private
development project to be reviewed as a Major Public Project, after considering
recommendations of the Community Development Director, and comments and testimony
from the public at a duly noticed public hearing.
3. Standards of Review: The proposal shall comply with the following review standards:
a. The proposed development would provide an essential service to the public.
b. The public project review process is in the best interest of the City to be completed.
c. The proposed development furthers community goals as articulated in the Aspen Area
Community Plan, the Civic Master Plan, or other neighborhood, master, or city plan.
4. Form of decision: City Council decision shall be by Resolution.
5. Notice Requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph
26.304.060.E.3, the requirements of Section 26.304.035 – Neighborhood Outreach, and the
requisite notice requirements for adoption of a resolution by City Council.
6. Effect of Authorization: If City Council authorizes a private development to be reviewed as a
Major Public Project, it shall be subject to the review procedures of Section 26.500.040(C),
Major Private Projects, and shall be required to use an Advisory group as outlined in Section
26.500.050, Advisory Group.
26.500. 050 Advisory group
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 500, Page 4
P112
VIII.a
For Major Public Projects Reviews, the Applicant may elect to have an advisory group review the
project prior to public hearings. The members of the advisory group shall be appointed by the City
Manager and shall consist of members of City boards, commissions and other interested parties
(including at least two (2) members of the public at large) not already involved in the review process
outlined in Section 26.500.040(C). The chair of the advisory group shall be the Community
Development Director. The chair of the advisory group shall prepare meeting agendas, coordinate
meeting dates for the advisory group and facilitate all meetings. The decision by the Applicant to
create an advisory group shall constitute an agreement to extend the timing of the review beyond that
required in Section 26.500.060, Timing requirements.
The advisory group shall meet and review the proposed development application prior to Section
26.500.040(C), Step One. The standards of review in Section 26.500.070, General review standards
shall be used as a guide.
Following a review of the proposed development and at such time as the Community Development
Director believes that further review by the advisory group would not significantly improve the
overall development proposal, the Community Development Director shall create a report of the
recommendations of the advisory group. The Community Development Director's report shall
include:
1. All of the land use decisions and approvals that would otherwise be required for the proposed
development.
2. A report of the deliberations and recommendations made by the advisory group.
3. A recommendation to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposed development.
26.500.060 Timing requirements
Unless an alternate timeframe is agreed upon between the Applicant and Community Development
Director, City Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for Public
Project Review within sixty (60) days of the Community Development Director’s acceptance of a
complete land use application. Private development projects authorized to be reviewed as Major
Public Projects pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D) shall not require a decision within sixty (60) days.
26.500.070 General review standards
The following review standards shall be used in review of any application for Public Projects:
1. The proposed project complies with the zone district limitations, or is otherwise compatible
with neighborhood context; and
2. The proposed project supports stated community goals; and
3. The proposed project complies with all other applicable requirements of the Land Use Code;
and
4. The proposed project receives all development allotments required by Chapter 26.470,
Growth Management Quota System.
26.500.075 Review standards for private development projects
The following review standards shall be used in review of any private development application
authorized to be reviewed as a Major Public Project:
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 500, Page 5
P113
VIII.a
1. The proposed project meets all requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management
Quota System, and Chapter 26.480, Subdivision.
2. The proposed development would provide an essential service to the public.
3. The proposed development is in the best interest of the City to be completed.
4. The proposed development furthers community goals as articulated in the Aspen Area
Community Plan, the Civic Master Plan, or other neighborhood, master, or city plan.
26.500.080 Application
An application for Public Projects Review shall include the following:
1. The general application information required in common development review procedures set
forth at Section 26.304.030.
2. Any documents required for recordation meeting the requirements of Chapter 26.490 –
Approval Documents.
3. Any additional materials, documentation or reports that would otherwise be required and is
deemed necessary by the Community Development Director.
26.500.090 Appeals
An applicant aggrieved by a decision made by the Community Development Director regarding
administration of this Chapter may appeal such decision to the City Council, pursuant to Chapter
26.316, Appeals. Other administrative remedy may be available pursuant to C.R.S. §31-23-209.
(Ord. No. 11-2015, §2)
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 500, Page 6
P114
VIII.a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Don Pergande, Budget Officer
THRU: Don Taylor, Finance Director
DATE OF MEMO: April 6, 2015
DATE OF MEETING: April 13, 2015
RE: 2015 Supplemental Budget Ordinance No. 12 (Series 2015)
____________________________________________________________________________________
Staff is requesting an amendment to the City’s 2015 budget that increases total expenditure
appropriations from $124.2 to $148.3 million (Exhibit A). Of this $24.1 million increase, $19.5 million is
related to 2014 capital, specific operational projects already approved but not yet completed and
technical actions, $3.4 million is related to budgetary savings achieved during 2014, and $1.2 million is
related to new requests.
The projected 2015 ending balance for all city funds is $90.6 million, $4.7 million higher than estimated
when the 2015 Budget was adopted. This is due to greater than anticipated 2014 revenues and not all
unspent operational and capital authority being carried forward.
Net of interfund transfers, the requested budget authority increases from $93.0 to $113.6 million.
Interfund transfers are required appropriations between City funds, but do not reflect the true cost of
operations. Exhibit H provides a detailed listing of budgeted 2015 interfund transfers.
The exhibit below outlines the supplemental requests impact on the City’s overall appropriation
authority.
Description Amount Location
2015 Adopted Budget:$124,206,420 See Exhibit A
Total New Requests:$1,206,820 See Exhibit B
Total Central Savings:$442,160 See Exhibit C
Total Departmental Savings:$2,915,440 See Exhibit C
Total Operational Carry Forward:$1,113,010 See Exhibit D
Total Capital Carry Forward:$12,556,570 See Exhibit E
Previously Approved:$2,366,650 See Exhibit F
Technical and Transfers:$3,451,530 See Exhibit G
Total Budget Requests:$24,052,180 See Exhibit A
TOTAL ORDINANCE:$148,258,600 See Exhibit A
Less Interfund Transfers $34,659,710 See Exhibit H
NET APPROPRIATIONS:$113,598,890 See Exhibit A
2015 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET ORDINANCE
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 12 - Page 1
P115
VIII.b
As noted previously, this supplemental request is mostly comprised of capital carry forward
appropriations - requests for projects previously appropriated and for which cash reserves exist. A
complete description of categories within the request includes:
• Exhibit B: “New Requests” of $1,206,820. These are new requests for Council approval.
Narrative justification of each new request is provided as part of this memorandum, as well as
in the memorandums at the end of this packet provided by departmental staff.
• Exhibit C: “Central Savings” of $442,160 represents 10% of operating budget savings from all
City departments in previous years. These one-time appropriations are allocated to the City
Manager’s office for use in addressing mid-year issues with citywide implications.
• Exhibit C: “Departmental Savings” of $2,915,440 represents 50% of previous years operating
budget savings for individual departments. Departments are allocated these amounts as a
reward to finding efficiencies in their operations that allow them to meet their operating goals
while spending less than their total appropriations. These one-time appropriations can be
spent on items related to departments’ missions.
• Exhibit D: “Operational Carry Forward Requests” of $1,113,010 are for operating items
budgeted in 2014 that require completion in 2015. These funds also include unspent resources
for City equipment, maintenance, personal computer and workstation replacement programs.
• Exhibit E: “Capital Carry Forward Requests” of $12,556,570 are for capital improvement
projects budgeted in 2014 that require completion in 2015.
• Exhibit F: “Previously Approved Requests” of $2,366,650. These are requests for formal
appropriation that have been previously reviewed by Council during this fiscal year.
• Exhibit G: This Exhibit details all of the technical adjustments in 2015, totaling $3,451,530.
Technical adjustments include accounting transactions needed to administer decisions made
by City Council or City policy, transfers between funds and oversights in budget entry.
• Exhibit H: This Exhibit details interfund transfers for 2015, totaling $34,659,710. Interfund
transfers are required appropriations that do not reflect the cost of operations.
New Requests – First Reading
General Fund; Community Development Department - The Community Development
Department request totals $14,000. This resource request will allow staff to purchase 14 sets of
materials to train staff, educate the Board and Development Community at large. As well as update
the COA Municipal Code as required every six years. The new authority will be funded from the
General Fund cash reserve.
General Fund; Recreation Department - The Recreation Department request totals $73,250.
This resource request will allow the wage for specific part time positions to reset to a competitive level.
HR has reviewed and agrees with this request. Background - In the current economy, the Recreation
Department finds they are no longer able to recruit good qualified employees for positions required to
operate programs and facilities due to wages becoming more competitive in the valley. Part time labor
was being paid between $12.00/hr. to $16.00/hr. Wages sufficient to recruit the skill sets required are
now $17.00 to $21.00/hr. as identified by Human Resources through job comparisons in the valley.
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 12 - Page 2
P116
VIII.b
General Fund; Asset Management Department - The Asset Management Department request
totals $58,150 for operation of the Mountain Rescue Building (630 W Main) and Power Plant Building
(590 N Mill). These City owned building have previously been operated and maintained by others and
the City has just taken, or will shortly take possession and this will require funds to operate and
maintain the facilities. In the case of the Mountain Rescue Building - City staff is utilizing the building
for offices for the Canary Initiative and Capital Asset Departments. The Power Plant building will be
turned over to the City from the Aspen Art Museum on April 1, 2015 and the City will be responsible
for ongoing maintenance and upkeep until a final use of the building and operational plan is
determined. The new authority will be funded from the General Fund cash reserve.
Parks and Open Space Fund - The Parks and Open Space Fund request totals $821,200. This
funding request includes:
$226,000 for Cozy Point operating and capital expenses in 2015. While the Cozy Point
master plan is being developed, the City of Aspen is partnering with Cozy Point LLC - the
City of Aspen is providing the ranch management and Cozy Point LLC the equestrian
operations. In November of 2014, staff informed Council they would bring back a
comprehensive budget for the ranch management of Cozy Point, spring of 2015. Staff is
requesting operational funding of $145,000 and capital funding of $81,000 to manage
the ranch in 2015 and address immediate capital needs. Lease revenue of $65,000 is
anticipated to offset some of the operating costs. The remaining costs will be funded
from the Parks and Open Space cash reserves.
$380,200 for Cozy Point Barn roof and foundation rehabilitation in 2015. On February 1,
2015 a grant of $197,695 was awarded from the State Historical Fund to offset the costs
of rehabilitating the Cozy Point Barn. The Cozy Point Ranch Red Barn is one of the only
historic barns in the Roaring Fork Valley that continues in use for agriculture and
ranching purposes. It is currently used as headquarters for a summer horse camp and
general storage for agricultural related supplies for the ranch. It is important to preserve
the barn for continued agricultural use and to possibly expand it in the future for
community needs, valley events, and as an educational resource. The longer it remains
in poor structural condition, the greater the risk of losing it for future generations.
$215,000 for accelerating work on the Burlingame Phase II Park. Staff has an
opportunity to minimize the construction impacts to the Burlingame neighborhood, by
accelerating planned work from 2016 to 2015. Originally $415K of work was planned in
2016. Staff is requesting to accelerate $215K from 2016 to 2015 leaving $200K in 2016
to finish the Burlingame Phase II Park ahead of schedule. The overall project estimate
remains the same in total.
Housing Development Fund - The Housing Development Fund request totals $150,000. This
funding request is for the re-purchase of the lot at 0221 Forge Road. In 2009, the City sold the lot at
0221 Forge Rd to APCHA in order to satisfy requirements to maintain certain declarant rights to further
develop affordable housing at Burlingame Ranch. This funding is required to re-purchase the lot at
0221 Forge Road from APCHA, preparing for development, potentially as early as June 2015. The new
authority will be funded from the Housing Development Fund cash reserve.
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 12 - Page 3
P117
VIII.b
Water Utility Fund - The Water Utility Fund request totals $90,220. This funding request is for
the City of Aspen Standby Generators project. The City of Aspen was successful in securing, a grant in
the amount of $66,013 for standby generators to be located at three City facilities—Red Brick, Yellow
Brick and Water Treatment Plant. The total project cost is $90,214, with the City of Aspen’s share
totaling $24,201. Staff is requesting acceptance of this grant and authorization to increase budget
authority to reflect the standby generators project.
Technical Adjustment
Technical adjustments include accounting transactions needed to administer decisions made by
City Council or City policy, transfers between funds and oversights in budget entry. The technical
adjustments total $3,451,530. The details related to these adjustments can be found on Exhibit G of
this packet.
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 12 - Page 4
P118
VIII.b
TOTAL CITY OF ASPEN 2015 APPROPRIATIONS BY FUND
Fund Name
Pre-Audit
Opening
Balance
Total 2015
Revenue
Budget
Revenue
Supplemental #1
2015 Amended
Revenue Budget
Total 2015
Expenditure
Budget
Expense
Supplemental #1
2015 Amended
Exp Budget
2015 Ending
Balance
General Governmental Fund
General Fund $23,208,930 $27,404,720 $71,280 $27,476,000 $37,895,250 $3,091,430 $40,986,680 $9,698,250
Subtotal General Gov't Funds $23,208,930 $27,404,720 $71,280 $27,476,000 $37,895,250 $3,091,430 $40,986,680 $9,698,250
Special Revenue Governmental Funds
Parks and Open Space Fund $7,382,336 $10,532,940 $262,700 $10,795,640 $11,999,840 $2,724,300 $14,724,140 $3,453,836
Wheeler Opera House Fund *$29,366,194 $4,326,698 $0 $4,326,698 $6,412,920 $541,560 $6,954,480 $26,738,412
City Tourism Promotion Fund $337,746 $2,899,800 $0 $2,899,800 $3,110,880 $126,550 $3,237,430 $116
Public Education Fund $0 $2,222,000 $0 $2,222,000 $2,222,000 $0 $2,222,000 $0
Transportation Fund $4,439,353 $3,191,420 $421,640 $3,613,060 $3,352,320 $575,500 $3,927,820 $4,124,593
Housing Development Fund $6,823,724 $15,575,090 $0 $15,575,090 $6,134,990 $3,992,380 $10,127,370 $12,271,444
Kids First Fund $4,547,804 $1,853,300 $30,000 $1,883,300 $1,925,740 $212,690 $2,138,430 $4,292,674
Stormwater Fund $3,182,720 $1,060,650 $0 $1,060,650 $1,646,540 $758,430 $2,404,970 $1,838,400
Subtotal Special Revenue Funds $56,079,877 $41,661,898 $714,340 $42,376,238 $36,805,230 $8,931,410 $45,736,640 $52,719,475
Debt Service Governmental Fund
Debt Service Fund $189,396 $3,777,830 $0 $3,777,830 $3,781,400 $0 $3,781,400 $185,826
Subtotal Debt Service Fund $189,396 $3,777,830 $0 $3,777,830 $3,781,400 $0 $3,781,400 $185,826
Capital Projects Governmental Funds
Asset Management Plan Fund $7,333,776 $16,785,800 $0 $16,785,800 $11,675,550 $3,358,830 $15,034,380 $9,085,196
Subtotal Capital Fund $7,333,776 $16,785,800 $0 $16,785,800 $11,675,550 $3,358,830 $15,034,380 $9,085,196
Enterprise Proprietary Funds
Water Utility Fund $3,008,968 $7,451,400 $0 $7,451,400 $6,975,120 $1,574,400 $8,549,520 $1,910,848
Electric Utility Fund $5,520,367 $8,074,100 $0 $8,074,100 $8,580,850 $699,250 $9,280,100 $4,314,367
Parking Fund $4,957,688 $3,798,960 $2,846,140 $6,645,100 $4,008,210 $5,099,640 $9,107,850 $2,494,938
Golf Course Fund $319,731 $2,022,410 $0 $2,022,410 $1,972,480 $98,940 $2,071,420 $270,721
Truscott Housing Fund $1,329,718 $2,225,900 $0 $2,225,900 $2,771,800 $377,420 $3,149,220 $406,397
Marolt Housing Fund $146,348 $936,230 $0 $936,230 $988,040 $50,270 $1,038,310 $44,268
Subtotal Enterprise Funds $15,282,819 $24,509,000 $2,846,140 $27,355,140 $25,296,500 $7,899,920 $33,196,420 $9,441,539
Internal Proprietary Funds
Employee Health Insurance Fund $2,486,206 $4,682,100 $0 $4,682,100 $4,936,600 $0 $4,936,600 $2,231,706
Employee Housing Fund $4,103,764 $1,233,100 $0 $1,233,100 $447,110 $0 $447,110 $4,889,754
Information Technology Fund $708,007 $1,469,800 $276,310 $1,746,110 $1,469,770 $749,650 $2,219,420 $234,697
Subtotal Internal Service Funds $7,297,977 $7,385,000 $276,310 $7,661,310 $6,853,480 $749,650 $7,603,130 $7,356,157
Trust Fiduciary Funds
Housing Administration Fund $1,797,909 $1,872,780 $0 $1,872,780 $1,779,710 $20,940 $1,800,650 $1,870,040
Smuggler Housing Fund $291,959 $68,120 $0 $68,120 $119,300 $0 $119,300 $240,779
Subtotal Trust and Agency Funds $2,089,868 $1,940,900 $0 $1,940,900 $1,899,010 $20,940 $1,919,950 $2,110,818
ALL FUNDS $111,482,644 $123,465,148 $3,908,070 $127,373,218 $124,206,420 $24,052,180 $148,258,600 $90,597,262
Less Interfund Transfers $31,241,680 $3,418,030 $34,659,710 $31,241,680 $3,418,030 $34,659,710
NET APPROPRIATIONS $111,482,644 $92,223,468 $490,040 $92,713,508 $92,964,740 $20,634,150 $113,598,890 $90,597,262
* Wheeler balances are shown on an adjusted GAAP basis
2
0
1
5
B
u
d
g
e
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
N
o
.
1
2
-
P
a
g
e
5
P
1
1
9
V
I
I
I
.
b
2015 Spring Supplemental
New Requests
Exhibit B
1 of 2
Account Number Request Title Request Justification
First Reading
001 - General Fund; Community Development
International Code - Materials $14,000 Building Department is required to update its building regulations in the
COA Municipal Code, every six years. This resource request will allow
staff to purchase 14 sets of materials to train staff, educate the Board
and Development Community at large as well as update the COA
Municipal Code. One-time.
$14,000
001 - General Fund; Recreation
Competitive Wage to attract and
retain qualified personnel
$73,250 In the current economy, we find that we are no longer able to recruit
good qualified employees for positions required to operate programs
and facilities due to wages becoming more competitive in the valley.
Part time labor was being paid between $12.00/hr. to $16.00/hr. Wages
sufficient to recruit the skill sets required are now $17.00 to $21.00/hr.
as identified by Human Resources through job comparisons in the valley.
This resource request will allow the wage for these part time positions
to reset to a competitive level. HR has reviewed and agrees with this
request. On-going.
$73,250
001 - General Fund; Asset Management
Operational funding - Mountain
Rescue Building (630 W Main)
and Power Plant Building (590 N
Mill
$58,150 These City owned building have previously been operated and
maintained by others and the City has just taken, or will shortly take
possession and this will require funds to operate and maintain the
facilities. In the case of the Mountain Rescue Building - City staff is
utilizing the building for offices for the Canary Initiative and Capital
Asset Departments. The Power Plant building will be turned over to the
City from the Aspen Art Museum on April 1, 2015 and the City will be
responsible for ongoing maintenance and upkeep until a final use of the
building and operational plan is determined. On-going.
$58,150
100 - Parks and Open Space Fund
Cozy Point - Operating and
Capital
$226,000 While the Cozy Point master plan is being developed, the City of Aspen
is partnering with Cozy Point LLC - the City of Aspen is providing the
ranch management and Cozy Point LLC the equestrian operations. In
November of 2014, staff informed Council they would bring back a
comprehensive budget for the ranch management of Cozy Point, spring
of 2015. Staff is requesting operational funding of $145,000 and capital
funding of $81,000 to manage the ranch in 2015 and address immediate
capital needs. Lease revenue of $65,000 is anticipated to offset some of
the operating costs.
Cozy Point Barn Roof and
Foundation Rehabilitation -
Capital
$380,200 On February 1, 2015 a grant of $197,695 was awarded from the State
Historical Fund to offset the costs of rehabilitating the Cozy Point Barn.
The Cozy Point Ranch Red Barn is one of the only historic barns in the
Roaring Fork Valley that continues in use for agriculture and ranching
purposes. It is currently used as headquarters for a summer horse camp
and general storage for agricultural related supplies for the ranch. It is
important to preserve the barn for continued agricultural use and to
possibly expand it in the future for community needs, valley events, and
as an educational resource. The longer it remains in poor structural
condition, the greater the risk of losing it for future generations. One-
time.
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 12 - Page 6
P120
VIII.b
2015 Spring Supplemental
New Requests
Exhibit B
2 of 2
Account Number Request Title Request Justification
2015 Burlingame Phase II Parks -
Capital
$215,000 Staff has an opportunity to minimize the construction impacts to the
Burlingame neighborhood, by accelerating planned work from 2016 to
2015. Originally $415K of work was planned in 2016. Staff is requesting
to accelerate $215K from 2016 to 2015 leaving $200K in 2016 to finish
the Burlingame Phase II Park ahead of schedule. The overall project
estimate remains the same in total.
$821,200
150 - Housing Development Fund
Re-purchase the lot at 0221 Forge
Road
$150,000 In 2009, the City sold the lot at 221 Forge Rd to APCHA in order to
satisfy requirements to maintain certain declarant rights to further
develop affordable housing at Burlingame Ranch. This funding is
required to re-purchase the lot at 0221 Forge Road from APCHA,
preparing for development, potentially as early as June 2015. See
memo for a detailed description of the sale and proposed re-purchase of
this property.
$150,000
421 - Water Utility Fund
City of Aspen Standby Generators
Project
$90,220 The City of Aspen was successful in securing, a grant in the amount of
$66,013 for standby generators to be located at three City
facilities—Red Brick, Yellow Brick and Water Treatment Plant. The total
project cost is $90,214, with the City of Aspen’s share totaling $24,201.
Staff is requesting acceptance of this grant and authorization to increase
budget authority to reflect the standby generators project.
$90,220
TOTAL NEW REQUESTS - FIRST READING $1,206,820
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 12 - Page 7
P121
VIII.b
2015 Spring Supplemental
Central and Departmental Savings
Exhibit C
Fund/Department
Central Savings
"10%"
Operating Budget Savings
"50%"
City Manager $328,140 $7,610
Human Resources $3,150 $119,200
City Clerk $6,750 $132,850
City Attorney $6,090 $70,350
Finance $810 $271,200
Planning $0 $79,070
Engineering $1,480 $97,530
Building $0 $15,510
Environmental Health $2,430 $53,350
Police $1,500 $250,480
Streets $0 $366,340
Special Events $6,570 $70,600
Recreation / ARC / AIG $20,440 $102,200
Asset Management $860 $7,110
001 - General Fund $378,220 $1,643,400
100 - Parks and Open Space Fund $15,980 $127,960
120 - Wheeler Opera House Fund $8,080 $345,910
141 - Transportation Fund $1,780 $49,700
152 - Kids First Fund $380 $115,420
160 - Stormwater Fund $1,840 $88,910
421 - Water Utility Fund $1,830 $26,890
431 - Electric Utility Fund $8,840 $59,970
451 - Parking Fund $5,580 $167,160
471 - Golf Fund $11,410 $79,240
510 - Information Technology Fund $8,220 $210,880
Total Savings $442,160 $2,915,440
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 12 - Page 8
P122
VIII.b
2015 Spring Supplemental
Operational Carry Forwards
Exhibit D
1 of 1
Account Number Department / Project Request
First Reading
001 - General Fund; City Manager
001.05.05000.82900 Low Carbon Fuel Project $9,650
$9,650
001 - General Fund; Planning Department
001.13.94379.81999 Permitting Software Implementation and Training $65,200
001.13.47501.82999 Employee Generation Study $28,500
001.13.47501.82900 Lift 1 Preservation Project $5,740
$99,440
001 - General Fund; Environmental Health & Sustainability Department
001.25.25500.82799 Radon Reimbursement Grant $3,840
$3,840
001 - General Fund; Police Department
001.31.31800.82900 Wildfire Outreach and Education $5,000
001.31.31800.82800 Wildfire Evacuation Routes $25,000
$30,000
100 - Parks and Open Space Fund
100.56.84357.83999 Smuggler Open Space Forest Management $19,360
100.56.81012.82999 Tree Program $8,210
$27,570
152 - Kids First Fund
152.24.24100.84999 Quality Rating and Improvement System work started in 2014 $50,000
152.24.24100.84999 State Grant Funding 1291 - increase infant toddler capacity $30,000
$80,000
SPECIFIC OPERATIONAL CARRY FORWARD REQUESTS $250,500
Aggregate Equipment/Maintenance/Repair Carry Forwards $323,520
Aggregate PC Replacement Carry Forwards $278,540
Aggregate Workstation Replacement Carry Forwards $260,450
OTHER OPERATIONAL CARRY FORWARD REQUESTS *$862,510
TOTAL OPERATIONAL CARRY FORWARD REQUESTS $1,113,010
*Detail by Department shown on the following page.
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 12 - Page 9
P123
VIII.b
2015 Spring Supplemental
Operational Carry Forwards Details
1 of 2
Account Number Fund/Department Program Request
Equipment/Maintenance/Repair
001.31.31000.83635 Police Equipment/Maintenance/Repair $36,910
001.41.41000.83635 Streets Equipment/Maintenance/Repair $159,130
001.71.71000.83635 Recreation Equipment/Maintenance/Repair $5,980
421.43.43000.83635 Water Utility Fund Equipment/Maintenance/Repair $6,130
451.32.54000.83635 Parking Fund Equipment/Maintenance/Repair $103,080
491.01.45044.83635 Truscott Housing Fund Equipment/Maintenance/Repair $12,290
Aggregate Equipment/Maintenance/Repair $323,520
PC Replacement
001.03.03000.83655 City Council Pc Replacement 100% Carry forward $180
001.05.05000.83655 City Manger Pc Replacement 100% Carry forward $13,120
001.06.06000.83655 Human Resources Pc Replacement 100% Carry forward $8,490
001.07.07000.83655 City Clerk Pc Replacement 100% Carry forward $18,750
001.09.09000.83655 City Attorney Pc Replacement 100% Carry forward $2,260
001.11.11000.83655 Finance Pc Replacement 100% Carry forward $8,340
001.13.13200.83655 Planning Pc Replacement 100% Carry forward $10,440
001.15.15000.83655 Engineering Pc Replacement 100% Carry forward $12,450
001.25.25500.83655 Environmental Health Pc Replacement 100% Carry forward $5,440
001.31.31000.83655 Police Pc Replacement 100% Carry forward $85,550
001.41.41000.83655 Streets Pc Replacement 100% Carry forward $2,530
001.70.71000.83655 Special Events Pc Replacement 100% Carry forward $1,470
001.71.71000.83655 Recreation Pc Replacement 100% Carry forward $3,020
001.72.72000.83655 Aspen Recreation Center Pc Replacement 100% Carry forward $6,390
001.72.72700.83655 Aspen Recreation Center Pc Replacement 100% Carry forward $1,600
001.74.74000.83655 Aspen Ice Garden Pc Replacement 100% Carry forward $1,850
001.91.05000.83655 Asset Management Pc Replacement 100% Carry forward $9,780
120.93.93000.83655 Wheeler Opera House Fund Pc Replacement 100% Carry forward $15,130
141.34.34000.83655 Transportation Fund Pc Replacement 100% Carry forward $8,860
150.23.23000.83655 Housing Development Fund Pc Replacement 100% Carry forward $2,570
152.24.24000.83655 Kid First Fund Pc Replacement 100% Carry forward $2,620
160.42.16300.83655 Stormwater Fund Pc Replacement 100% Carry forward $740
421.43.43000.83655 Water Utility Fund Pc Replacement 100% Carry forward $4,780
431.45.45000.83655 Electric Utility Fund Pc Replacement 100% Carry forward $2,280
451.32.32000.83655 Parking Fund Pc Replacement 100% Carry forward $20,550
471.73.73000.83655 Golf Course Fund Pc Replacement 100% Carry forward $5,510
491.01.45044.83655 Truscott Housing Fund Pc Replacement 100% Carry forward $10,100
492.01.45043.83655 Marolt Housing Fund Pc Replacement 100% Carry forward $4,820
510.61.61000.83655 Information Technology Fund Pc Replacement 100% Carry forward $8,920
Aggregate PC Replacement $278,540
Workstation Replacement
001.03.03000.83625 City Council Work Station Replacement 100% Carry forward $370
001.05.05000.83625 City Manger Work Station Replacement 100% Carry forward $3,640
001.06.06000.83625 Human Resources Work Station Replacement 100% Carry forward $16,190
001.07.07000.83625 City Clerk Work Station Replacement 100% Carry forward $5,710
001.09.09000.83625 City Attorney Work Station Replacement 100% Carry forward $4,070
001.11.11000.83625 Finance Work Station Replacement 100% Carry forward $31,710
001.13.13200.83625 Planning Work Station Replacement 100% Carry forward $21,450
001.15.15000.83625 Engineering Work Station Replacement 100% Carry forward $11,220
001.21.21000.83625 Building Work Station Replacement 100% Carry forward $370
001.25.25500.83625 Environmental Health Work Station Replacement 100% Carry forward $2,840
001.31.31000.83625 Police Work Station Replacement 100% Carry forward $15,890
001.41.41000.83625 Streets Work Station Replacement 100% Carry forward $13,360
001.70.71000.83625 Special Events Work Station Replacement 100% Carry forward $3,350
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 12 - Page 10
P124
VIII.b
2015 Spring Supplemental
Operational Carry Forwards Details
2 of 2
Account Number Fund/Department Program Request
001.71.71000.83625 Recreation Work Station Replacement 100% Carry forward $880
001.74.74000.83625 Aspen Ice Garden Work Station Replacement 100% Carry forward $1,410
001.91.05000.83625 Asset Management Work Station Replacement 100% Carry forward $8,500
100.55.55000.83625 Parks and Open Space Fund Work Station Replacement 100% Carry forward $2,860
120.93.93000.83625 Wheeler Opera House Fund Work Station Replacement 100% Carry forward $7,240
141.34.34000.83625 Transportation Fund Work Station Replacement 100% Carry forward $16,200
150.23.23000.83625 Housing Development Fund Work Station Replacement 100% Carry forward $900
152.24.24000.83625 Kid First Fund Work Station Replacement 100% Carry forward $7,770
160.42.16300.83625 Stormwater Fund Work Station Replacement 100% Carry forward $1,260
421.43.43000.83625 Water Utility Fund Work Station Replacement 100% Carry forward $10,780
431.45.45000.83625 Electric Utility Fund Work Station Replacement 100% Carry forward $2,420
451.32.32000.83625 Parking Fund Work Station Replacement 100% Carry forward $27,290
471.73.73000.83625 Golf Course Fund Work Station Replacement 100% Carry forward $530
491.01.45044.83625 Truscott Housing Fund Work Station Replacement 100% Carry forward $9,540
492.01.45043.83625 Marolt Housing Fund Work Station Replacement 100% Carry forward $2,530
510.61.61000.83625 Information Technology Fund Work Station Replacement 100% Carry forward $15,530
620.23.45002.83625 Housing Administration Fund Work Station Replacement 100% Carry forward $14,640
Aggregate Workstation Replacement $260,450
OTHER OPERATIONAL CARRY FORWARD REQUESTS $862,510
TOTAL OPERATIONAL CARRY FORWARD REQUEST $862,510
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 12 - Page 11
P125
VIII.b
2015 Spring Supplemental
Capital Carry-Forward Requests
Exhibit E
1 of 4
Account Number Department / Project Request
000 - Asset Management Plan Fund; Planning
000.13.94379 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PERMITTING $171,180
$171,180
000 - Asset Management Plan Fund; Engineering
000.15.94077 MILL STREET PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS $535,340
000.15.94111 MAIN ST ALTERNATIVE MATERIAL CROSSWALK $109,600
000.15.94531 DOWNTOWN ENHANCEMNT PED PROJ (DEPP) REPR $87,770
000.90.94118 GONDOLA PLAZA PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS $66,440
000.15.95397 NEALE AVE CONSTRUCTION $57,990
000.15.94767 MOORE AND MAROON PED IMPROVEMENTS $28,310
000.15.94399 PARK CIRCLE PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS $27,810
000.90.95397 NEALE AVE CONSTRUCTION $26,640
000.15.95180 MILL STREET UTILITY IMPROVEMENT $14,950
000.15.95107 BICYCLE FACILITY EXPANSION AND STRIPING $13,390
000.90.82076 CITY SIDEWALK - ADA - IMPROV.$10,970
000.15.94510 CEMETERY/SNOWBUNNY/MTN VIEW INTERSECTION $10,830
000.15.95104 PARK AND BROWN PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS $9,040
000.15.94102 BRIDGE MAINTENANCE $6,660
000.15.94766 CASTLE CREEK PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST IM $4,410
000.15.94515 TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECTS $3,660
000.15.94118 GONDOLA PLAZA PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS $190
$1,014,000
000 - Asset Management Plan Fund; Environmental Health
000.25.94013 TEOM (AIR QUALITY) & ENCLOSURE $4,560
$4,560
000 - Asset Management Plan Fund; Information Technology
000.61.94156 CORE NETWORK (CITY)$93,080
000.61.94197 COMPUTER PERIPHERALS - CITY $69,030
000.61.94149 WORKGROUP APPLICATIONS (CITY)$6,000
$168,110
000 - Asset Management Plan Fund; Recreation
000.71.94467 RECREATION BUSINESS PLAN UPDATE $6,780
$6,780
000 - Asset Management Plan Fund; Aspen Recreation Center
000.72.93976 POOL SLIDE $144,750
000.72.94690 UPDATE BOILER CONTROLS $9,000
$153,750
000 - Asset Management Plan Fund; Aspen Ice Garden
000.74.95260 AIG HEATING $23,460
$23,460
000 - Asset Management Plan Fund; Asset Management
000.91.95484 COA OFFICE SPACE - Interim Space Needs $29,340
000.91.95144 MASTER PLANNING - FACILITY DEVELOPMENT $15,880
000.91.94786 ANIMAL SHELTER CAPITAL REPLACEMENT $12,400
$57,620
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 12 - Page 12
P126
VIII.b
2015 Spring Supplemental
Capital Carry-Forward Requests
Exhibit E
2 of 4
Account Number Department / Project Request
100 - Parks and Open Space Fund
100.94.94959 SKATEBOARD PARK IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE II $151,010
100.94.95098 HOLE 2 POND MAINTENANCE $100,000
100.94.94030 MALL SPLITTER BOX $67,000
100.94.95089 SKY MT. CONNECTOR TRAIL $50,000
100.94.94825 CASTLE CREEK TRAIL STUDY $50,000
100.94.95084 ENTRANCE TO ASPEN IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENT $42,630
100.94.95397 NEALE AVE CONSTRUCTION $36,810
100.94.94356 RECYCLING CANS FOR COMMERCIAL CORE $35,970
100.94.81155 DEER HILL INTERPRETATION TRAIL $32,160
100.94.95086 ENTRANCE TO ASPEN FLORAL UPGRADES $25,000
100.94.95091 COMMUNITY GARDEN EXPANSION $25,000
100.94.95088 BURLINGAME CONNECTOR TRAIL (PLANNING)$24,280
100.94.94826 NEW TRAIL MAP $23,700
100.94.94372 BURLINGAME PHASE II PARKS $20,380
100.94.94352 HISTORICAL SMUGGLER MTN TRAIL INTERPRETN $17,870
100.94.94834 KIOSKS AND TRAIL SIGNS $16,080
100.94.94818 PEDESTRIAN MALL IMPROVEMENTS - 2 $15,000
100.94.95092 SINGLE TRACK MASTERPLAN $15,000
100.94.94304 EAST HOPKINS PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR $14,050
100.94.95094 BIKE PARK PLANNING $5,580
100.94.94306 CASTLE CREEK BRIDGE FENCE IMPROVEMENTS $4,670
100.94.95180 MILL STREET UTILITY IMPROVEMENT $3,220
100.94.94156 CORE NETWORK (CITY)$810
100.94.94197 COMPUTER PERIPHERALS - CITY $110
$776,330
120 - Wheeler Opera House Fund
120.94.95121 WHEELER IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS $154,210
120.94.94197 COMPUTER PERIPHERALS - CITY $10,080
120.94.94156 CORE NETWORK (CITY)$910
$165,200
141 - Transportation Fund
141.94.94129 SHUTTLE REPLACEMENT $62,890
141.94.94798 BUS STOP IMPROVEMENT PLAN $16,570
141.94.94197 COMPUTER PERIPHERALS - CITY $1,500
$80,960
150 - Housing Development Fund
150.94.94626 BURLINGAME PHASE II CONSTRUCTION $3,702,480
150.23.23150 BURLINGAME DELIVERY SF LOT SUBSIDIES $38,800
150.94.95169 EDGE OF AJAX - UNIT B $37,770
150.94.95168 EDGE OF AJAX - UNIT A $31,730
150.94.95170 EDGE OF AJAX - UNIT C $28,130
$3,838,910
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 12 - Page 13
P127
VIII.b
2015 Spring Supplemental
Capital Carry-Forward Requests
Exhibit E
3 of 4
Account Number Department / Project Request
152 - Kids First Fund
152.94.94197 COMPUTER PERIPHERALS - CITY $6,500
$6,500
160 - Stormwater Fund
160.94.94121 ASPEN MTN DRAINAGE BASIN IMPROVEMENTS $194,110
160.94.94120 MUD FLOW STUDY $125,000
160.94.95397 NEALE AVE CONSTRUCTION $121,490
160.94.94123 WATER QUALITY WETLANDS $72,250
160.94.94112 STORMWATER MASTER PLAN - SMUG & HUNT CRK $52,190
160.94.95180 MILL STREET UTILITY IMPROVEMENT $2,490
$567,530
421 - Water Utility Fund
421.94.44408 RECLAMATION PROJECT $355,620
421.94.94968 FIRE MITIGATION - PUMP STATIONS UPGRADES $188,670
421.94.94985 DISTRIBUTION REPLACEMENT 2014 $111,990
421.94.94881 CLIMATE IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND RESILIENCY $92,490
421.94.94821 EAST COOPER STREAM CROSSING CORRECTION $87,040
421.94.95154 CONVERT HIGHLANDS PRV STATION TO A PUMP $70,690
421.94.95493 FLEET - WATER - 2014 $56,000
421.94.95484 COA OFFICE SPACE - Interim Space Needs $46,000
421.94.94994 SCADA 2014 $41,130
421.94.94846 LEONARD THOMAS EXPANSION OR 2ND RESERVOI $34,750
421.94.94149 WORKGROUP APPLICATIONS (CITY)$33,580
421.94.95220 CASTLE CREEK DAM/HEADGATE/PIPELINE $32,710
421.94.94197 COMPUTER PERIPHERALS - CITY $25,920
421.94.94808 MAROON CREEK DAM/HEADGATE/PIPELINE 2013 $22,230
421.94.94822 REPLACE 6" CIP WITH 8" DIP ON RED MTN RD $20,720
421.94.94989 CONSERVATION/EFFICIENCY 2014 $17,000
421.94.95139 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PLAN - WATER 2014 $14,700
421.94.94156 CORE NETWORK (CITY)$2,600
$1,253,840
431 - Electric Utility Fund
431.94.94182 SECOND FEED $242,270
431.94.94884 WATER PLANT SWITCH TO CITY ELECTRIC $129,140
431.94.95147 ELECTRIC AMP/INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY $75,000
431.94.95494 FLEET $70,000
431.94.81153 GALENA PLAZA IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - PLUG-IN HYBRID PROGRAM $31,730
431.94.94197 COMPUTER PERIPHERALS - CITY $2,300
431.94.94156 CORE NETWORK (CITY)$310
$550,750
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 12 - Page 14
P128
VIII.b
2015 Spring Supplemental
Capital Carry-Forward Requests
Exhibit E
4 of 4
Account Number Department / Project Request
451 - Parking Fund
451.94.81153 PLAZA REPLACEMENT $3,075,230
451.94.94149 WORKGROUP APPLICATIONS (CITY)$9,000
451.94.94197 COMPUTER PERIPHERALS - CITY $4,500
451.94.94156 CORE NETWORK (CITY)$1,610
$3,090,340
471 - Golf Course Fund
471.94.94156 CORE NETWORK (CITY)$1,610
471.94.94197 COMPUTER PERIPHERALS - CITY $640
$2,250
491 - Truscott Housing Fund
491.94.94395 TRUSCOTT PHASE I - SITE AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS $240,930
491.94.94898 TRUSCOTT 100 BUILDING EXTERIOR PAINTING $54,000
491.94.94899 TRUSCOTT 100 SIDING REPAIRS $16,000
491.94.94537 OFFICE AND WEST BUILDING RENOVATION $11,480
491.94.94220 TRUSCOTT 400- 1000 PLUMBING REPAIRS $9,500
491.94.94392 TRUSCOTT BUILDING REPAIRS/UPGRADES $5,730
491.94.94381 TRUSCOTT UNIT RENOVATIONS $3,560
491.94.82112 APPLIANCE REPLACEMENT $2,290
491.94.94897 TRUSCOTT BOILER PUMP REPLACEMENT $2,000
$345,490
492 - Marolt Housing Fund
492.94.95482 BOILER REPLACEMENT - MAROLT $23,120
492.94.95491 FIRE PANEL REPLACEMENT $19,800
$42,920
510 - Information Technology Fund
510.94.94622 GALENA PLAZA FIBER (CITY)$125,000
510.94.94139 WEBSITE DEVELOPMENT (CITY)$69,870
510.94.94147 NETWORK SERVICES (CITY)$29,530
510.94.94108 IT CLOSET UPGRADE (CITY)$5,390
$229,790
620 - Housing Administration Fund
620.94.94197 COMPUTER PERIPHERALS - CITY $6,300
$6,300
TOTAL CAPITAL CARRY FORWARD REQUESTS $12,556,570
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 12 - Page 15
P129
VIII.b
2015 Spring Supplemental
Previously Approved Requests
Exhibit F
1 of 1
Account Number Department / Description Amount
001 - General Fund
001.03.03000.84000 WE-Cycle Station Contribution - This is the formal appropriation of the funding
approved in the January 12, 2015 Council meeting. This funds 50% of the bike share
station to be located adjacent to City Hall. See memo for additional details.
$17,500
001.11.11000.82999 Internal Control Audit - Per Council Direction an internal control audit was
completed of the Parking Department and other key revenue functions. This request
is to fund the cost of the audit.
$46,900
001.13.13200.80*Special Project Planner - In the March 30, 2015 work session, Council approved
funding for an 8 month termed, Special Projects Planner to focus on the Digital
Modeling project, Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and graphics on the
residential design stands update. One-time.
$40,000
001.13.13200.82900 Residential Design Standards Update - In the February 23, 2015 meeting Council
approved a contract for $24,900 to organize, streamline, and provide minor
modifications to the existing standards in order to better serve the community and
provide attractive, compatible development. An additional $5,000 was approved to
create diagrams and graphics to provide clarity of the requirements which are
difficult to describe in text only.
$5,000
001.15.15000.82000 Development Review and Model Civil Submission - Council approved the contract
with JVA at the March 16, 2015 Council meeting. This contract is to maintain 30 day
turn around time during peak times. Additionally, current engineers do not have the
level of expertise as senior staff who are leaving, depending on consultants to fill
that gap. One-time.
$40,000
$149,400
100 - Parks and Open Space Fund
100.xx.xxxxx.xxxxx Smuggler Mountain Mineral Rights Acquisition - City Council authorized the
acquisition of the Smuggler Mountain Mineral Rights in an executive session on
January 27, 2015. Staff is now, requesting the formal appropriation of these funds.
$18,700
$18,700
130 - City Tourism Promotion Fund
130.00.19020.82025 Marketing Funds - Revenues from the City Lodging Tax increased more than
projected for 2014, resulting in excess revenue to allocate to marketing performed
by ACRA of $94,910. These additional funds were approved for use in the March 30,
2015 work session by Council.
$94,910
$94,910
141 - Transportation Fund
141.94.95141.86001 Rubey Park Transit Center - At the Elected Officials Transportation Committee
(EOTC) meeting of March 5, 2015, The EOTC provided $1,000,000 in additional
funding for the Rubey Park project with the condition that the additional funding
needed of $418,000 be provided by the City. The Rubey Park Transit Center project
estimate of $9,318,000 is funded in full with the approval of this request.
$418,000
$418,000
451 - Parking Fund
451.94.81153.86001 Galena Plaza Improvement Project - On February 2, 2015 City Council gave final
approval for construction of Galena Plaza Option 3, $7,676,157 and confirmation
that construction should commence early in 2015. Staff is requesting supplemental
funding of $1,385,640 and moving the $300,000 2016 planned funding to be
available in 2015, which will fund this project in full. The approval of this project also
approves funding transfers totaling $2.85M. The details can be found in the
"technical" section of this packet.
$1,685,640
$1,685,640
Total Previously Approved Requests $2,366,650
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 12 - Page 16
P130
VIII.b
2015 Spring Supplemental
Technical Adjustments
Exhibit G
1 of 2
Account Number Department / Description Amount
000 - Asset Management Fund
000.95.81153.95451 Transfer to Parking to fund the Asset Management Fund's aspects of the Galena
Plaza Improvement Project.
$1,759,370
$1,759,370
001 - General Fund
001.13.13000.87500 Appropriation to remit Pitkin County's share of joint fees collected by the City of
Aspen. This appropriation is only a pass through of collected revenues and does not
adversely impact the fund.
$30,000
001.13.13200.82999 Staff is using $3,500 of the dedicated Historic Preservation funding that resides in a
City of Aspen, Trust and Agency Fund to fund photographing of 247 Victorian-era
buildings in Aspen and use the photos to update the aspenvictorian.com website. In
order to use this funding a transfer to the General Fund as revenue and an expense
appropriation is required.
$3,500
$33,500
100 - Parks and Open Space Fund
100.95.81153.95451 Transfer to Parking to fund the Parks Fund's aspects of the Galena Plaza
Improvement Project.
$733,700
100.95.95141.95141 Transfer to Transportation for Rubey Park Transit Center Project and associated mall
area improvements in the area.
$200,000
100.55.55000.88901 Transfer to Central Savings $15,980
$949,680
120 - Wheeler Opera House Fund
120.93.93000.88901 Transfer to Central Savings $8,080
$8,080
130 - City Tourism Promotion Fund
130.95.00000.95141 Appropriation of fund balance for transportation expenses in 2014. This fund
balance was created by the lodging tax collection coming in higher than the
budgeted expense amount in 2014.
$31,640
$31,640
141 - Transportation Fund
141.34.34000.88901 Transfer to Central Savings $1,780
$1,780
152 - Kids First Fund
152.24.24000.88901 Transfer to Central Savings $380
$380
160 - Stormwater Fund
160.95.81153.95451 Transfer to Parking to fund the Stormwater Fund's aspects of the Galena Plaza
Improvement Project.
$98,150
160.42.16300.88901 Transfer to Central Savings $1,840
$99,990
421 - Water Fund
421.95.81153.95451 Transfer to Parking to fund the Water Utility Fund's aspects of the Galena Plaza
Improvement Project.
$179,930
421.43.43000.88901 Transfer to Central Savings $1,830
$181,760
431 - Electric Fund
431.95.81153.95451 Transfer to Parking to fund the Electric Utility Fund's aspects of the Galena Plaza
Improvement Project.
$74,990
431.45.45000.88901 Transfer to Central Savings $8,840
$83,830
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 12 - Page 17
P131
VIII.b
2015 Spring Supplemental
Technical Adjustments
Exhibit G
2 of 2
Account Number Department / Description Amount
451 - Parking Fund
451.32.32000.88901 Transfer to Central Savings $5,580
$5,580
471 - Golf Course Fund
471.73.73000.88901 Transfer to Central Savings $11,410
$11,410
510 - Information Technology Fund
510.94.61000.86001 The goal of the Information Technology Fund is track and record all of the
information systems technology costs all in one Fund. This transfer is necessary to
accomplish this goal. This is strictly an accounting function and does not represent
additional costs to the City of Aspen.
$276,310
510.61.61000.88901 Transfer to Central Savings $8,220
$284,530
Total Technical Adjustment $3,451,530
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 12 - Page 18
P132
VIII.b
Exhibit H
1 of 2
TRANSFER 2015 DETAILS BY FUND
Fund From and To Purpose of Interfund Transfer $% Fund
Asset Management Plan Fund $2,391,320
Debt Service Fund 2005 - STR Bonds $93,450 4%
Parking Fund Galena Plaza Improvements Project $1,959,370 82%
Transportation Fund Rubey Park Transit Center Project $250,000 10%
Wheeler Opera House Fund Red Brick West End Project $88,500 4%
General Fund $13,426,520
Asset Management Plan Fund City of Aspen Building Replacement Project $12,451,000 93%
Information Technology Fund Information Technology Overhead Payment $787,100 6%
Parks and Open Space Fund Expanded Downtown Core Services $120,520 1%
Parks and Open Space Fund Percentage of Food Tax Refund $67,900 1%
Parks and Open Space Fund $5,800,800
Debt Service Fund 2005 - STR Bonds $952,320 16%
Debt Service Fund 2005 - STR Facility Construction Bonds $103,800 2%
Debt Service Fund 2009 - STR Bonds (Refunding 2001)$821,400 14%
Debt Service Fund 2012 - STR Bonds (Refunding 2005)$154,700 3%
Debt Service Fund 2012 - STR Improvement Bonds $194,100 3%
Debt Service Fund 2013 - STR Bonds (Refunding 2005)$312,400 5%
Debt Service Fund 2014 - STR Bonds (NEW)$496,800 9%
Debt Service Fund 2014 - STR Bonds (refunding 2005)$46,200 1%
Debt Service Fund Trustee Fees - Debt Service $7,800 0%
Employee Housing Fund City of Aspen Affordable Housing $111,000 2%
General Fund General Fund Overhead Payment $1,013,000 17%
General Fund Central Savings $15,980 0%
Golf Course Fund 2005 - STR Bonds $136,100 2%
Golf Course Fund Open Space Maintenance - Golf $268,300 5%
Housing Development Fund Burlingame PhII Park Infrastructure $140,000 2%
Information Technology Fund Information Technology Overhead Payment $93,200 2%
Parking Fund Galena Plaza Improvements Project $733,700 13%
Transportation Fund Rubey Park Transit Center Project $200,000 3%
Wheeler Opera House Fund $486,580
Employee Housing Fund City of Aspen Affordable Housing $55,000 11%
General Fund General Fund Overhead Payment $360,000 74%
General Fund Central Savings $8,080 2%
Information Technology Fund Information Technology Overhead Payment $63,500 13%
City Tourism Promotion Fund $809,330
Transportation Fund City of Aspen RFTA Service Contract Payment $809,330 100%
Transportation Fund $453,980
Employee Housing Fund City of Aspen Affordable Housing $16,000 4%
General Fund General Fund Overhead Payment $319,000 70%
General Fund Use Tax Position $90,000 20%
General Fund Central Savings $1,780 0%
Information Technology Fund Information Technology Overhead Payment $19,300 4%
Parks and Open Space Fund Percentage of Food Tax Refund $7,900 2%
Housing Development Fund $1,863,800
General Fund General Fund Overhead Payment $553,000 30%
Housing Administration Fund Operations Subsidy (COA 50% of total)$196,500 11%
Information Technology Fund Information Technology Overhead Payment $3,600 0%
Parks and Open Space Fund Percentage of Food Tax Refund $10,700 1%
Truscott Housing Fund Truscott Capital/Subsidy Funding $1,100,000 59%
Kids First Fund $194,480
Employee Housing Fund City of Aspen Affordable Housing $23,000 12%
General Fund General Fund Overhead Payment $134,000 69%
General Fund Central Savings $380 0%
Information Technology Fund Information Technology Overhead Payment $23,900 12%
Parks and Open Space Fund Percentage of Food Tax Refund $13,200 7%
Stormwater Fund $458,390
Employee Housing Fund City of Aspen Affordable Housing $13,000 3%
General Fund General Fund Overhead Payment $188,000 41%
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 12 - Page 19
P133
VIII.b
Exhibit H
2 of 2
TRANSFER 2015 DETAILS BY FUND
Fund From and To Purpose of Interfund Transfer $% Fund
General Fund Central Savings $1,840 0%
Information Technology Fund Information Technology Overhead Payment $7,400 2%
Parking Fund Galena Plaza Improvements Project $248,150 54%
Water Utility Fund $1,950,960
Employee Housing Fund City of Aspen Affordable Housing $105,000 5%
General Fund Facilities - Land $575,000 29%
General Fund General Fund Overhead Payment $759,000 39%
General Fund Central Savings $1,830 0%
Information Technology Fund Information Technology Overhead Payment $130,200 7%
Parking Fund Galena Plaza Improvements Project $229,930 12%
Parks and Open Space Fund Water Usage Conservation Program $150,000 8%
Electric Utility Fund $1,184,630
Employee Housing Fund City of Aspen Affordable Housing $33,000 3%
General Fund Franchise Fee $301,000 25%
General Fund General Fund Overhead Payment $352,000 30%
General Fund Central Savings $8,840 1%
Information Technology Fund Information Technology Overhead Payment $11,800 1%
Parking Fund Galena Plaza Improvements Project $109,990 9%
Water Utility Fund Environmental Initiatives (Funding 50%)$156,000 13%
Water Utility Fund Utility Billing Services (Funding 50%)$212,000 18%
Parking Fund $491,180
Employee Housing Fund City of Aspen Affordable Housing $47,000 10%
General Fund General Fund Overhead Payment $385,000 78%
General Fund Central Savings $5,580 1%
Information Technology Fund Information Technology Overhead Payment $53,600 11%
Golf Course Fund $339,810
Employee Housing Fund City of Aspen Affordable Housing $24,000 7%
General Fund General Fund Overhead Payment $160,000 47%
General Fund Golf Cart and Equipment $89,100 26%
General Fund Golf Retiree Payout $14,700 4%
General Fund Central Savings $11,410 3%
Information Technology Fund Information Technology Overhead Payment $27,500 8%
Parks and Open Space Fund Golf Start Up Funding $13,100 4%
Truscott Housing Fund $180,600
Employee Housing Fund City of Aspen Affordable Housing $10,000 6%
General Fund General Fund Overhead Payment $117,000 65%
Housing Administration Fund Housing Administration Overhead Payment $53,600 30%
Marolt Housing Fund $97,200
Employee Housing Fund City of Aspen Affordable Housing $7,000 7%
General Fund General Fund Overhead Payment $47,000 48%
Housing Administration Fund Housing Administration Overhead Payment $43,200 44%
Information Technology Fund $140,220
Employee Housing Fund City of Aspen Affordable Housing $19,000 14%
General Fund General Fund Overhead Payment $113,000 81%
General Fund Central Savings $8,220 6%
Housing Administration Fund $165,800
General Fund General Fund Overhead Payment $112,000 68%
Information Technology Fund Information Technology Overhead Payment $53,800 32%
Smuggler Housing Fund $8,300
General Fund General Fund Overhead Payment $5,000 60%
Housing Administration Fund Housing Administration Overhead Payment $3,300 40%
All Funds $4,215,810
Employee Health Insurance Fund Employee Health Insurance Premiums $3,745,600 89%
Information Technology Fund Transfers for Double Budgeted Capital Projects $470,210 11%
Grand Total $34,659,710
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 12 - Page 20
P134
VIII.b
(Informational Only)
Revenue Details
1 of 1
Department Description Amount
Subtotal by
Department
General Fund
Planning
001.13.00000.63890 Staff is using $3,500 of the dedicated Historic Preservation funding that
resides in a City of Aspen, Trust and Agency Fund to fund photographing of
247 Victorian-era buildings in Aspen and use the photos to update the
aspenvictorian.com website. In order to use this funding a transfer to the
General Fund as revenue and an expense appropriation is required.
$3,500
Subtotal, Community Development:$3,500
Environmental Health
001.25.00000.62200 Radon Grant funding $3,840
Subtotal, Environmental Health $3,840
Transfers to General Fund
001.05.05000.69000 Transfer in from all funds outside the General Fund for Central Savings.$63,940
Subtotal, Transfers $63,940
Subtotal, General Fund $71,280
Parks and Open Space Fund
100.00.00000.62200 Cozy Point Barn Restoration Grant $197,700
100.94.81014.66137 Cozy Point Operations Revenue of $65K ($40K increase to the budget)$40,000
100.94.95089.67500 Sky Mountain Park - 50% Reimbursement of Expense - County $25,000
Subtotal, Parks and Open Space Fund $262,700
Transportation Fund
141.34.00000.62200 Appropriation of fund balance for transportation expenses in 2014. This fund
balance was created by the lodging tax collection coming in higher than the
budgeted expense amount in 2014. The 2014 fund balance is then transferred
in from 130 Fund to fund the COA In Town RFTA service.
$31,640
141.96.00000.95100 Transfer to Transportation for Rubey Park Transit Center Project and
associated mall area improvements in the area.
$200,000
141.34.00000.62200 FASTER grant of $190K for S11, S13 and S14 shuttles purchased assume 80%
of vehicle cost only for GRANT funding each vehicle at $79K, totaling $237K
h
$190,000
Subtotal, Transportation Fund $421,640
Kids First Fund
152.24.24100.62200 State Grant Funding 1291 - increase infant toddler capacity $30,000
Subtotal, Kids First Day Care Fund $30,000
Parking Fund
451.96.81153.95000 Transfer in for the Asset Management Fund's aspects of the Galena Plaza
Improvement Project
$1,759,370
451.96.81153.95100 Transfer in for the Parks and Open Space Fund's aspects of the Galena Plaza
Improvement Project
$733,700
451.96.81153.95160 Transfer in for the Stormwater Fund's aspects of the Galena Plaza
Improvement Project
$98,150
451.96.81153.95421 Transfer in for the Water Utility Fund's aspects of the Galena Plaza
Improvement Project
$179,930
451.96.81153.95431 Transfer in for the Electric Utility Fund's aspects of the Galena Plaza
Improvement Project
$74,990
Subtotal, Parking Fund $2,846,140
Golf Course Fund
510.94.61000.67500 The goal of the Information Technology Fund is track and record all of the
information systems technology costs all in one Fund. Revenue side of this
transfer is necessary to accomplish this goal. This is strictly an accounting
function and does not represent additional costs to the City of Aspen.
$276,310
Subtotal, Information Technology Fund $276,310
Total Revenue Changes $3,908,070
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 12 - Page 21
P135
VIII.b
City of Aspen
Departmental Memos
First Reading
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 12 - Page 22
P136
VIII.b
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Chris Bendon, Director, Community Development Department
THRU:
DATE OF MEMO: 3/11/15
MEETING DATE: 4/13/15
RE: Spring Supplemental Request: International Code Materials
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff request $14,000 to purchase 2015 International Codes and supporting
educational materials, such as commentary and workbooks, for the Building staff, Building Code Board
of Appeals, and the public.
DISCUSSION: Every six years, the Building Department is required to update its building regulations in
the COA Municipal Code. Currently, the Department is using the 2009 code and it will be adopting code
changes to Title 8 in late 2015. Pitkin County, the Town of Basalt, and other local jurisdictions also are
updating to the 2015 Code. These materials need to be available in order to train staff so they
understand the changes that have taken place. As important, the materials are required to educate the
Board and the development community at large.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Staff need to purchase 14 sets of materials at an estimated cost of
$1,000/set. The cost of these materials was not included in the 2015 budget request and a budget
amendment is required. This is a one-time cost that will not impact future year’s budgets.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommend that Council approve its request for $14,000 to purchase
2015 International Codes and supporting educational materials.
ALTERNATIVES: Staff could delay updating the Code until 2016 and budget for the cost in the 2016
budget submittal. However, our Code would then be out of sync with the Code being used by the
County and other neighboring jurisdictions. This would cause considerable confusion within our
development community.
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve the staff’s request for $14,000 to purchase 2015 International
Codes and supporting educational materials.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Page 1 of 2
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 12 - Page 23
P137
VIII.b
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
FROM: TIM ANDERSON, RECREATION DIRECTOR
THRU: JEFF WOODS; MANAGER OF PARKS &
RECREATION; ALISSA FARREL, HUMAN
RESOURCES MANAGER; PETE STRECKER,
FINANCE
DATE OF MEMO: MARCH 13, 2015
MEETING DATE: APRIL 13, 2015
RE: SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff; being Recreation and Human Resources, is requesting the
approval of a supplemental in the amount of $73,250 for the purpose of increasing part time
labor costs for employees working within Recreation Facilities and Programs. HR had concerns
with wages being inconsistent with current levels in the valley and the ability to attract qualified
personnel. Additionally, HR/Risk Management has concerns for safety and the need to hire
qualified individuals as well as safety issues at the Aspen Ice Garden identified in Discussion
section of this memo. $30,000 of these expenses will be offset by additional revenues making
the net increase to recreation operations $43,250.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council approved a $2,232,880 subsidy for recreation
operations in 2015. The approval of this supplemental will increase the subsidy set by Council
through the 2015 budget process by $43,250 (if approved per staff recommendations) or reduce
the recovery percentage by less than 0.5%.
Further exploration of alternatives to offsetting this increase in part time labor are examined in
the discussion section of this memo.
BACKGROUND: During the 2009 economic downturn in the economy, wages for part time
labor were frozen and new hires we brought in at significantly reduced wages. In the current
economy we find that we are no longer able to recruit good qualified employees for positions
required to operate programs and facilities due to wages becoming more competitive in the
valley. Specific positions include:
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 12 - Page 24
P138
VIII.b
1. Lifeguards and pool lead personnel required to hold regulated certifications and be
responsible for safety.
2. Qualified personnel to operate state licensed day camps.
3. Cleaning personnel for recreation facilities
4. Qualified personnel to operate ice facilities and equipment
These positions are all key to safety, cleanliness and a customer service expectation. Many of
these positions are regulated by State Standards for safety.
DISCUSSION: As mentioned previously in the memo, we are no longer able to recruit
qualified individuals at the old rate of pay. Part time labor was being paid between $12.00/hr. to
$16.00/hr. Wages sufficient to recruit the skill sets required are now $17.00 to $21.00/hr. as
identified by Human Resources through job comparisons in the valley.
Please refer to attachment “A” for total cost and justification of increases. Alternatives to each
increase would be:
1. Aquatics: we would need to increase pool program fees, FUN pass prices, and Daily
Admissions by 4 % across the board to cover this cost OR reduce operational hours by 10
hours per week to reduce the cost in operations. Staff does not recommend this
alternative.
2. Day Camp/After School: To keep state licensed ratios and qualified people to look after
the kids in the program we need to increase daily fees by $2.00/day beginning this
summer. (This would require a change to the 2015 fees ordinance which staff would
bring back to Council for amendment) We are still the most affordable program in town
with these fees. This change also aligns all child care fees offered. Staff is
recommending and proposing this alternative.
3. Maintenance: To recruit and retain good personnel to keep facilities clean we need to
increase costs by $5,000 or reduce the amount of funding for repairs necessary to keep
facilities operating by that same amount. **Please see ice revenues being generated
below which could offset this cost. Staff does not recommend reducing the service level
in maintenance.
4. Ice Facilities: In order to hire and retain qualified and capable individuals to operate an
Ice Resurfacer and other ice maintenance equipment, an increase in wages is necessary.
Additionally risk management has concerns with one employee being present during late
hours at the Ice Garden if an emergency should arise or if the employee were to fall on
the ice, injure themselves and go unnoticed.
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 12 - Page 25
P139
VIII.b
**Additionally, Aspen Junior Hockey is purchasing additional ice for a Tier 3 Junior
team in the fall of 2015 and into 2016 which will require additional part time hours of
operations. The addition of this program will generate an additional $20,000 in revenue
which would offset the cost to operate.
If Council wishes for fees to remain as approved in 2015 and not reduce service levels staff will
come back through the 2016 budget process and offer ways to offset these costs and improve the
recovery rate for recreation as identified in the Business Plan.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: If Council approves of the staff recommendation to
increase the Day Camp/After School program fees by $2.00/day, and with the generation of
additional ice revenues due to the addition of the Tier 3 Junior Hockey Team, the net increase to
subsidy would be $43,250 or reduce the recovery percentage by less than 0.5%.
If Council chooses not to increase any fees at this time then the subsidy would increase by
$50,000 and the recovery percentage would be reduced from 52% to 51%. Keep in mind that the
approved 2014 subsidy rate was 48% so recreation is still headed in a direction of an improved
recovery rate.
Additionally, 2014 revenues came in $83,230 over projected 2015 revenues and we are up over
2014 year to date. If this trend continues even with this supplemental the bottom line recovery
rate would further improve.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff is recommending the approval of $70,250 in added part
time wages for the operation of recreation facilities and programs in addition to $2,500 in
additional materials and supplies. Staff further recommends that fees be increased for Day
Camp/After School programs as of June 1st, 2015 to help offset some costs. Further action
regarding the recovery of the net increase to operations will be addressed going forward through
the 2016 budget process.
1. Aquatics: Staff recommends absorbing the increase as the reduction to the recovery rate
for the recreation operational budget increases by less than 0.5%. The recovery rate for
recreation still continues to improve over past years.
2. Day Camp/After School: Staff recommends a $2.00/day increase in these programs to
offset the cost.
3. Maintenance: Staff recommends funding for this increase to retain service levels and
increased revenues through ice rentals from the Tier 3 team will help offset this cost.
4. Ice Facilities: Staff recommends this increase in funding as revenues will offset the
costs.
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 12 - Page 26
P140
VIII.b
ALTERNATIVES: As identified in the discussion portion of this memo, alternatives would
include increased fees and/or a reduction in service levels if Council wished the operational
bottom line to remain the same. Even with these increases recreation facilities and programs
continue to improve their recovery rate of operations over past years.
1. Aquatics: we would need to either increase FUN passes, daily admission and pool
programs by 4% across the board or reduce operational hours by 10 hours a week if
Council chose not to fund this increase outright.
2. Day Camp/After School: absorb the increase in the recreation budget if Council chose
not to increase fees or get out of the Day Camp programming all together as there are
numerous other programs in the valley.
3. Maintenance: If council chose not to fund the increase in wages staff could reduce the
service level (cleaning) in all facilities.
4. Ice Facilities: We will need to staff the added program of the Tier 3 team and revenues
will cover costs. As to the risk management concerns of a single employee being on site
it seems this cost must be covered as well.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
“A” Supplemental Sheet
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 12 - Page 27
P141
VIII.b
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jeff Pendarvis, Capital Asset Project Manager
THRU: Jack Wheeler, Capital Asset Manager
DATE OF MEMO: March 11, 2015
MEETING DATE: April 13, 2015
RE: 630 W. Main St. (Mountain Rescue) and 590 N. Mill St. (Old Powerhouse) buildings
Operational budgets
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Request of $58,150.00 in operational funds to operate 630 W.
Main building ( Mt. Rescue) as COA offices for 2015 and going forward and the operation of
590 N. Mill building ( Old Powerhouse)for the rest of 2015.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council approved the use of 630 W. Main (Mountain
Rescue) for the temporary use as offices for City staff, also Council is aware that the 590 N. Mill
(Old Powerhouse) would be transferred back to the City’s possession due to expiring lease with
the Aspen Art Museum.
BACKGROUND: The building have been previously operated and maintained by the two
respective lease holders of the respective properties. Now the City is assuming possession and
control and the responsibility. Also as discussed, the City has a space need for office space for
City staff and is to temporarily locating the Capital Asset Department and the Canary Initiative
division of the Environmental Health in the 630 W. Main building until a permanent solution is
found. Currently no operational budget exists to maintain and operate the space. Additional
operational funding for 2015 was planned for in 2014 to be requested in the 2015 Spring
Supplemental Budget for the two buildings.
DISCUSSION: Error! Not a valid link.
Work in 630 W. Main to set the building up for offices, and upgrades to the building to the
interior: painting, carpet, lighting, electrical, data and work stations is completed.
Asset and Canary moved in in March of 2015 to the space and freeing up the Rio Grande
building and the Annex (517 E Hopkins) for repurposing for other departments that need to
directly serve the public in town.
Page 1 of 2
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 12 - Page 28
P142
VIII.b
Operational funding is needed for the buildings until an alternative/permanent use or new
operator/tenant is determined.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Funding would come from the City’s general fund.
Fiscal Note (prepared by Finance) should be attached if this item requires a budget
amendment, impacts future year’s base budget assumptions, requires multi-year financing,
etc.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Staff has applied for a green team grant for a bicycle rack to
be located at 630 W. Main St. to promote less vehicular traffic for daily operations.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Grant the funding requests for the 630 W. Main for the
remainder of 2015 and forward, and funding for 590 N. Mill for the rest of 2015 or until a tenant
takes possession of the building.
ALTERNATIVES: None recommended at this time.
PROPOSED MOTION: This should be a brief statement for a Council member to read such as
“I move to approve Ordinance # . . .”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Page 2 of 2
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 12 - Page 29
P143
VIII.b
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Tom Rubel, Director of Parks and Open Space and
Teresa Hackbarth, Office Manager
THRU: Jeff Woods, Manager of Parks and Recreation
DATE OF MEMO: March 11, 2015
MEETING DATE:
RE: Spring Supplemental Funding Requests: Spring 2015 Cozy
Point Ranch Operations and Capital Needs
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is requesting authorization of five operational and three
capital project supplementals associated with Cozy Point Ranch and the Parks and Open Space
Department’s 2015 operating and capital budgets as follows:
Request #1 – re: Cozy Point Ranch Operations - Staff is requesting a payroll supplemental in the
amount of $63,000 in order to cover the cost of half of the salary and benefits of current full time
Parks and Water Department employee Robert Covington. Rob will continue managing Cozy
Point Ranch operations and will assist with the master planning process. Rob’s salary will be
offset by revenue from Cozy Point LLC profits which projects out to $65,000 for 2015. This is an
ongoing request until the master planning process is complete.
Request #2 – re: Cozy Point Ranch Operations - Staff is requesting $15,000 to cover half the cost
of utilities used for operations at Cozy Point Ranch. These expenses include gas and electricity
for areas such as the riding arena, offices, barn, employee housing units, and irrigation pump
system. Per the agreement with the current lease holder Cozy Point Ranch LLC/Patti Watson, the
Parks Department's budget will cover one half of the total cost of utilities and the lessee will pay
for the other half. This is an ongoing request until the master planning process is complete and
staff has a clear indication on how the ranch should be managed in the future.
Request #3 – re: Cozy Point Ranch Operations - Staff is requesting $10,000 in funds needed to
cover the cost of purchasing materials to be used for operations. These items include but are not
limited to nuts, bolts, fencing supplies, equipment parts, irrigation related supplies, hammers,
shovels, rakes, pitch forks, tape, brooms, etc. This is an ongoing request until the master planning
process is complete.
Page 1 of 5
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 12 - Page 30
P144
VIII.b
Request #4 – re: Cozy Point Ranch Operations - Staff is requesting $7,000 in funds to pay for
professional services needed to maintain operations and ensure client and animal care and safety
at the ranch. These services would include welding, plumbing, electrical work, hauling services,
etc. This is an ongoing request until the master planning process is complete.
Request #5 – re: Cozy Point Ranch Operations - Staff is requesting funds in the amount of
$50,000 to pay for services and materials needed to repair and maintain the existing equipment
that the City purchased from the previous lease holder Glenda Summers in November 2014.
After the initial upgrade, only $20,000 is needed as an ongoing request.
Request #6 – re: Cozy Point Ranch Capital - Staff is requesting funds in the amount of $24,000
to pay for critical repairs needed on the roof area between the arena and stable. There is
substantial damage to the roof infrastructure from deferred maintenance and ice and snow build
up which has become a safety concern. This is a onetime request as the repairs should be
warranted and last for many years.
Request #7 – Cozy Point Ranch Capital - Staff is requesting funds in the amount of $7,000 in
order to purchase a new four wheeler (ATV) which will be used for ranch chores and irrigation
maintenance on all the leased properties which are used to produce hay for the stable operations.
This is a onetime request as the four wheeler should last for many years with good maintenance.
Request #8 – re: Cozy Point Ranch Capital - Staff is requesting funds in the amount of $50,000
needed to cover the cost of major employee housing safety improvements which includes four
employee units. The City of Aspen’s Asset Department has performed a site evaluation of the
units and has recommended these repairs.
These eight combined requests result in an increase of $145,00 to the Parks and Open Space
Department’s 2015 operating budget and an increase of $81,000 to the Parks Department’s 2015
capital budget. This equals a combined total increase of $226,000 to the 2015 Parks and Open
Space Department budget and fund.
BACKGROUND: Monroe Summers, the ranch manager since 2000, passed away unexpectedly
in August of 2014. Monroe over-saw all aspects of the ranch with help from several key
individuals who were responsible for managing specific areas of the operations. Since his
passing, the City of Aspen has entered into a one year, renewable lease with Cozy Point LLC and
its new owner Patti Watson. Patti had worked with Monroe closely for 14 years and was a key
ranch employee responsible for equestrian operations under Monroe. Parks and Open Space staff
have been working closely with Patti Watson since November 2014 on the management of the
ranch, however, since Patti’s main focus is equestrian operations, the City of Aspen felt there
was a need for an overall ranch manager to protect the City’s assets. The City reallocated duties
of full time employee Rob Covington to take on the day to day property management aspects of
the ranch. Rob works half time for the Water Department and half time for the Parks Department.
During the lease transition process in November 2014, the City of Aspen purchased most of the
existing ranching equipment from the old LLC owned by Glenda Summers with approval from
Council. This purchase included various pieces of machinery, tractors, tools, supplies, vehicles,
Page 2 of 5
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 12 - Page 31
P145
VIII.b
general ranch operations equipment, and equipment specific to haying, as well as the actual hay
itself. During a recent asset evaluation process, Rob Covington and staff identified the need for
purchasing additional equipment and materials essential to continue the ranch and haying
operations. Staff has also identified that some of the equipment is in need of repairs in order to
ensure its future use. There was some deferred maintenance of existing ranch structures that took
place over many years such as fencing, stable arena structures, roofing, and employee housing
units that were not attended to by the previous lessee. Some significant improvements to those
structures have been identified by Parks and Asset Department’s staff as needing attention in
2015 in order to protect the safety of the public, animals, and employees.
The City of Aspen Parks and Open Space Department staff has begun a master planning effort
for the Cozy Point Ranch and surrounding open space areas. The scope of this plan includes the
entire Cozy Point Ranch, the leased ranch property, the City managed Cozy Point Open Space,
City and County owned Cozy Point South, the Aspen Mass Open Space area and the City and
County owned Mills Open Space. The goal of the planning effort will be to look at the long term
vision for the properties, potential uses and how they connect and interact with adjacent publicly
owned properties. Staff is currently conducting public outreach sessions and information
gathering meetings with as many community and private stakeholders as possible as well as
consulting other city and county departments in order to begin outlining a master plan and
comprehensive vision for this special place.
DISCUSSION: It is important to keep Cozy Point operating efficiently in 2015 and 2016 as the
City of Aspen Parks Department staff continues the master planning effort for the entire Cozy
Point Ranch area. The scope of this plan will include the Cozy Point Ranch and surrounding City
and County Open Space properties and trails. The goal of the planning effort will be to look at
the long term vision for the properties and how they connect and interact with adjacent publicly
owned properties. Cozy Point Ranch is a historically important, highly visible, property which
the public cares deeply about. Keeping the ranch operating proficiently is important to both the
City and the citizens of Aspen. This is an important process to insure that this significant asset
becomes a vibrant and relevant property for the community while continuing the agricultural
heritage which Monroe Summers initiated.
Staff is confident that the direction of maintaining existing operations with the oversight of a
ranch manager employed by the City, is the most viable and cost effective option. This strategy
has the best opportunity of combining expertise and financial management to minimize the cost
to the City. The current lease ensures that the City is compensated through a profit sharing
agreement which incentivizes both parties to make Cozy Point Ranch a profitable operation on
an interim basis until a full master plan can be implemented.
Wages for the ranch manager, daily operating expenses, materials/supplies, and services needed
for continued successful operation at the ranch will require funds that are not currently in the
Parks Department’s 2015 operations and capital budgets. Rob was originally hired as the ranch
manager last fall as he has extensive experience in ranch management and he is able to insure
that all the operational and infrastructure needs of the ranch will be met. Rob is also responsible
for assisting staff with their comprehensive asset management and master planning process.
Page 3 of 5
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 12 - Page 32
P146
VIII.b
Staff is requesting additional funds to supplement payroll to cover one half of Rob Covington's
wages in the amount of $63,000. This amount includes some overtime and a monthly bonus for
additional duties. This will reduce the Water Department funds by a similar amount. The City of
Aspen’s Human Resources Department has been involved in the evaluation of Rob's
compensation package and based their figures upon regionally comparable wages and
compensation packages for similar positions. Rob’s presence is critical to the continued
successful operation of Cozy Point Ranch. He has done an excellent job of managing the day to
day operations at the ranch based on comments from ranch staff and facility users.
Rob is also working with the City of Aspen’s Parks and Open Space and Asset Management
Department staff in order to complete an asset management evaluation which will be integrated
into the overall comprehensive Cozy Point Master Plan. Staff feels that it is important to keep
the ranch operations running smoothly until a master plan can be completed. In addition, current
customers and users need to continue experiencing high levels of customer service at the ranch.
Part of this asset management plan involved further assessing the assets purchased in November
2014, when the City of Aspen purchased the remaining assets of Cozy Point Ranch LLC for
$72,000 from Glenda Summers with Council approval. These assets included numerous pieces
of ranch equipment such as trucks, tractors, trailers and haying equipment. Staff has since found
that there are crucial repairs needed to existing equipment in order to keep it in working
condition for current ranch and haying operations. Equipment maintenance expenses for repairs
to existing haying equipment and ranch tractors are estimated to be $50,000 based on quotes
obtained from area vendors. The equipment and machinery is necessary to ensure successful
haying operations on the ranch and for local ranch owners with whom Cozy Point LLC has
existing agreements with.
Staff has also identified the need for funds for daily operations, utilities, repairs and services. The
City's half of utility operating expenses are based on past historical data and a budget forecast
from Patti Watson that are anticipated to be $30,000 total in 2015, therefore resulting in a cost to
the City of $15,000. Materials needed for operations are estimated to be approximately $10,000
and would consist of buying new ranch tools and equipment specific to use for daily operations.
Services needed for ranch operations are estimated to be $7,000 and could include welding,
plumbing, electrical services and any other services related to improvements at the ranch.
A new four wheeler is crucial to enhance productivity on the ranch and to increase the efficiency
of the irrigation and haying operations. This vehicle is estimated to cost $7,000 per the attached
bid (see Exhibit A).
Regarding improvements to city assets including structures, staff has found that there is
deterioration and damage to the roof area located between the arena and stable areas. Staff has
received a bid in the amount of $24,000 for this repair from a roofing contractor whom is
familiar with repairs at the ranch. (See Exhibit B). This is most likely due to delayed capital
maintenance over the years and damage from ice and snow. This area is near public entrances
and is part of the arena and stable areas which is near public and animal use. There is leakage
Page 4 of 5
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 12 - Page 33
P147
VIII.b
which may eventually contribute to a collapse of this roof area which could then become a safety
and liability issue.
Regarding employee housing safety and health improvements, the four employee housing units
were recently evaluated by City Asset Department Staff and staff recommended addressing
several health and safety issue related to existing utilities in order to ensure a safe and healthy
living environment for the residents. Rough costs for such repairs were obtained from the Asset
Dept. Staff (see Exhibit C).
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: These actions will result in an increase of $145,000 to the
Parks and Open Space Department’s 2015 operating budget and an increase of $81,000 to the
Parks Department’s 2015 capital budget. This equals a combined increase of $226,000 to the
total budget. This cost is not in the current budget plan and would require a budget amendment.
Anticipated revenue projections are estimated to be $65,000. These costs could not be anticipated
at the time of planning for the Parks and Open Space’s 2015 budget because final lease
negotiations were not completed until after the budget process.
The City’s lease agreement with Cozy Point Ranch LLC/Patti Watson states that the lessee is
obligated to pay the City one half of the net profit earned by the LLC each year. To date, the
lessee has been regularly submitting profit and loss statements as required by the lease, and based
on these reports, the forecasted profit (revenue) for the City will be approximately $65,000 in
2015. The Cozy Point actuals and forecast summary budget is attached (see Exhibit D).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Ranching and haying operations have been ongoing on the
ranch since it was acquired so there shouldn’t be any additional impacts in how the ranch
operates. Repairs to equipment should help reduce energy use overall. Staff has been recycling as
many materials as possible around the ranch in order to reduce waste. Energy audits through
CORE and upgrades to existing ranch infrastructure have already been implemented which have
saved energy and money.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Parks staff recommends approving the addition of $226,000 to
the Parks and Open Space Department’s 2015 operating and capital budget in order to cover the
cost of unanticipated expenses.
PROPOSED MOTION: : “I move to approve the addition of $226,000 to the Parks budget in
order to cover the cost of the operational and capital related improvements related to Cozy Point
Ranch in 2015.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Page 5 of 5
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 12 - Page 34
P148
VIII.b
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Tom Rubel, Director of Parks and Open Space and
Teresa Hackbarth, Office Manager
THRU: Jeff Woods, Manager of Parks and Recreation
DATE OF MEMO: March 11, 2015
MEETING DATE:
RE: Spring Supplemental Funding Requests: Spring 2015 Cozy
Point Ranch Red Barn Structural and Roof Renovations
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is requesting $380,200 in funds in order to maintain the
condition of the Historic Cozy Point Ranch Red Barn and to make improvements to the structural
foundation and roof.
BACKGROUND: The Cozy Point Barn is a highly visible, historical and significant landmark
ranch building and it is one of the few historic agricultural buildings in the valley remaining in
use as an agricultural building. It was constructed more than 80 years ago and the barns
foundation and roof are in poor condition now. The Cozy Point Ranch Red Barn is one of the
only historic barns in the Roaring Fork Valley that continues in use for agriculture and ranching
purposes. It is currently used as headquarters for a summer horse camp and general storage for
agricultural related supplies for the ranch. It is important to preserve the barn for continued
agricultural use and to possibly expand it in the future for community needs, valley events, and as
an educational resource. The longer it remains in poor structural condition, the greater the risk of
losing it for future generations.
The proposed project includes replacement of the roof as well as associated structural
reinforcement and rehabilitation of the historic stone foundation. Staff has been awarded a
significant grant from the State Historical Fund that will act as an offset revenue source. Project
cost funds are needed up front in order to complete the project according to current market
standards and costs.
DISCUSSION: In June of 2014, the Parks Department participated in a capital project site
evaluation of the barn using Denver Architect Slater Paull who was chosen through an RFP
process. In August of 2014, Slater Paull submitted a Historic Structure Assessment and
Preservation Plan report to staff that detailed a phased action plan and a proposed budget for the
repairs to the barn. The first phase, to be initiated in 2015, would involve improvements to the
Page 1 of 2
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 12 - Page 35
P149
VIII.b
structural foundation and the roof of the barn which are considered critical needs. In that report
Slater Paull estimated the project to cost $267,156. In October 2014, staff used this estimate to
apply for a State Historical Fund grant in the amount of $267,156 which would be used on this
project. Staff received notice of the award of the grant on February 1, 2015 which awarded the
City $197,695 from the State Historical Fund with a cash matching requirement of $69,461 by
the City.
In mid-February 2015, Parks and City Asset Department staff performed a thorough site
evaluation and prepared an estimate for repairs based on the report. Asset Department Director
Jack Wheeler estimated the cost of the first phase of renovations to be $380,200. Jack attributes
the difference in the two estimates to the fact that Slater Paull may not understand the intricacies
of the local construction market therefore, staff should include an Owners Contingency in the
budget. Jack also pointed out that there are many unknowns on this project due to the age of the
barn. A copy of the Slater Paull estimate (Exhibit A), the SHF grant application and award letter
(Exhibit B), and Jack Wheeler's estimate are attached (Exhibit C). Staff is requesting $380,200
based on Jack Wheeler's estimate.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: This action will result in an increase of $380,200 in 2015
to the Parks and Open Space fund. This cost is not in the current budget and would require a
budget amendment. It’s important to note that there is the revenue from the State Historical Fund
grant of $197,695 which will offset some of the costs of this project.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Environmental impacts would consist of increased
construction activity at the ranch in the summer of 2015 including the use of trucks and
equipment. This could produce some additional greenhouse gas emissions. Additional materials
will also be added to the site and building to stabilize it. Staff and the contractor will recycle and
reuse as much of the existing barn materials and site foundation as possible so as to reduce
adding refuse to the landfill and to keep the character of the barn intact.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Parks staff recommends approving the addition of $380,200 to
the Parks and Open Space’s 2015 budget in order to cover the cost of the restoration of the Cozy
Point Historic Red Barn.
ALTERNATIVES: If these requests are not approved, the condition of the Red Barn may
continue to deteriorate and eventually fail which will result in City of Aspen asset deterioration
over time plus a reduction in services to the ranch and community. The barn could also become
a safety or liability issue in the future for the groups that use it.
PROPOSED MOTION: : “I move to approve the addition of $380,200 to the Parks and Open
Space’s 2015 budget in order to cover the cost of the structural foundation and roof renovations
of the Cozy Point Historic Red Barn.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Page 2 of 2
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 12 - Page 36
P150
VIII.b
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Tom Rubel, Director of Parks and Open Space and
Scott Chism, Planning and Construction Manager
THRU: Jeff Woods, Manager of Parks and Recreation
DATE OF MEMO: March 9, 2015
MEETING DATE:
RE: Spring Supplemental Funding Requests: Spring 2015
Burlingame Phase II Parks
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is requesting a capital budget supplemental request in the
form of a reappropriation of 2016 Parks and Open Space Capital budget funds into the Parks and
Open Space 2015 budget for the Burlingame Phase II Parks project. Staff is requesting $215,000
for this purpose. If council approves the reappropraition of $215,000 from the 2016 project
budget into the 2015 project budget, then a balance of $200,000 would remain for completion of
the project in 2016.
BACKGROUND: The Phase 2 Parks project at Burlingame has been planned to occur over a
period of two construction seasons due to the development approach of utilizing in-house Parks
Department construction resources as much as possible. The budgets for each year were initially
developed to allow a greater amount of work to occur in 2016 as compared to 2015. The two
park designs have been in development in earnest since late 2014 resulting in a more complete
understanding by the design team of park-specific infrastructure scheduling needs. Due to this
intense design process, Staff is anticipating a greater expenditure of funds from the overall 2015
and 2016 project budgets earlier in the process of the building of the two new parks than was
originally anticipated.
DISCUSSION: It is important to develop the Phase II Parks as quickly, efficiently and cost
effectively as possible. The increase in funding availability will allow a greater proportion of
site construction work to be completed in 2015 in order to shorten the comprehensive Phase II
construction impacts on the greater Burlingame neighborhood. This step will also better meet the
development agreements associated with the Burlingame Phase II project specific to the creation
of the Phase II parks. Significant park elements such as the new Park and Phase II neighborhood
irrigation pump systems and pump house would be developed further in 2015. The cost for these
elements would come from the reappropriated funds to ensure complete functionality by the
summer of 2016.
Page 1 of 2
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 12 - Page 37
P151
VIII.b
Staff has also discovered that design development work associated with the Phase II Parks has
yielded numerous complexities specific to storm water control and irrigation water supply. As a
result, staff is anticipating a greater level of early expenditures for development of the parks in
2015 than originally planned.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: This action will result in an increase of $215,000 in 2015
to the Parks and Open Space capital budget and fund. However, this action will also decrease the
Parks 2016 capital budget and fund in the amount of $215,000 since this money will be
reappropriated from one year to the other.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: There are no significant environmental implications with
allowing the funding for an increased amount of Burlingame Phase II Parks site work to occur in
2015 as opposed to 2016. Increased construction efficiencies will be possible through the
reduction of mobilizations due to the amount of work which will all occur in 2015.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff suggests that Council approves the reappropriation of
$215,000 of 2016 Burlingame Phase II Parks funds into the Parks and Open Space Department’s
2015 budget and fund.
ALTERNATIVES: If not approved, the construction site work could continue for a much
longer time period thus impacting the daily living conditions of the residents at Burlingame. The
City could also experience increased costs as the cost of construction related goods and services
(such as concrete, steel, services) may rise in 2016 as compared to current 2015 prices.
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve the addition of $215,000 in funds to the Parks and
Open Space 2015 budget in regards to the Burlingame Phase II Parks capital project.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Page 2 of 2
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 12 - Page 38
P152
VIII.b
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Chris Everson
THRU: Barry Crook
DATE OF MEMO: March 11, 2015
MEETING DATE: April 13, 2015
RE: Supplemental funding to re-purchase lot at 0221 Forge Rd
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests approval of $150,000 supplemental funding from the
150 Housing Development Fund to re-purchase the lot at 221 Forge Rd.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In 2009, the City sold the lot at 221 Forge Rd to APCHA
for $134,000 in order to satisfy requirements to maintain certain declarant rights to further
develop affordable housing at Burlingame Ranch.
BACKGROUND: Current housing development efforts by the City may have the City
developing the lot at 0221 Forge Rd, along with 3 other lots which the City owns, for sale to
local workforce beginning potentially as early as June 2015, if numerous dependencies fall into
place.
DISCUSSION: In the event that numerous dependencies fall into place in April and May of
2015, such as favorable construction bidding, sales price parameters established by Council and
sufficient buyer interest, staff needs to be prepared to develop the lot beginning potentially as
early as June 2015 and thus the City should re-purchase the lot from APCHA prior to
development.
As was agreed prior to the 2009 sale to APCHA, carrying costs for the lot at 0221 Forge Rd are
currently being funded from the City’s 150 Housing development Fund despite APCHA
ownership of the lot so in the event that the dependencies fall through and development of the
four new homes being contemplated at Burlingame Ranch is delayed, the City’s 150 Housing
Development fund will continue to carry the lot with no additional costs.
Page 1 of 2
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 12 - Page 39
P153
VIII.b
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Budget authority specific to the re-purchase of the lot at
0221 Forge Rd does not exist in the 2015 budget. Supplemental budget authority from the 150
Housing Development fund is sought herein.
2009 Revenues: $130,000 ($134,000 sale price less closing costs)
2015 Costs: $149,000 ($145,000 sale price plus closing costs)
150 Fund Net Impact: ($19,000) (over 5 years)
Staff intends to account for the net impact as a shared cost among the entirety of the Burlingame
Ranch Phase II project since the sale and re-purchase of this lot facilitated development rights
related to the entirety of Burlingame Ranch Phase II.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: None specific to the sale of the property.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval so that the City can be prepared to
satisfy public demand for affordable housing at this location.
ALTERNATIVES: If Council does not want to approve the staff recommendation at this time,
Council could instead wait and see what happens in April and May with construction bidding,
sales price parameters and buyer interest and then consider the sale at that time. This alternative
action would add unrecoverable time to the schedule in the event that all of the other
dependencies do fall into place.
PROPOSED MOTION: “Motion to approve $150,000 supplemental budget authority to re-
purchase the lot at 0221 Forge Rd.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Page 2 of 2
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 12 - Page 40
P154
VIII.b
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Lee Ledesma, Utilities Finance and Administrative Services Manager
THRU: David Hornbacher, Director of Utilities and Environmental Initiatives
Scott Miller, Public Works Director
Don Taylor, Finance Director
DATE OF MEMO: March 11, 2015
MEETING DATE: April 13, 2015
RE: Federal Hazard Mitigation Grant --
City of Aspen Standby Generators Project
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The City of Aspen applied for, and was successful in securing, a
grant in the amount of $66,013 for standby generators to be located at three City facilities—Red
Brick, Yellow Brick and Water Treatment Plant. The total project cost is $90,214, with the City
of Aspen’s share totaling $24,201. Staff is requesting acceptance of this grant and authorization
to increase budget authority to reflect the standby generators project.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In April of 2012, City Council adopted the Aspen Energy
Assurance Plan, which contains recommendations for backup electric generation at critical city
facilities. Also in April of 2012, Council also adopted the Pitkin County Emergency Operations
Plan, which covers hazard and emergency planning on a broader scale. Both locally adopted plans
have multi-hazard mitigation components, which is part of the FEMA grant requirements for this
federal hazard mitigation grant award.
BACKGROUND: In November of 2014 the City was notified that it had been awarded grant
money from the State of Colorado, Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
from PDMP (Pre Disaster Mitigation Plan) / HMGP (Hazard Mitigation Grant Program). The
grant application submitted by City staff at the beginning of 2014 addressed backup generation
needs for potential responder shelters during a declared emergency for both the Red and Yellow
Brick facilities, along with backup generation needs for Aspen’s sole supply of treated water, the
Water Treatment Plant facility. All three generators that are part of this federal grant are in a
critical need class. The generators will be connected with transfer switches and would allow for
immediate startup during a power failure.
According to the Pitkin County Emergency Operations Manager, this is one of the most difficult
grants to apply for and the first time any organization in the Roaring Fork valley has been awarded
money under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Here is a summary of the grant by City Facility:
Page 1 of 2
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 12 - Page 41
P155
VIII.b
Red Brick Shelter -- $42,816
Yellow Brick Shelter -- $25,327
Water Treatment Plant -- $22,071
Total Project -- $90,214
Federal/State/Local Funding allocations:
Federal -- $54,736
State -- $11,277
City of Aspen -- $24,201
Grant allocation between federal/state/local was originally a 75/12.5/12.5 split. In December 2014
the city was notified that federal dollars were short by $12,924 and we were asked to make up
difference in order to obtain grant. City management agreed to the additional matching funds
above the 12.5% of $11,277, making the total city contribution $24,201.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The implementation of the FEMA Hazard Mitigation grant will
require additional 2015 budget authority in the amount of $90,214. Of the total project costs,
$66,013 will be identified grant revenue and the remaining project costs of $24,201 will be funded
from existing Electric fund balance.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that the City accept the FEMA Hazard
Mitigation grant. It is further recommended that both 2015 revenue and expenditure budget
authority be increased within the Electric Fund in the amounts described under Financial Impact
section.
ALTERNATIVES: The City of Aspen could choose not to accept the federal and state funds for
this generator project. The City could add the three generator projects to the Electric Asset
Management plan in future years; or, make the decision that these emergency backup generators
are not a priority and should not be funded by the City of Aspen.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Ordinance _______.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Page 2 of 2
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 12 - Page 42
P156
VIII.b
ORDINANCE NO.12
(Series of 2015)
AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING AN INCREASE IN THE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN
FUND EXPENDITURES OF $3,358,830, AN INCREASE IN THE GENERAL FUND OF
$3,091,430 AN INCREASE IN THE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE FUND OF $2,724,300, AN
INCREASE IN THE WHEELER OPERA HOUSE FUND OF $541,560, AN INCREASE IN THE
CITY TOURISM PROMOTION FUND OF $126,500, AN INCREASE IN THE
TRANSPORTATION FUND OF $575,500, AN INCREASE IN THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
FUND OF $3,992,380, AN INCREASE IN THE KIDS FIRST FUND OF $212,690, AN
INCREASE IN THE STORMWATER FUND OF $758,430, AN INCREASE IN THE WATER
FUND OF $1,574,400, AN INCREASE IN THE ELECTRIC FUND OF $699,250, AN INCREASE
IN THE PARKING FUND OF $5,099,640, AN INCREASE IN THE GOLF COURSE FUND OF
$98,940, AN INCREASE IN THE TRUSCOTT FUND OF $377,420, AN INCREASE IN THE
MAROLT FUND OF $50,270, AN INCREASE IN THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUND
OF $749,650, AN INCREASE IN THE HOUSING ADMINISTRATION FUND OF $20,940.
WHEREAS, by virtue of Section 9.12 of the Home Rule Charter, the City Council may
make supplemental appropriations; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has certified that the City has unappropriated current year
revenues and/or unappropriated prior year fund balance available for appropriations in
the following funds: ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN FUND, GENERAL FUND, PARKS AND
OPEN SPACE FUND, WHEELER OPERA HOUSE FUND, CITY TOURISM PROMOTION FUND,
TRANSPORTATION FUND, HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND, KIDS FIRST FUND,
STORMWATER FUND, WATER UTILITY FUND, ELECTRIC UTILITY FUND, PARKING FUND,
GOLF COURSE FUND, TRUSCOTT HOUSING FUND, MAROLT HOUSING FUND,
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUND, HOUSING ADMINISTRATION FUND.
WHEREAS, the City Council is advised that certain expenditures, revenue and transfers
must be approved.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO:
Section 1
Upon the City Manager’s certification that there are current year revenues and/or prior
year fund balances available for appropriation in the: ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN FUND,
GENERAL FUND, PARKS AND OPEN SPACE FUND, WHEELER OPERA HOUSE FUND, CITY
TOURISM PROMOTION FUND, TRANSPORTATION FUND, HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
FUND, KIDS FIRST FUND, STORMWATER FUND, WATER UTILITY FUND, ELECTRIC UTILITY
FUND, PARKING FUND, GOLF COURSE FUND, TRUSCOTT HOUSING FUND, MAROLT
HOUSING FUND, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUND, HOUSING ADMINISTRATION
FUND: the City Council hereby makes supplemental appropriations as itemized in the
Exhibit A.
P157
VIII.b
Section 2
If any section, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for
any reason invalid or unconstitutional by any court or competent jurisdiction, such
portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such
holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion thereof.
INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED AND/OR POSTED ON
FIRST READING on the 13th day of April, 2015.
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 27th day of April, 2015, in the
City Council Chambers, City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
ATTEST:
________________________ ________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
FINALLY ADOPTED AFTER PUBLIC HEARING on the 27th day of April, 2015.
_________________________
ATTEST:
________________________ ________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
Approved as to Form:
________________________
Jim True, City Attorney
P158
VIII.b
HPC Work Sessions Policy Direction
4/13/2015
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: Policy Resolution: HPC Work Sessions and Associated Code Amendments
Resolution 37, Series of 2015
MEETING DATE: April 13, 2015
SUMMARY :
The attached Resolution outlines Council policy direction for amendments to the Historic
Preservation portion of the code related to HPC work sessions and outdated references, as well as
addressing temporary relocation of historic resources. The code amendment would also address
design concerns related to the location of utility transformers.
If the Policy Resolution is approved, staff will bring an Ordinance to City Council that amends
the regulations.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION :
Staff recommends approval of the proposed resolution.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES :
This meeting is to review potential changes to the Historic Preservation and utility transformer
location regulations of the City. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310, City Council is the
final review authority for all code amendments.
All code amendments are subject to a three-step process. This is the second step in the process:
1. Public Outreach
2. Policy Resolution by City Council indicating if an amendment should be pursued
3. Public Hearings on Ordinance outlining specific code amendments.
BACKGROUND & OVERVIEW:
The City’s Historic Preservation section of the Land Use Code (26.415) outlines the review
process and code requirements for all historic landmarks. Staff is proposing a number of
changes to address issues that have recently been raised.
1. Remove the HPC Work Session. The code currently requires any application
requesting a floor area bonus as part of their historic project to meet with HPC in a work
session prior to the application’s formal HPC public hearing. These work sessions are
non-binding, but are used by an applicant to gauge potential HPC support of the proposed
P159
IX.a
HPC Work Sessions Policy Direction
4/13/2015
Page 2 of 3
project. Because these work sessions are not noticed, neighbors and other interested
community members are often unaware they occur and are not able to provide their input
at the initial design phase. When the formal public hearing comes, often the project has
received detailed comments from HPC without the benefit of community input. Staff
believes this creates an unfair situation for members of the community, as well as the
applicant, and recommends removing the work session provision. All requests for floor
area bonus would still be subject to the public hearing process, which is properly noticed.
2. Establish criteria for temporary relocation of historic structures. Staff and HPC
have seen a rise in requests to temporarily relocate a historic structure off-site while a
new basement is excavated. There are currently no criteria for this type of relocation.
Staff proposes adding criteria to address special considerations that might be raised by
this circumstance.
3. Update outdated references. The Historic Preservation Chapter (26.415) includes a
reference to outdated building codes. Staff proposes updating the chapter to refer
generally to the City’s adopted building codes so it does not need to be updated every
time the City adopts a revised building code.
4. Address transformer locations. Utility transformers are necessary to provide utility
service to residences and commercial buildings. When properties are located adjacent to
an alley, the transformer is required to be accessed from the alley. There are lots,
particularly in residential areas, that have no access to an alley so the transformers are
located elsewhere around the house. Recently staff has seen an increase in very large
transformers being located in the front yard, often blocking important historic features of
houses, or just generally impinging on the pedestrian nature of the area. Staff proposes
creating additional standards for the location of transformers, particularly on historic
properties.
PUBLIC OUTREACH :
Staff has worked with the Historic Preservation Commission on these issues, and the group
supports the direction of the proposed amendment.
Staff believes additional outreach to design professionals, as well as Holy Cross should be
undertaken if Council supports moving forward with changes to transformer locations. This has
been incorporated into the Policy Resolution
STAFF RECOMMENDATION :
Staff recommends adoption of the attached Policy Resolution.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (A LL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE ):
“I move to approve Resolution No. 37, Series of 2015, approving a Policy Resolution regarding
historic preservation related code amendments.”
P160
IX.a
HPC Work Sessions Policy Direction
4/13/2015
Page 3 of 3
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS :_____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS :
Exhibit A – Staff Findings
P161
IX.a
Resolution No. 37, Series 2015
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 37,
(SERIES OF 2015)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING AMENDMENTS
TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION REGULATIONS OF THE LAND USE CODE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(A), the Community Development Department
received direction from City Council to explore code amendments related to the Historic Preservation
Chapter of the land use code, including Historic Preservation Commission’s work sessions, and updating
outdated references; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended changes to the Historic
Preservation regulations in the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendment policy direction, and finds
it meets the criteria outlined in Section 26.310.040; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing on
____, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution No. 37, Series of 2015, by a _____ to ____ (_ – _) vote,
requesting code amendments to the Historic Preservation regulations in the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, this Resolution does not amend the Land Use Code, but provides direction to staff for
amending the Land Use Code; 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: Code Amendment Objective and Direction
The objective of the proposed code amendments is to update the Historic Preservation regulations in the
land use code. The following are the proposed changes:
1. Remove the HPC work session.
2. Establish criteria for temporary relocation of historic structures.
3. Update outdated reference.
4. Address utility transformer locations.
Section 2:
City Council directs staff to conduct the following public outreach prior to First Reading for code
amendments related to utility transformer locations:
a. Planning & Zoning Commission & Historic Preservation Commission referral
b. Informational outreach through the Community Development Newsletter
c. Direct outreach to Utilities, including Holy Cross
P162
IX.a
Resolution No. 37, Series 2015
Page 2 of 2
Section 3:
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or
proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the resolutions or ordinances repealed or amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior resolutions or ordinances.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held
invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate,
distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
FINALLY, adopted this ___day of ____ 2015.
_______________________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________ ______________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk James R True, City Attorney
P163
IX.a
HPC Work Sessions Policy Direction
Exhibit A
4/13/2015
Page 1 of 1
Exhibit A: Staff Findings
26.310.040. Amendments to the Land Use Code standards of review – Initiation
In reviewing a request to pursue an amendment to the text of this Title, per Section
26.310.020(B)(2), Step Two – Public Hearing before City Council , the City Council shall
consider:
A. Whether there exists a community interest to pursue the amendment.
Staff Findings:
Staff believes there is a community interest in updating the code to fix outdated references, and
to address new circumstances facing historic properties (utility transformers and temporary
relocation). In addition, staff believes elimination of the HPC work session furthers community
interest by ensuing all historic projects go through the same level of review and scrutiny in a
public hearing. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
B. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment furthers an adopted policy,
community goal, or objective of the City including, but not limited to, those stated in
the Aspen Area Community Plan.
Staff Findings:
The 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan includes a number of policy statements that support this
code amendment. The plan states “The HPC’s review process should be positive, productive and
fair, with a high level of integrity, consistency and collaboration.” The current work session
format does not support this goal, as it prevents genuine neighbor engagement. Staff believes the
proposed changes implement this policy statement by providing clear criteria for temporary
relocation, eliminating un-noticed meetings on site-specific projects, and addressing design
considerations related to utility transformers. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
C. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment are compatible with the
community character of the City and in harmony with the public interest and the
purpose and intent of this Title.
Staff Findings:
The intent of the proposed amendment is to protect historic resources, while enabling a clear and
consistent review process. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P164
IX.a
530 W. Hallam
Page 1 of 4
Top left: The house in approximately the
1950s.
Top right: The house in 1980, with a one
story addition that altered the original
design.
Left: The site is now inundated with trees
that were planted in the right of way. The
City Forester has reviewed the property and
has indicated that two trees should be
removed because of declining health and
overcrowding.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and City Council
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 530 W. Hallam Historic Landmark Lot Split, Second Reading of
Ordinance #10, Series of 2015
DATE: April 13, 2015
________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY: 530 W. Hallam is a Victorian era home with 1970s and 1980s additions to
the east and rear. The applicant proposes to demolish the non-historic additions, move the
house front and west, towards the corner, and add on. The lot is to be subdivided so that the
open yard on the east side of the Victorian can be developed with a new home. The allowed
floor area for the project is the same as would be permitted for a duplex or two detached
houses on the property with no subdivision involved.
P165
IX.b
530 W. Hallam
Page 2 of 4
HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT
APPLICANT: 530 Hallam, LLC, represented by Kim Raymond Architects.
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-25-004.
ADDRESS: 530 W. Hallam, Lots K, L, and M, Block 28, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado.
ZONING: R-6.
The split of a lot that is a designated Historic Landmark for the purpose of creating one
additional development parcel shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by
the City Council, pursuant to Section 26.480.030 – Procedures for Review, after a
recommendation is provided by the Historic Preservation Commission pursuant to
Section 26.415.110(A) Historic Landmark Lot Split, and according to the following
standards:
1. The request complies with the requirements of Section 26.480.040, General
Subdivision Review Standards.
A. Guaranteed Access to a Public Way. All subdivided lots must have
perpetual unobstructed legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed
subdivision shall not eliminate or obstruct legal vehicular access from a public
way to an adjacent property. All streets in a Subdivision retained under private
ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure adequate public and
emergency access. Security/privacy gates across access points and driveways are
prohibited.
B. Alignment with Original Townsite Plat . The proposed lot lines shall
approximate, to the extent practical, the platting of the Original Aspen Townsite,
and additions thereto, as applicable to the subject land. Minor deviations from the
original platting lines to accommodate significant features of the site may be
approved.
C. Zoning Conformance. All new lots shall conform to the requirements of
the zone district in which the property is situated, including variations and
variances approved pursuant to this Title. A single lot shall not be located in more
than one zone district unless unique circumstances dictate. A rezoning
application may be considered concurrently with subdivision review.
D. Existing Structures, Uses, and Non-Conformities . A subdivision shall
not create or increase the non-conformity of a use, structure or parcel. A rezoning
application or other mechanism to correct the non-conforming nature of a use,
structure, or parcel may be considered concurrently.
P166
IX.b
530 W. Hallam
Page 3 of 4
In the case where an existing structure or use occupies a site eligible for
subdivision, the structure need not be demolished and the use need not be
discontinued prior to application for subdivision.
If approval of a subdivision creates a non-conforming structure or use, including a
structure spanning a parcel boundary, such structure or use may continue until
recordation of the subdivision plat. Alternatively, the City may accept certain
assurance that the non-conformities will be remedied after recordation of the
subdivision plat. Such assurances shall be reflected in a development agreement
or other legal mechanism acceptable to the City Attorney and may be time-bound
or secured with a financial surety.
Staff Response: The application, to split the lot into one 4,150
square foot lot, containing a relocated Victorian home, and one
4,850 square foot lot, containing a new home, meets the criteria
above. According to the 1904 Sanborn Fire Insurance map at
right, there were two houses on the subject property in the
Victorian era.
2. The fathering parcel is listed in the Inventory of
Historic Sites and Structures.
Staff Response: The parcel is listed on the Inventory of
Historic Sites and Structures.
3. No more than two lots are created by the Historic Landmark
Lot Split. No more than one historic landmark lot split shall occur on any one
fathering parcel.
Staff Response: Two lots are created.
4. In residential zone districts, the allowable Floor Area for each new residential lot
shall be established by allocating the total allowable Floor Area of the fathering
parcel to each of the new lots such that no overall increase in Floor Area is
achieved and no individual lot allows a Floor Area in excess of that allowed a
similarly-sized lot in the same zone district. An equal distribution is not required.
The allowable Floor Area for each new lot shall be noted on the Historic Lot Split
Plat.
Any Floor Area bonus already granted by the Historic Preservation Commission
shall be allocated to each individual parcel and shall also be noted on the plat as a
square footage bonus. If the properties remain eligible for a Floor Area bonus
from the Historic Preservation Commission, the plat and subdivision agreement
shall specify the manner in which this potential bonus shall be allocated to the two
properties if received.
In non-residential zones districts, the Floor Area shall be calculated according to
the limitations of the zone district applied to each new lot as permitted for the use.
P167
IX.b
530 W. Hallam
Page 4 of 4
The total Floor Area shall not be stated on the plat because the floor area will be
determined by the use established on each parcel.
Staff Response: The allowable floor area on the fathering (existing) parcel is 4,080
square feet. The applicant proposes to split that, plus a 500 square foot floor area bonus
granted by HPC, approximately 45% to the Victorian home and 55% to the new home.
The floor area for the project is only about 700 square feet more than exists in the single
family home on the site today.
5. The Historic Lot Split Plat shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval
Documents. No subdivision agreement need be prepared or entered into between
the applicant and the City unless the Community Development Director
determines such an agreement is necessary.
Staff Response: The plat will be filed subsequent to historic landmark lot split approval
by City Council.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff and HPC recommend Council support the
proposed Historic Landmark Lot Split.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
“I move to adopt Ordinance #10, Series of 2015.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:__________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
EXHIBITS :
Ordinance #10, Series of 2015
Exhibit A: Application
P168
IX.b
530 W. Hallam
Ordinance #10, Series of 2015
Page 1 of 3
ORDINANCE #10
(Series of 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
APPROVING A HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 530 W. HALLAM, LOTS K, L, AND M, BLOCK 28, CITY AND
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
PARCEL ID #: 2735-124-25-004
WHEREAS, the applicant, 530 Hallam, LLC, represented by Kim Raymond Architects, has
requested a Historic Landmark Lot Split for the property located at 530 W. Hallam, Lots K, L,
and M, Block 28, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, for City Council approval of a Historic Landmark Lot Split, the application shall
meet the requirements of Municipal Code Section 26.480.060.B regarding Minor Subdivision;
and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on February 11, 2015, the Historic Preservation
Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review
standards, and recommended City Council approval, with conditions, by a vote of 4 to 0; and
WHEREAS, Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer, in her staff report to City Council,
performed an analysis of the application, found that the review standards for Historic Landmark
Lot Split are met, and recommended approval; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development
standards and that the approval of the development proposal is consistent with the goals and
elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion
of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1: Historic Landmark Lot Split
Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section 1, above, the City Council does hereby grant a
Historic Landmark Lot Split for 530 W. Hallam, Lots K, L, and M, Block 28, City and Townsite
of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions:
1. The Historic Lot Split Plat shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval Documents. No
subdivision agreement need be prepared or entered into between the applicant and the
City. The Plat shall:
P169
IX.b
530 W. Hallam
Ordinance #10, Series of 2015
Page 2 of 3
a. Contain a plat note stating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor
will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to the
provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application;
b. Contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the
dimensional requirements of the zone district, except for any approved variances; and
c. Be labeled to indicate that the maximum floor area allowed on Lot 1, a 4,150 square foot
lot containing the Victorian home, is 2,138 square feet and on Lot 2, a 4,850 square foot
lot containing new home, is 2,442 square feet.
Section 2: Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held
invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 3: Existing Litigation
This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4: Vested Rights
The Land Use entitlements granted herein shall be vested for a period of three (3) years from the
date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and
conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights.
Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements
required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the
development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall
render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits).
Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the
creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain
a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, including Final Major Development by the HPC,
the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the
jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval
of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title.
Such notice shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and
the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land
Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the
following described property: 530 W. Hallam, Lots K, L, and M, Block 28, City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado.
P170
IX.b
530 W. Hallam
Ordinance #10, Series of 2015
Page 3 of 3
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and
approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of
Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the
period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the
date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section
26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado
Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
Section 5: Public Hearing
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 13 th day of April, 2015, in the City Council
Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public
notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 9th day of March, 2015.
_______________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of ____, 2015.
_______________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
P171
IX.b
P172
IX.b
P
1
7
3
I
X
.
b
P
1
7
4
I
X
.
b
Scale:
ISSUE
A 1.4
10/15/14Plotted On:D
E
M
O
C
A
L
C
S
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R A W I N G S A N D
SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
w
w
w
.
K
i
m
R
a
y
m
o
n
d
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
t
e
l
4
9
7
0
8
9
2
5
8
2
2
5
2
4
4
e
m
a
i
l
4
k
i
m
@
k
r
a
i
.
u
s
K
I
M
4
R
A
Y
M
O
N
D
4
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
,
4
I
N
C
.
9/18/14
5
3
0
4
W
4
H
A
L
L
A
M
V
I
C
T
O
R
I
A
N
4
R
E
N
O
V
A
T
I
O
N
5
3
0
W
H
A
L
L
A
M
S
T
R
E
E
T
SCHEMATIC
A
S
P
E
N
,
C
O
1,582 sq ft
B
B
A
A
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
3'-4 3/4"13'-0"
13
'
-
6
"
772 sq ft
62 sq ft
685 sq ft
B
B
A
A
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
2,294 sq ft
86 sq ft
20 sq ft
148 sq ft
752 sq ft
784 sq ft
138 sq ft
2
BA
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
50'-6"
1
4
'
-
3
1
/
2
"
1'-10"
707 sq ft
752 sq ft WINDOW
WELL
LOWER BEDROOMFAMILY ROOM
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
UPPER LEVEL DEMO
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
MAIN LEVEL DEMO
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
LOWER LEVEL DEMO
LOWER LEVEL NOT INCLUDED IN CALCULATIONS
MAIN LEVEL EXISTING (2294+148+138+86 +20)=2686 SF DEMO 752+784+138= 1674 SF
UPPER LEVEL EXISTING (1582 + 62) 1644 SF DEMO 685+772 =1457 SF
TOTAL EXISTING EXISTING 4330 SF DEMO 3131 SF
2993 SF /3876 =72% DEMO
P
1
7
5
I
X
.
b
Scale:
ISSUE
A 9.1
2/3/15Plotted On:3
-D
V
I E
W
S
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R AW I N G S A N D
SPECI FICATIONS ARE THE P RO PERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NO T MEASURE ON E INCH (1 ")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
w
w
w
.
K
i
m
R
a
y
m
o
n
d
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
t
e
l
9
7
0
-
9
2
5
-
2
2
5
2
e
m
a
i
l
k
i
m
@
k
r
a
i
.
u
s
9/18/14
5 3
0
W
H
A
L
L A
M
V I C
T O
R
I A
N
R
E
N
O
V A T I O
N
5 3 0 W
H A L L
A
M
S
T R
E
E
T
SCHEMATIC
A
S
P
E
N , C
O
1/26/15 HPC SUBMITTAL
SCALE: 1:68.57
DOWN THE STREET
SCALE: 1:66.67
ALLEY NE TREETOPS
SCALE: 1:68.57
CORNER SIDEWALK
SCALE: 1:47.53
CORNER TREETOP VIEW
SCALE: 1:68.57
CORNER TREES DEMO
SCALE: 1:73.85
MOD MIDDLE
P
1
7
6
I
X
.
b
Scale:
ISSUE
A 0.2
2/3/15Plotted On:S
I T
E
P
L
A
N
- P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R AW I N G S A N D
SPECI FICATIONS ARE THE P RO PERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NO T MEASURE ON E INCH (1 ")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
w
w
w
.
K
i
m
R
a
y
m
o
n
d
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
t
e
l
9
7
0
-
9
2
5
-
2
2
5
2
e
m
a
i
l
k
i
m
@
k
r
a
i
.
u
s
9/18/14
5 3
0
W
H
A
L
L A
M
V I C
T O
R
I A
N
R
E
N
O
V A T I O
N
5 3 0 W
H A L L
A
M
S
T R
E
E
T
SCHEMATIC
A
S
P
E
N , C
O
1/26/15 HPC SUBMITTAL
B B
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
A A
C C
D D
A A
C C
D D
8
8
7
7
9
9
A A
C C
D D
123456789
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
F
D W
16 R. @ 7 1/2"15 T. @ 12"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
910111213141516
5'-0"5'-0"
5'-0"
5 '-0 "
5'-0"
5'-1/2"
41'-6"48'-6"
2 2 '-1 0 "
16'-10 3/4"21'-1"
37'-11 3/4"
6'-1/4"3'-4 3/4"
13'-2 3/4"15'-3"
4'-5"
1 6 '-9 3 /4 "
7'-3"
1 8 '-2 "
FRONT PORCH
F R O N T W A L K
F R O N T W A L K
GARAGE APRON / DRIVEWAY GARAGE APRON / DRIVEWAY
EXISTING TREE TO BE
REMOVED PER CITY
FORESTER
EXISTING TREE
TO REMAIN
EXISTING TREE
TO REMAIN
EXISTING TREE
TO REMAIN
EXISTING TREE
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING TREE
TO REMAIN, IF POSSIBLE
SETBACK LINE
SETBACK LINE
SETBACK LINE SETBACK LINE
S E T B A C K L I N E
S E T B A C K L I N E
S E T B A C K L I N E
S E T B A C K L I N E
P R O
P E R T Y L I N E
P R O P E R T Y L I N E
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
P R O P O S E D N E W
P R O P E R T Y L I N E
HALLAM STREET
F I F T
H
S T R
E
E T
ALLEY
FRONT PORCH
F R O N T W A L K
F R O N T W A L K
GARAGE APRON / DRIVEWAY GARAGE APRON / DRIVEWAY
EXISTING TREE
TO REMAIN
EXISTING TREE
TO REMAIN
EXISTING "LEGACY" TREE
TO REMAIN
EXISTING TREE
TO REMAIN
EXISTING TREE
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING TREE
TO REMAIN, IF POSSIBLE
SETBACK LINE
SETBACK LINE
SETBACK LINE SETBACK LINE
S E T B A C K L I N E
S E T B A C K L I N E
S E T B A C K L I N E
S E T B A C K L I N E
P R O
P E R T Y L I N E
P R O P E R T Y L I N E
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
P R O P O S E D N E W
P R O P E R T Y L I N E
HALLAM STREET
F I F T
H
S T R
E
E T
ALLEY
LINE OF EXISTING
FRONT OF HOUSE
EXISTING TREE TO BE
REMOVED PER CITY
FORESTER
2 SITE PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"
LOT SIZE: 9,000 SF
LOT SIZE: 9,000 SF
P
1
7
7
I
X
.
b
Scale:
ISSUE
A 1.3
2/3/15Plotted On:E
X
I S
T
I N
G
E
L
E
V A T
I O
N
S
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R AW I N G S A N D
SPECI FICATIONS ARE THE P RO PERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NO T MEASURE ON E INCH (1 ")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
w
w
w
.
K
i
m
R
a
y
m
o
n
d
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
t
e
l
9
7
0
-
9
2
5
-
2
2
5
2
e
m
a
i
l
k
i
m
@
k
r
a
i
.
u
s
9/18/14
5 3
0
W
H
A
L
L A
M
V I C
T O
R
I A
N
R
E
N
O
V A T I O
N
5 3 0 W
H A L L
A
M
S
T R
E
E
T
SCHEMATIC
A
S
P
E
N , C
O
1/26/15 HPC SUBMITTAL
A B
EXISTING WOOD SIDING AND
TRIM TO REMAIN
EXISTING WINDOW TRIM TO REMAIN
EXISTING FASCIA AND SOFFIT
TO REMAIN
EXISTING BRICK CHIMNEY
TO REMAIN
EXISTING WOOD FRONT DOOR,
TRANSOM AND FRONT PORCH
TRIM DETAILS TO REMAIN
HISTORIC
TO REMAIN
ADDITION TO BE
DEMOLISHED
HISTORIC
TO REMAIN
ADDITION TO BE
DEMOLISHED
UPPER LEVEL PLY
109'-10"
MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
1 2
3 '-8 1 /4 "
EXISTING WOOD SIDING
AND TRIM TO REMAIN
EXISTING WINDOW
TRIM TO REMAIN
EXISTING FASCIA AND
SOFFIT TO REMAIN
HISTORIC
TO REMAIN
ADDITION TO BE
DEMOLISHED
B A
EXISTING CMU CHIMNEY
EXISTING UTILITIES TO
BE RELOCATED
MIDCENTURY
ADDITION TO BE
DEMOLISHED
RECENT
ADDITION TO BE
DEMOLISHED
2 1
EXISTING SIDE PORCH
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING WOOD SIDING
AND TRIM TO REMAIN
EXISTING WINDOW TRIM
TO REMAIN
EXISTING FASCIA AND
SOFFIT TO REMAIN
EXISTING GREEN METAL ROOF
TO BE REPLACED WITH ZINC
STANDING SEAM
EXISTING BALCONY
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING
BULKHEAD /
COAL CHUTE
EXISTING UTILITIES TO
BE RELOCATED
HISTORIC
TO REMAIN
ADDITION TO BE
DEMOLISHED
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
WEST EXISTING
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
EAST EXISTING
P
1
7
8
I
X
.
b
Scale:
ISSUE
V
2/3/15Plotted On:P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
S
- V
I C
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R AW I N G S A N D
SPECI FICATIONS ARE THE P RO PERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NO T MEASURE ON E INCH (1 ")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
w
w
w
.
K
i
m
R
a
y
m
o
n
d
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
t
e
l
9
7
0
-
9
2
5
-
2
2
5
2
e
m
a
i
l
k
i
m
@
k
r
a
i
.
u
s
9/18/14
5 3
0
W
H
A
L
L A
M
V I C
T O
R
I A
N
R
E
N
O
V A T I O
N
5 3 0 W
H A L L
A
M
S
T R
E
E
T
SCHEMATIC
A
S
P
E
N , C
O
1/26/15 HPC SUBMITTAL
C
D
C
D
8
8
7
7
9
9
C
D
CD W
4
'
-
9
1
/
2
"4 '-9 1 /2 "
7'-2 1/2"
8'-1/4"
2 6 '-7 1 /4 "
5 1 '-8 1 /2 "
8 "
22'-0"
1 0 '-1 1 /4 "
5 '-6 "
5 '-8 "
3 1/2"13'-0"5 1/2"10'-1/2"3 1/2"
6 '-0 "
4"3'-4 3/4"
4 '-1 1 1 /4 "
3 1 /2 "
5 '-6 1 /4 "
5 1 /2 "
1 3 '-0 "
3 1 /2 "
4 '-6 "
1 4 '-7 "
BEDROOM 3
BEDROOM 2
FAMILY ROOM
W I N D O W
W E L L
W I N D
O W W
E L L
CLOSET
DRESSER
LAUNDRY
O P E N R I S E R S , S T E E L S T A I R S
G L A S S R A I L I N G
BEDROOM 4
F P a n d T V
B A T H 4
C L E A R G L A S S
A T S H O W E R
FROSTED GLASS
AT WC
MECHANICAL
W I N D O W
W E L L
F L O A T I N G
B E N C H
BATH 3
BATH 2
T.O. SLAB
89'-0"
C
D
C
D
8
8
7
7
9
9
C
D
F
D W
16 R. @ 7 1/2"15 T. @ 12"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
910111213141516
5'-1/2"
5 1/2"13'-0"5 1/2"
5 1/2"24'-5 3/4"5 1/2"
5 1 /2 "
1 5 '-7 "
5 1 /2 "
5'-3"2'-0"5 1/2"14'-9 1/2"2'-10 3/4"
4'-6"
2 2 '-1 0 "
6'-1/4"3'-4 3/4"
13'-2 3/4"15'-3"
4'-5"
1 6 '-9 3 /4 "
7'-3"
FRONT PORCH
F R O
N T W A L K
GARAGE APRON / DRIVEWAY
SETBACK LINE
SETBACK LINE
S E T B A
C K
L I N E
S E
T B A
C K
L I N E
FRONT PORCH
F R O
N T W A L K
GARAGE APRON / DRIVEWAY
SETBACK LINE
SETBACK LINE
S E T B A
C K
L I N E
S E
T B A
C K
L I N E
UP
DN
MUD ROOM
LIVING
DINING
FP
TV
ACID ETCHED GLASS
OR PERFORATED STL
ENTRY
PORCH
KITCHEN
POWDER
OPEN TO ABOVE
REMOVE EXISTING FLOOR
ADD STEEL AND WOOD
TRUSSES IN VOLUME
CUBBIES AND
BENCH
F R O S T E D G L A S S P A N E L
LINE OF EXTERIOR
WALL ABOVE L I N E O F E X T E R I O R
W A L L A B O V E
T.O. PLY
100'-0"
T.O. SLAB
100'-0"
GARAGE
P A N T R Y
PATIO
C
D
C
D
8
8
7
7
9
9
C
D
16 R. @ 7 1/2"15 T. @ 12"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
910111213141516
5 1/2"5'-0"
1 1 '-7 1 /4 "
3 '-3 1 /2 "
21'-6 1/2"
DECK
ROOF OVERHANG BELOW
GAS
FIREPLACE W/STEEL SURROUND
MASTER SUITE
F R O S T E D
G L A S S E N C L O S U R E
CLEAR
GLASS ENCLOSURE
TV
STEAM SHOWER
STONE VENEER ON WALL
LOWER ENTRY ROOF
FREE STANDING
TUB
T.O. PLY
110'-2"
OPEN TO BELOW
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
LOWER LEVEL W/BEDROOM
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
MAIN LEVEL PLAN
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
UPPER LEVEL PLAN
P
1
7
9
I
X
.
b
Scale:
ISSUE
AV 3.10
2/3/15Plotted On:S
O
U
T
H
A
N
D
W
E
S
T
E
X
T
E
R
I O
R
E
L
E
V A T
I O
N
S
- V
I C
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R AW I N G S A N D
SPECI FICATIONS ARE THE P RO PERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NO T MEASURE ON E INCH (1 ")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
w
w
w
.
K
i
m
R
a
y
m
o
n
d
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
t
e
l
9
7
0
-
9
2
5
-
2
2
5
2
e
m
a
i
l
k
i
m
@
k
r
a
i
.
u
s
9/18/14
5 3
0
W
H
A
L
L A
M
V I C
T O
R
I A
N
R
E
N
O
V A T I O
N
5 3 0 W
H A L L
A
M
S
T R
E
E
T
SCHEMATIC
A
S
P
E
N , C
O
1/26/15 HPC SUBMITTAL
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
1 '-2 "
9 '-1 0 "
2 4 '-1 0 3 /4 "15'-3 1/2"
3 '-0 "
EXISTING SHAKE AND
WOOD GRILLE DETAIL
TO REMAIN
RECONSTRUCT
EXISTING BRICK
CHIMNEY PER HPC
PHOTO
NEW ZINC STANDING
SEAM ROOF
BUTT-JOINT SMOOTH
WOOD SIDING
CEMENTITOUS PANELS
GLASS AND STEEL
RAIL
NEW WOOD SHINGLES
UPPER LEVEL PLY
109'-10"
MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
UPPER LEVEL PLY
110'-2"
MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
MAIN LEVEL PLY
89'-0"
LINK
UPPER LEVEL PLATE
120'-8"
EXISTING STONE
FOUNDATION TO BE
APPLIED AS VENEER
ON NEW CONCRETE
FDN, MATCH EXISTING
ELEVATION
7
7
8
8
9
9
EXISTING SHAKE
AND WOOD GRILLE
DETAIL TO REMAIN
EXISTING BRICK
CHIMNEY BE REBUILT
PER HPC PHOTO
INSTALL DOUBLE-
HUNG WINDOW TO
MATCH HPC PHOTO
NEW WOOD SHINGLES
UPPER LEVEL PLY
109'-10"
MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
MATCH EXISTING
PORCH TRIM PER
HPC PHOTO
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
WEST ELEVATION VIC
P
1
8
0
I
X
.
b
Scale:
ISSUE
AV 3.1
2/3/15Plotted On:N
O
R
T
H
A
N
D
E
A
S
T
E
X
T
E
R
I O
R
E
L
E
V A T
I O
N
S
- V
I C
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R AW I N G S A N D
SPECI FICATIONS ARE THE P RO PERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NO T MEASURE ON E INCH (1 ")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
w
w
w
.
K
i
m
R
a
y
m
o
n
d
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
t
e
l
9
7
0
-
9
2
5
-
2
2
5
2
e
m
a
i
l
k
i
m
@
k
r
a
i
.
u
s
9/18/14
5 3
0
W
H
A
L
L A
M
V I C
T O
R
I A
N
R
E
N
O
V A T I O
N
5 3 0 W
H A L L
A
M
S
T R
E
E
T
SCHEMATIC
A
S
P
E
N , C
O
1/26/15 HPC SUBMITTAL
9
9
8
8
7
7
2 5 '-0 "
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
C
C
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
6 '-1 1 1
/4 "
EXISTING SHAKE
DETAIL TO REMAIN
RECONSTRUCT
EXISTING BRICK
CHIMNEY PER HPC
PHOTO
EXISTING SIDING AND
TRIM TO REMAIN
EXISTING GREEN
METAL ROOF TO BE
REPLACED WITH
CLASS A WOOD
SHAKE PER HPC
NEW ZINC STANDING
SEAM ROOF
BUTT-JOINT
SMOOTH WOOD
SIDING
CEMENTITOUS
PANELS
GLASS AND STEEL
RAIL
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
EAST ELEVATION VIC
P
1
8
1
I
X
.
b
Scale:
ISSUE
A 1.1
2/3/15Plotted On:F A
R
C
A
L
C
U
L
A T
I O
N
S
- P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
V
I C
T O
R
I A
N
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R AW I N G S A N D
SPECI FICATIONS ARE THE P RO PERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NO T MEASURE ON E INCH (1 ")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
w
w
w
.
K
i
m
R
a
y
m
o
n
d
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
t
e
l
9
7
0
-
9
2
5
-
2
2
5
2
e
m
a
i
l
k
i
m
@
k
r
a
i
.
u
s
9/18/14
5 3
0
W
H
A
L
L A
M
V I C
T O
R
I A
N
R
E
N
O
V A T I O
N
5 3 0 W
H A L L
A
M
S
T R
E
E
T
SCHEMATIC
A
S
P
E
N , C
O
1/26/15 HPC SUBMITTAL
A
C
D
A
C
D
8
8
7
7
9
9
A
C
D
16 R. @ 7 1/2"15 T. @ 12"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
910111213141516
5 1/2"5'-0"
1 1 '-7 1 /4 "
3 '-3 1 /2 "
21'-6 1/2"
1
2
3
4623 sq ft
233 sq ft
DECK
ROOF OVERHANG BELOW
GAS
FIREPLACE W/
STEEL SURROUND
MASTER SUITE
F R O S T E D
G L A S S E N C L O S U R E
CLEAR
GLASS ENCLOSURE
TV
STEAM SHOWER
STONE VENEER ON WALL
LOWER ENTRY ROOF
FREE STANDING
TUB
T.O. PLY
110'-2"
OPEN TO BELOW
A
C
D
A
C
D
8
8
7
7
9
9
A
C
D
F
D W
16 R. @ 7 1/2"15 T. @ 12"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
910111213141516
5 1/2"13'-0"5 1/2"
5 1/2"24'-5 3/4"5 1/2"
5 1 /2 "
1 5 '-7 "
5 1 /2 "
5'-3"2'-0"5 1/2"14'-9 1/2"2'-10 3/4"
4'-6"
4 2
A 4.2
5 2
A 4.1
532 sq ft
635 sq ft
569 sq ft
43 sq ft
UP
DN
MUD ROOM
LIVING
DINING
FP
TV
ACID ETCHED GLASS
OR PERFORATED STL
ENTRY
PORCH
KITCHEN
POWDER
OPEN TO ABOVE
REMOVE EXISTING FLOOR
ADD STEEL AND WOOD
TRUSSES IN VOLUME
CUBBIES AND
BENCH
F R O S T E D G L A S S P A N E L
LINE OF EXTERIOR
WALL ABOVE L I N E O F E X T E R I O R
W A L L A B O V E
T.O. PLY
100'-0"
T.O. SLAB
100'-0"
GARAGE
P A N T R Y
PATIO
C
D
C
D
8
8
7
7
9
9
C
D
CD W
4
'
-
9
1
/
2
"4 '-9 1 /2 "
7'-2 1/2"
8'-1/4"
2 6 '-7 1 /4 "
5 1 '-8 1 /2 "
8 "
22'-0"
1 0 '-1 1 /4 "
5 '-6 "
5 '-8 "
3 1/2"13'-0"5 1/2"10'-1/2"3 1/2"
3 1/2"5'-6"3 1/2"15'-1/2"8"
6 '-0 "
26'-11 1/4"
4"3'-4 3/4"
4 '-1 1 1 /4 "
3 1 /2 "
5 '-6 1 /4 "
5 1 /2 "
1 3 '-0 "
3 1 /2 "
4 '-6 "
1 4 '-7 "
1,895 sq ft
BEDROOM 3
BEDROOM 2
FAMILY ROOM
W I N D O W
W E L L
W I N D O W W E L L
CLOSET
DRESSER
LAUNDRY
O P E N R I S E R S , S T E E L S T A I R S
G L A S S R A I L I N G
BEDROOM 4
F P a n d T V
B A T H 4
C L E A R G L A S S
A T S H O W E R
FROSTED GLASS
AT WC
MECHANICAL
W I N D O W
W E L L
F L O A T I N G
B E N C H
BATH 3
BATH 2
T.O. SLAB
89'-0"
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
UPPER LEVEL FAR- PROPOSED
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
MAIN LEVEL FAR- PROPOSED
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
LOWER LEVEL FAR- PROPOSED
LOWER LEVEL GROSS 1912 SF (X 5.6%) = 107 SF
MAIN LEVEL GROSS (594+635) 1229 SF
UPPER LEVEL GROSS 622 SF
MAIN LEVEL DECKS:
FRONT PORCH 43 SF (EXEMPT)
UPPER LEVEL DECKS 190 SF (EXEMPT)
TOTAL PROPOSED FAR 1958+180 = 2138 SF
GARAGE 555 SF (-375 EXEMPTION) 180 SF
INTERIOR FAR 1958 SF
VICTORIAN CALCULATIONS
P
1
8
2
I
X
.
b
Scale:
ISSUE
AV 9.2
2/3/15Plotted On:R
E
V
I S
E
D
V
I C
T O
R
I A
N
, N
/S
S
T A
I R
S
3
D
V
I E
W
S
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R AW I N G S A N D
SPECI FICATIONS ARE THE P RO PERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NO T MEASURE ON E INCH (1 ")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
w
w
w
.
K
i
m
R
a
y
m
o
n
d
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
t
e
l
9
7
0
-
9
2
5
-
2
2
5
2
e
m
a
i
l
k
i
m
@
k
r
a
i
.
u
s
9/18/14
5 3
0
W
H
A
L
L A
M
V I C
T O
R
I A
N
R
E
N
O
V A T I O
N
5 3 0 W
H A L L
A
M
S
T R
E
E
T
SCHEMATIC
A
S
P
E
N , C
O
1/26/15 HPC SUBMITTAL
DIRECT VIEW HALLAM 3/8" = 1'-0"
CORNER OF 5TH & HALLAM3/8" = 1'-0"
5TH AVE VIEW 1:29.80
P
1
8
3
I
X
.
b
Scale:
ISSUE
M
2/3/15Plotted On:P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
- M
O
D
E
R
N
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R AW I N G S A N D
SPECI FICATIONS ARE THE P RO PERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NO T MEASURE ON E INCH (1 ")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
w
w
w
.
K
i
m
R
a
y
m
o
n
d
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
t
e
l
9
7
0
-
9
2
5
-
2
2
5
2
e
m
a
i
l
k
i
m
@
k
r
a
i
.
u
s
9/18/14
5 3
0
W
H
A
L
L A
M
V I C
T O
R
I A
N
R
E
N
O
V A T I O
N
5 3 0 W
H A L L
A
M
S
T R
E
E
T
SCHEMATIC
A
S
P
E
N , C
O
1/26/15 HPC SUBMITTAL
B
1
2
3 4
123456789
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
21
AM 3.5
22'-5 1/2"
1 5 '-1 /2 "
5 1/2"12'-10"3 1/2"19'-0"
1 9 '-5 3 /4 "
1 5 '-3 /4 "
5 1 /2 "
7 '-1 /2 "
5 1 /2 "
1 1 '-6 1 /2 "
DECK
FP
MASTER SUITE
TV
LOWER ROOF AT GARAGE
CLEAR GLASS
ENCLOSURE AT
SHOWER
FROSTED GLASS
ENCLOSURE AT
WC
FREE STANDING
TUB
BENCH
T.O. PLY
110'-2"
B B
1
2
3 4
5
A
C
D
A
C
D
A
C
D
123456789
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
CD W
5 '-8 "
5 '-8 "
8 "
1 3 '-7 3 /4 "
3 1 /2 "
2 1 '-3 1 /2 "3 1/2"13'-4 1/4"3 1/2"
7 0 '-1 1 1 /4 "
8'-3/4"
6'-9 1/2"
36'-11"
7'-0"13'-10 1/2"8'-6"7'-6 3/4"
1 5 '-3 1 /4 "
2 6 '-8 1 /2 "
1 1 '-5 1 /4 "
1 7 '-6 1 /4 "
5 '-6 "
OFFICE
BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3
BEDROOM 4
LAUNDRY
B O O K S H E L V E S
D E S K
linen
FROSTED GLASS
AT WC
CLEAR GLASS
AT STEAM
SHOWER
MECHANICAL
W
I N D O W
W
E L L
W I N D
O W
W E L L
W
I N D O W
W
E L L
GLASS RAIL AT STAIR
BATH AND POWDER
F R O S T E D G L A S S
A T W C
CLEAR GLASS
AT SHOWER
TV WALL
T V W A L L
T V W A L L
A/V EQUIPMENT
STORAGE
FAMILY ROOM
WET BAR
DRESSER
CLEAR GLASS
AT SHOWER
T.O. SLAB
89'-0"
B B
1
2
3 4
5
A
C
D
A
C
D
A
C
D
F
123456789
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
5
'-0
"
6'-11 1/2"5 1/2"22'-5 1/2"5 1/2"6'-5 1/2"
5 1 /2 "
2 1 '-2 "
5 1 /2 "
1 3 '-7 1 /4 "
5 1 /2 "
1 7 '-2 1 /2 "
5 1 /2 "
2 '-3 "
9 '-7 3 /4 "
1 9 '-3 "
4 '-3 1 /2 "
2 5 '-9 "
2 1 '-7 1 /2 "
1 3 '-1 1 1 /4 "
2 5 '-6 "
1 8 '-9 3 /4 "
2 8 '-1 0 1 /2 "
5'-11"26'-8"5'-3 1/2"
4 '-0 "
2'-3"
16'-10 3/4"21'-1"
37'-11 3/4"
GARAGE APRON / DRIVEWAY
EXISTING TREE
TO REMAIN, IF POSSIBLE
SETBACK LINE
S E T B A C
K L I N E
P R O
P E R T Y L I N E
GARAGE APRON / DRIVEWAY
EXISTING TREE
TO REMAIN, IF POSSIBLE
SETBACK LINE
S E T B A C
K L I N E
P R O
P E R T Y L I N E
POWDER
MUD ROOM
DINING
LIVING
KITCHEN
BUTLER'S
PANTRY
GARAGE
ACID ETCHED GLASS
OR PERFORATED STL
ENTRY
BUFFET
T V A N D F P
WALL OF APPLIANCES
G A R B A G E
E N C L O S U R E
G L A S S E N C L O S E D
W I N E C A B I N E T
COVERED
PORCH
PATIO
T.O. PLY
100'-0"
T.O. SLAB
100'-0"
FRONT PORCH
ACID ETCHED GLASS WALL
LINE OF EXISTING
FRONT OF HOUSE
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
UPPER LEVEL PLAN
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
-1. LOWER LEVEL PLAN
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
MAIN LEVEL PLAN
P
1
8
4
I
X
.
b
Scale:
ISSUE
AM 3.2
2/3/15Plotted On:S
O
U
T
H
A
N
D
W
E
S
T
E
L
E
V A T
I O
N
-
M
O
D
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R AW I N G S A N D
SPECI FICATIONS ARE THE P RO PERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NO T MEASURE ON E INCH (1 ")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
w
w
w
.
K
i
m
R
a
y
m
o
n
d
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
t
e
l
9
7
0
-
9
2
5
-
2
2
5
2
e
m
a
i
l
k
i
m
@
k
r
a
i
.
u
s
9/18/14
5 3
0
W
H
A
L
L A
M
V I C
T O
R
I A
N
R
E
N
O
V A T I O
N
5 3 0 W
H A L L
A
M
S
T R
E
E
T
SCHEMATIC
A
S
P
E
N , C
O
1/26/15 HPC SUBMITTAL
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
2 5 '-0 "
5 '-6 "
UPPER LEVEL PLY
110'-2"
MAIN LEVEL PLY
100'-0"
UPPER LEVEL PLY
120'-5"
MAIN LEVEL PLY
89'-0"
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
WEST ELEVATION MOD
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
SOUTH ELEVATION VIC
P
1
8
5
I
X
.
b
Scale:
ISSUE
AM 3.3
2/3/15Plotted On:N
O
R
T
H
A
N
D
E
A
S
T
E
L
E
V A T
I O
N
-
M
O
D
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R AW I N G S A N D
SPECI FICATIONS ARE THE P RO PERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NO T MEASURE ON E INCH (1 ")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
w
w
w
.
K
i
m
R
a
y
m
o
n
d
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
t
e
l
9
7
0
-
9
2
5
-
2
2
5
2
e
m
a
i
l
k
i
m
@
k
r
a
i
.
u
s
9/18/14
5 3
0
W
H
A
L
L A
M
V I C
T O
R
I A
N
R
E
N
O
V A T I O
N
5 3 0 W
H A L L
A
M
S
T R
E
E
T
SCHEMATIC
A
S
P
E
N , C
O
1/26/15 HPC SUBMITTAL
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
C
C
C
C
C
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
2 4 '-6 "
5 '-6 3 /4 "
1/3 POINT OF
12/12 SLOPED ROOF
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
EAST ELEVATION MOD
P
1
8
6
I
X
.
b
Scale:
ISSUE
A1.2
2/3/15Plotted On:F A
R
C
A
L
C
U
L
A T
I O
N
S
- P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
M
O
D
E
R
N
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R AW I N G S A N D
SPECI FICATIONS ARE THE P RO PERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NO T MEASURE ON E INCH (1 ")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
w
w
w
.
K
i
m
R
a
y
m
o
n
d
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
t
e
l
9
7
0
-
9
2
5
-
2
2
5
2
e
m
a
i
l
k
i
m
@
k
r
a
i
.
u
s
9/18/14
5 3
0
W
H
A
L
L A
M
V I C
T O
R
I A
N
R
E
N
O
V A T I O
N
5 3 0 W
H A L L
A
M
S
T R
E
E
T
SCHEMATIC
A
S
P
E
N , C
O
1/26/15 HPC SUBMITTAL
B B
1
2
3 4
5
C
D
C
D
C
D
123456789
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
21
AM 3.5
22'-5 1/2"
1 5 '-1 /2 "
5 1/2"12'-10"3 1/2"19'-0"
1 9 '-5 3 /4 "
1 5 '-3 /4 "
5 1 /2 "
7 '-1 /2 "
5 1 /2 "
1 1 '-6 1 /2 "
1
2
3
4 4.5
719 sq ft
175 sq ft
DECK
FP
MASTER SUITE
TV
LOWER ROOF AT GARAGE
CLEAR GLASS
ENCLOSURE AT
SHOWER
FROSTED GLASS
ENCLOSURE AT
WC
FREE STANDING
TUB
BENCH
T.O. PLY
110'-2"
B B
1
2
3 4
5
C
D
C
D
C
D
F
123456789
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
6'-11 1/2"5 1/2"22'-5 1/2"5 1/2"6'-5 1/2"
5 1 /2 "
2 1 '-2 "
5 1 /2 "
1 3 '-7 1 /4 "
5 1 /2 "
1 7 '-2 1 /2 "
5 1 /2 "
2 '-3 "
9 '-7 3 /4 "
1 9 '-3 "
4 '-3 1 /2 "
2 5 '-9 "
2 1 '-7 1 /2 "
1 3 '-1 1 1 /4 "
2 5 '-6 "
1 8 '-9 3 /4 "
2 8 '-1 0 1 /2 "
22'-8"15'-3 3/4"
5'-11"26'-8"5'-3 1/2"
4 '-0 "
2'-3"
21
AM 3.5
4 2
A 4.2
1
234.4
1
2
3
4 4.4
1,462 sq ft
549 sq ft
92 sq ft
28 sq ft
POWDER
MUD ROOM
DINING
LIVING
KITCHEN
BUTLER'S
PANTRY
GARAGE
ACID ETCHED GLASS
OR PERFORATED STL
ENTRY
BUFFET
T V A N D F P
WALL OF APPLIANCES
G A R B A G E
E N C L O S U R E
G L A S S E N C L O S E D
W I N E C A B I N E T
COVERED
PORCH
PATIO
T.O. PLY
100'-0"
T.O. SLAB
100'-0"
FRONT PORCH
ACID ETCHED GLASS WALL
B B
1
2
2
3 4
5
C
D
C
D
C
D
123456789
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
CD W
5 '-8 "
5 '-8 "
3 1 /2 "
4 '-8 3 /4 "
3 1 /2 "
1 3 '-5 1 /4 "
3 1 /2 "
8 '-4 1 /4 "
3 1 /2 "
6 '-3 /4 "
3 1 /2 "
8 "
1 3 '-7 3 /4 "
3 1 /2 "
2 1 '-3 1 /2 "3 1/2"13'-4 1/4"3 1/2"
3 1/2"22'-7 1/2"3 1/2"13'-4 1/4"3 1/2"
1 2 '-6 1 /4 "
7 0 '-1 1 1 /4 "
8'-3/4"
6'-9 1/2"
7'-0"13'-10 1/2"8'-6"7'-6 3/4"
1 2 '-6 1 /4 "
1 5 '-3 1 /4 "
2 6 '-8 1 /2 "
1 1 '-5 1 /4 "
1 7 '-6 1 /4 "
5 '-6 "
2,177 sq ft
OFFICE
BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3
BEDROOM 4
LAUNDRY
B O O K S H E L V E S
D E S K
linen
FROSTED GLASS
AT WC
CLEAR GLASS
AT STEAM
SHOWER
MECHANICAL
W I N D O W
W E L L
W I N D O W
W E L L
W I N D O W
W E L L
GLASS RAIL AT STAIR
BATH AND POWDER
F R O S T E D G L A S S
A T W C
CLEAR GLASS
AT SHOWER
TV WALL
T V W A L L
T V W A L L
A/V EQUIPMENT
STORAGE
FAMILY ROOM
WET BAR
DRESSER
CLEAR GLASS
AT SHOWER
T.O. SLAB
89'-0"
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
UPPER LEVEL FAR- PROPOSED
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
MAIN LEVEL FAR- PROPOSED
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
LOWER LEVEL FAR- PROPOSED
LOWER LEVEL GROSS 2177 SF (X 5.7%) = 124 SF
MAIN LEVEL GROSS 1378 SF
UPPER LEVEL GROSS 710 SF
MAIN LEVEL DECKS:
FRONT PORCH 146 SF (EXEMPT)
BCK PORCH <4' 22 SF (EXEMPT)
UPPER LEVEL DECKS 162 SF (EXEMPT)
TOTAL PROPOSED FAR 2212+222 = 2434 SF
GARAGE 597 SF (-375 EXEMPTION) 222 SF
INTERIOR FAR 2212 SF
MODERN CALCULATIONS
P
1
8
7
I
X
.
b
Scale:
ISSUE
A P.1
2/3/15Plotted On:S
T
R
E
E
T
S
C
A
P
E
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N D I C AT E D B Y T H E S E D R AW I N G S A N D
SPECI FICATIONS ARE THE P RO PERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NO T MEASURE ON E INCH (1 ")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
w
w
w
.
K
i
m
R
a
y
m
o
n
d
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
t
e
l
9
7
0
-
9
2
5
-
2
2
5
2
e
m
a
i
l
k
i
m
@
k
r
a
i
.
u
s
9/18/14
5 3
0
W
H
A
L
L A
M
V I C
T O
R
I A
N
R
E
N
O
V A T I O
N
5 3 0 W
H A L L
A
M
S
T R
E
E
T
SCHEMATIC
A
S
P
E
N , C
O
1/26/15 HPC SUBMITTAL
P
1
8
8
I
X
.
b
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
MEETING DATE: April 13, 2015
RE: Lift One Lodge – Extension of Vested Rights
Resolution No. ___, Series 2015
________________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT /O WNER :
Roaring Fork Mtn. Lodge – Aspen LLC
REPRESENTATIVE :
David Myler, The Myler Law Firm
Bob Daniel, Gateway Mgmt. Company
LOCATION :
720 S. Aspen St., a.k.a Lift One Lodge Subdivision
CURRENT ZONING & USE
Lodge (L) zone district with a Planned Development (PD)
overlay; current use is primarily vacant with intermittent
use of two existing buildings.
PROPOSED LAND USE :
Lot 1 will be used as a lodge, and will include free-market
housing, sub-grade parking, and uses complementary to
the lodging. Lot 2 will be used a dormitory-style housing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION :
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the
applicant’s request for a two-year Extension of Vested
Rights, with conditions
SUMMARY :
City Council granted final approvals in 2011. Under the current approval the project is
vested until November 28, 2016. The applicant is proposing to extend the vested rights
until November 28, 2018.
Staff supports this request, finding that the applicant has made substantial effort in pursuit
of the approvals, such as the recordation of plats, the granting of easements to the City and
associated parties, and completing the vacations and dedications of public rights-of-way.
P189
IX.c
2
The applicant has worked with Engineering to complete the required analysis and design
work and to finalize the terms of the Development Agreement.
LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicant is requesting
the following land use approvals from City Council:
• Chapter 26.308 – Extension or reinstatement of vested rights. City Council may
approve, approve with conditions, or disallow an extension or reinstatement of
expired vested rights based on the review criteria found in Exhibit B to this memo.
BACKGROUND: In 2010 HPC granted final approval via Resolution No. 14 for the
relocation and rehabilitation of two historic resources on the property, including The
Skiers Chalet Lodge to be relocated onto Willoughby Park and converted into a ski
museum, and the Skiers Chalet Steakhouse to be moved slightly north and west on the
property, and to become affordable housing.
Through Ordinance No. 28, Series of 2011 City Council granted a site specific
development plan for the subdivision that includes the following approvals:
• Final Planned Unit Development;
• Final Timeshare;
• Subdivision;
• Amendment to the Zone District Map;
• Multiple Growth Management reviews;
• Special Review for average lodge unit size;
• Conditional use for Restaurant/Bar and Dormitory units;
• Mountain View Plane review;
• Condominiumization;
• Commercial Design review;
• Right-of-Way Vacations; and
• Extended Vested Rights for a period of five (5) years
Per these approvals, the applicant intends to create a lodge/free-market residential building
on Lot 1, a dormitory-style affordable housing structure on Lot 2, a public park with the
skier’s lift tower and subgrade parking on Lot 3, and a public park with a historic ski
museum on Lot 4.
STAFF EVALUATION: As a condition of the 2011 approval the applicant was required
to grant in perpetuity a total of eleven easements to the City of Aspen and other relevant
parties, as indicated in the Final Plat of Lift One Lodge Subdivision/PUD (Reception No.
597438). Additionally, the applicant was required to complete a number of vacations and
dedications of public rights-of-way, which were then recorded on the Street, Alleyway and
Easement Vacation Plat (Reception No. 597435). To finalize these tasks the applicant has
worked with the City Engineer to complete all related engineering analysis and design
work. The applicant has worked with City departments to finalize and record the plats, and
to finalize the terms of the Development Agreement.
P190
IX.c
3
Staff finds that the applicant has put forth all reasonable efforts to date to move this project
towards completion.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council APPROVE the
applicant’s request for an Extension of Vested Rights, through November 28, 2018, with
two conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (All motions are worded in the affirmative) : “I move
approval of Resolution No ____, Series 2015 approving an Extension of Vested Rights, to
expire on November 28, 2018 for the Lift One Lodge Subdivision/PD project.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A –Review Criteria
Exhibit B – Ordinance 28, 2011, Project Approval
Exhibit C – Application
P191
IX.c
1
RESOLUTION NO. 41
(SERIES OF 2015)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A TWO-
YEAR EXTENSION OF VESTED RIGHTS FOR THE LIFT ONE LODGE
SUBDIVISION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY
COMMONLY KNOWN AS 710 SOUTH ASPEN STREET AND 720 SOUTH
ASPEN STREET, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel ID: 27351311001, 273513101002
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge – Aspen, LLC requesting a two-year extension of
vested rights associated with the Lift One Lodge Subdivision/PD project, per Section
26.308.010.C of Title 26 of the Municipal Code; and,
WHEREAS , the applicant previously received City Council approvals relating to
Final Planned Unit Development, Subdivision, Rezoning, Final Timeshare, Growth
Management, Right-of-Way Vacations, and associated land use reviews for a site-specific
development plan for the Lift One Lodge Subdivision/Planned Unit Development via
Ordinance No. 28, Series of 2011; and,
WHEREAS, per the Amended Development Order signed by the Community
Development Director (Reception No. 591520) the vested rights for the property are set
to expire on November 28, 2016; and,
WHEREAS , the applicant has finalized and recorded a Development Agreement
for Lift One Lodge Subdivision/PUD at Reception No. 597439; and,
WHEREAS , the applicant has finalized and recorded a Final Plat of Lift One
Lodge Subdivision/PUD at Reception No. 597438; and,
WHEREAS , the applicant has completed all vacations and dedications of public
rights-of-way and recorded these vacation and dedications as represented on the Street,
Alleyway and Easement Vacation Plat at Reception No. 597435; and,
WHEREAS , the Community Development Director has reviewed the application
and considered the proposal for an extension of vested rights under the applicable provisions
of the Municipal Code as identified herein, and found the application to be consistent with
the requirements of the Code; and,
WHEREAS , the City Council has reviewed the application and considered the
proposal for an extension of vested rights under the applicable provisions of the Municipal
Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the
Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly
noticed public hearing; and,
P192
IX.c
2
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposal for an extension of vested
rights meets or exceeds all applicable development standards associated with the request;
and,
WHEREAS, the City Council grants approval of the two-year extension of vested
rights, as proposed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY
COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, the City Council hereby approves an extension of vested property rights request for
the Lift One Lodge Subdivision/PUD through November 28, 2018.
Section 2: Conditions
This extension of vested rights is conditioned upon the following two requirements:
1. The applicant provide proof of a cost-sharing or reimbursement agreement with
the South Aspen Townhomes property on the west side of South Aspen Street
regarding improvements to the South Aspen Street right-of-way.
2. The applicant establish an agreement with the City of Aspen City Engineer
regarding the logistics and timing of closing Gilbert Street, which may be based
upon improvements being made to South Aspen Street by either Lift One Lodge
or the South Aspen Townhome projects.
These requirements shall be met within 180 days of adoption of this resolution.
Section 3:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
temporary use proposal as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation
presented before the City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development
approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended
by an authorized entity.
Section 4:
This resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 5:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
APPROVED BY the City Council of the City of Aspen on this ___ day of April, 2015.
P193
IX.c
3
___________________________________
Steve Skadron, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
___________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
P194
IX.c
1
Exhibit A
Review Criteria
Extension or reinstatement of vested rights. The City Council may, by resolution at a public
hearing noticed by publication, mailing and posting (See Subparagraphs 26.304.060 [E][3][a][b]
and [c]) approve an extension or reinstatement of expired vested rights or a revoked development
order in accordance with this Section.
1. In reviewing a request for the extension or reinstatement of vested rights the City Council
shall consider, by not be limited to, the following criteria:
a. The applicant’s compliance with any conditions requiring performance prior to
the date of application for extension or reinstatement;
Staff Response: Staff finds that the applicant has made all reasonable efforts to date to
move the project forward. The applicant has obtained land use approvals associated
with Final PD Reviews, Subdivision, Amendment to the Zone District Map, Growth
Management Reviews, Special Review, Conditional Use, Vacation of Rights-of-Way,
and Commercial Design Review. The applicant has proceeded with the required street
vacations and dedications associated with parcels 1-4, and has recorded new plats.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
b. The progress made in pursuing the project to date including the effort to obtain
any other permits, including a building permit and the expenditures made by the
applicant in pursuing the project;
Staff Response: The applicant has made substantial investment in the approvals by way
of engineering studies and designs for plat recordation. The applicant indicates that
funding is in place to pursue the project to completion at this point. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
c. The nature and extent of any benefits already received by the City as a result of
the project approval such as impact fees or land dedications;
Staff Response: Through the recordation of the Final Plat of Lift One Lodge
Subdivision/PUD (Reception No. 597438) the applicant has granted in perpetuity the
following easements to the City of Aspen (and additional parties):
• Lots 1, 3 and 4 – for the purpose of constructing, operating and maintain a
surface lift and other associated improvements related to uploading skiers;
• Lots 1, 3 and 4 for the purpose of constructing, operating and maintaining a ski
corridor and associated improvements related to creating acceptable snow
surface conditions for skiing;
P195
IX.c
2
• Lots 1 and 2 – public pedestrian access easement;
• Lots 1, 3 and 4 – public recreation, access and maintenance easement;
• Lots 1 and 3 – public access subsurface easement for accessing parking garage;
• Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 – a six-foot wide “no-build” and maintenance easement for
fire protection and periodic maintenance; and
• Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 - snow storage easement from street plowing.
Additionally, the applicant has completed the vacations and dedications of public
rights-of-way, as depicted on the Street, Alleyway and Easement Vacation Plat
(Reception No. 597435).
d. The needs of the City and the applicant that would be served by the approval of
the extension or reinstatement request.
Staff Response: With the improved financial economy, the applicant has expressed
confidence with the ability to commence construction prior to the expiration of
extended vested rights.
The applicant has completed the conveyance of land areas for public amenities and
easements to the City. Staff supports the applicant’s ability to complete the proposed
project in accordance with the approved Development Agreement (Reception No.
597429). Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. An extension or reinstatement may be in the form of a written agreement duly authorized
and executed by the applicant and the City. Reasonable conditions may be imposed by
the City Council including, but not limited to, compliance with any amendments to this
Title adopted subsequent to the effective date of the development order and associated
vested rights.
Staff Response: Staff is proposing two conditions with this extension of vested rights
regarding improvements to South Aspen Street and Gilbert Street. Staff finds this criterion
met with these two conditions.
3. If the request is for reinstatement of a revoked development order, the City Council shall
determine the financial impacts of the investigation and may require the applicant to pay
the reasonable costs of investigation, enforcement and reporting by City Staff.
Staff Response: This request is not related to a reinstatement of a revoked development
order. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable.
P196
IX.c
P197
IX.c
P198
IX.c
P199
IX.c
P200
IX.c
P201
IX.c
P202
IX.c
P203
IX.c
P204
IX.c
P205
IX.c
P206
IX.c
P207
IX.c
P208
IX.c
P209
IX.c
P210
IX.c
P211
IX.c
P212
IX.c
P213
IX.c
P214
IX.c
P215
IX.c
P216
IX.c
P217
IX.c
P218
IX.c
P219
IX.c
P220
IX.c
P221
IX.c
P222
IX.c
P223
IX.c
P224
IX.c
P225
IX.c
P226
IX.c
P227
IX.c
P228
IX.c
P229
IX.c
P230
IX.c
P231
IX.c
P232
IX.c
P233
IX.c
P234
IX.c
P235
IX.c
P236
IX.c
P237
IX.c
P238
IX.c
P239
IX.c
P240
IX.c
P241
IX.c
P242
IX.c
P243
IX.c
P244
IX.c
P245
IX.c
P246
IX.c
P247
IX.c
P248
IX.c
P249
IX.c
P250
IX.c
P251
IX.c
P252
IX.c
P253
IX.c
P254
IX.c
P255
IX.c
P256
IX.c
P257
IX.c
P258
IX.c
P259
IX.c
P260
IX.c
P261
IX.c
P262
IX.c
P263
IX.c
P264
IX.c
P265
IX.c
P266
IX.c
P267
IX.c
P268
IX.c
P269
IX.c
P270
IX.c
P271
IX.c
P272
IX.c
P273
IX.c
P274
IX.c
P275
IX.c
P276
IX.c
4
ORDINANCE NO 28
SERIES OF 2011
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING FINAL
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL
REZONING APPROVAL FINAL TIMESHARE APPROVAL GROWTH
MANAGEMENT APPROVALS APPROVAL OF RIGHT OF WAY VACATIONS
APPROVAL OF ASSOCIATED LAND USE REVIEWS AND AUTHORIZING
ISSUANCE OF A DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR THE LIFT ONE LODGE SUBDIVISIONPLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 233
GILBERT STREET 710 SOUTH ASPEN STREET 720 SOUTH ASPEN STREET
WILLOUGHBY PARK AND LIFT ONE PARK CITY OF ASPEN PITKIN COUNTY
COLORADO
Parcel ID
2735131 168 51 2735 131 210 01 2735 131 21002
273513119851 2735131 19001
WHEREAS the Community Development Department received an application for the
Lift One Lodge SubdivisionPUD the Application from Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge
Aspen LLC Applicant represented by Sunny Vann of Vann Associates and with consent from
the City of Aspen and the Historical Society of Aspen for the following land use review
approvals
Final Planned Unit Development pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26445
Final Timeshare pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26590
Subdivision pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26480
Amendment to the Zone District Map pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26310
Growth Management Review Replacement of Existing Commercial and Lodge
Development pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26470
Growth Management Review Replacement of Demolished Multi Family Units
pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26470
Growth Management Review Incentive Lodge Development pursuant to Land Use
Code Chapter 26470
Growth Management Review Essential Public Facility pursuant to Land Use Code
Chapter 26470
Growth Management Review Affordable Housing pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter
26470
Special Review for Average Lodge Unit Size An application for Special Review to
consider the average lodge unit size pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26430
Conditional Use for Restaurant and Bar pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26425
Conditional Use for Dormitory Units pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26425
Mountain View Plane Review pursuant to Section 26435050
Condominiumization pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26480090
Ordinance No 28 Series 2011
Page 1 of 37
P277
IX.c
Commercial Design Review pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26412
Right ofWay Vacations pursuant to CRS 43 2 303 for certain streets easements and
alleyways within the project site
Extended Vested Rights pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26308 for a 10 year
period
and
WHEREAS all code citation references are to the City of Aspen Land Use Code in
effect on the day of initial application November 24 2006 as applicable to this Project and
WHEREAS the subject Properties are commonly known as Willoughby Park Lift One
Park 233 Gilbert Street 710 South Aspen Street and 720 South Aspen Street City of Aspen
Colorado and as more fully described in Exhibit A attached hereto and
WHEREAS the Application for the Lift One Lodge SubdivisionPUD proposes
On Lot 1 Lift One Lodge
A multi story structure consisting of 22 timeshare lodging units divided into one eighth
1 8 interests with a total of 176 owner interests With lock off capability the 22
units represent a total of 84 keys
5 free market residential units
A sub grade parking garage with no more than 155 parking spaces 50 of which
dedicated for public use as replacement of lost parking on South Aspen Street and the
current Willoughby Park surface parking 105 spaces are for lodge commercial
residential dormitory and other uses associated with the lodge
Subgrade utility infrastructure including a ground source heat system
A public restaurant and apres ski area
Fitness facilities
Lodge guest facilities
Public access and ski easements
Ski area operations
On Lot 2 Skiers Chalet Steakhouse
A relocated and rehabilitated Skier Chalet Steakhouse building containing housing for 16
employees in 8 dormitory style units
Subgrade utility infrastructure including a ground source heat system
On Lot 3 Lift One Park
A public park
One lift tower of the historic Lift One apparatus
Underground parking part of the subsurface parking garage on Lot 1
Subgrade foundations and structural support systems and utility infrastructure including
a ground source heat system
Public access and ski easements
Ski area operations
Ordinance No 28 Series 2011
Page 2 of 37
P278
IX.c
j
On Lot 4 Willoughby Park
A public park
A relocated and rehabilitated Skier Chalet Lodge and pool house buildings containing
Historical Society Museum
The historic Lift One terminal and wheelhouse
A skier drop off area
Underground utility systems inclusive of a ground source heat system
Public access and easements
Ski area operations
and
WHEREAS pursuant to Section 26445 Planned Unit Development and Section
26590 Timeshare Development a Conceptual approval must be granted by the Aspen City
Council Prior to Final Review and was granted by the Aspen City Council via Resolution No 52
Series of 2009 and
WHEREAS pursuant to Section 26415070D Certificate of Appropriateness for
Major Development of the Land Use Code Final approval may be granted by the Historic
Preservation Commission HPC at a duly noticed public hearing and was granted for the review
of Willoughby Park Lift 1 Park and Skiers Chalet Steakhouse by the HPC on November 10
2006 via Resolution No 14 Series of 2010
WHEREAS the Community Development Department received referral comments from
the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District City Engineering Building Department Fire
Protection District Environmental Health Department Parks Department Parking Department
AspenPitkin County Housing Authority Public Works Department and the Transportation
Department as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting andppand
WHEREAS pursuant to Section 26470040C7Affordable Housing of the Land Use
Code a recommendation from the AspenPitkin County Housing Authority is required and a
recommendation for approval by the board was provided at their March 2 2011 regular meeting
and
WHEREAS said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department
reviewed the proposed Final PUD and Final Timeshare and recommended approval with
conditions and
WHEREAS pursuant to Chapter 26445 of the Land Use Code Final PUD approval
may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering
recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission the Community Development
Director and relevant referral agencies and
WHEREAS pursuant to Chapter 26480 of the Land Use Code Subdivision approval
may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering
recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission the Community Development
Director and relevant referral agencies and
WHEREAS pursuant to Chapter 26310 of the Land Use Code an amendment to the
Official Zone District Map Rezoning may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed
public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission the
Community Development Director and relevant referral agencies and
Ordinance No 28 Series 2011
Page 3 of 37
P279
IX.c
WHEREAS pursuant to Chapter 26590 of the Land Use Code Final Timeshare
approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering
recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission the Community Development
Director and relevant referral agencies and
WHEREAS pursuant to Chapter 26304 Common Development Review Procedures
and Section 26304060B4 Modification of Review Procedures all other necessary land use
reviews as identified herein have been combined to be considered by the City Council at a duly
noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning
Commission the Community Development Director and relevant referral agencies and
WHEREAS such combination of review procedures was done to ensure clarity of
review was accomplished with all required public noticing provided as evidenced by an affidavit
of public noticing submitted to the record and the public was provided a thorough and full
review of the proposed development and
WHEREAS the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Application during
multiple public hearings in which the recommendations of the Community Development
Director and comments from the public were requested and heard by the Planning and Zoning
Commission and
WHEREAS during a regular meeting on June 7 2011 the Planning and Zoning
Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing considered the Application received
presentation from the Applicant including information in Power Point and physical model forms
considered the comments and recommendations of the Community Development Director
considered comments and recommendations of other members of City staff considered
comments and suggestions offered by members of the public considered questions and
responses by staff or the Applicant considered comments and discussion by Commission
members and continued the public hearing to June 14 2011 June 21 2011 July 5 2011 July
19 2011 August 2 2011 August 2 2011 and August 23 2011 at which hearings additional
presentations recommendations information questions and answers public comments and
suggestions and Commission discussion occurred and
WHEREAS during a regular meeting on August 23 2011 the Planning and Zoning
Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Application found the Project
meeting or exceeding all applicable development review standards and recommended City
Council approve the Lift One Lodge SubdivisionPUD Application and all necessary land use
reviews as identified herein by a four to three 4 3 vote with the recommended conditions of
approval listed hereinafter and
WHEREAS the Aspen City Council finds that the streets alleyways and easements to be
vacated by this Ordinance as identified in Section 12 which are adjacent to land owned by the
Applicant are not owned in fee by the City are no longer necessary for any public purpose and as
of this determination will no longer be in use for public purposes Furthermore the Aspen City
Council finds that it is in the best interest of the City to vacate the streets alleyways and easements
identified in Section 12 in furtherance of the public benefits associated with the development
proposal approved hereby including the private land areas to be dedicated or devoted to public
purposes and community benefits This Ordinance constitutes a vacation ordinance as described
and required by the provisions of CRS 43 2 3031a The vacations shall be effective upon
recordation of the plat as described in Section 12 and
WHEREAS the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development
proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein opened a duly
Ordinance No 28 Series 2011
Page 4 of 37
P280
IX.c
noticed public hearing considered the Application received presentation from the Applicant
including information in Power Point and physical model forms considered the comments and
recommendations of the Community Development Director considered comments and
recommendations from other members of City staff and referral agencies considered comments
and recommendations of the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission considered
comments and suggestions offered by members of the public considered question responses by
staff and the Applicant considered comments and discussion by fellow Council members and
WHEREAS the Aspen City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceedsptYPpp
all applicable development standards of all applicable land use reviews as identified herein with
conditions and that the approval is consistent with the goals and elements of the 2000 Aspen Area
Community Plan and
WHEREAS the Aspen City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health safety and welfare
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN COLORADO as follows
The Lift One Lodge SubdivisionPUD Final Planned Unit Development is hereby granted all
necessary land use approvals including Subdivision approval Rezoning approval Final
Timeshare approval Growth Management approvals approval of all associated land use reviews
cited herein The vacation of the streets alleyways and easements as described in Section 12
pursuant to CRS 43 2 3021a is hereby approved and a Development Order for a Site
Specific Development Plan for the Lift One Lodge SubdivisionPUD subject to conditions of
approval listed herein is hereby issued
Section 1 Lift One Lodge SubdivisionPUDPlat Street Alleyway and Easement Vacation
Plat Final PUD Plans
Within one year following the date of final approval by the City Council the record owners of
the underlying lands shall prepare and submit a Subdivision Plat Street Alleyway and Easement
Vacation Plat and Final PUD Plans for the Lift One Lodge SubdivisionPUD to be reviewed to
ensure each item and condition of approval is documented to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director the City Engineer and the City Attorney prior to final signatures by the
Mayor and recordation
11 A Subdivision Plat that subdivides the land into the following parcels as depicted on the
Proposed Subdivision Map attached as Exhibit B
Lift One SubdivisionPUD Lot 1 Lift One Lodge
Lift One SubdivisionPUDLot 2 Skiers Chalet Steak House
Lift One SubdivisionPUDLot 3 Lift One Park
Lift One SubdivisionPUDLot 4 Willoughby Park Ski Museum
The Subdivision Plat shall grant certain perpetual easements as follows
a A easement to the Aspen Skiing Company the City of Aspen and the Roaring Fork
Mountain Lodge Aspen LLC or successors and assigns through Lots 1 3 and 4 for
purposes of constructing operating and maintaining a surface lift and other associated
improvements necessary for uploading skiers from Willoughby Park to a point south of
Lot 1 such that a skier could access Lift lA or a relocated Lift 1A
Ordinance No 28 Series 2011
Page 5 of 37
P281
IX.c
1
b An easement granted to the Aspen Skiing Company the City of Aspen and the Roaring
Fork Mountain Lodge Aspen LLC or successors and assigns through Lots 1 3 and 4
for purposes of constructing operating and maintaining a skiing corridor and associated
improvements and operations necessary for skiing including creating and maintaining
acceptable snow surface conditions for skiing
c A perpetual public pedestrian access easement through the center portion of Lot 1
proximate to the auto court and through the southerly portion of Lot 2 allowing access to
and from South Aspen Street Lift One Park and Willoughby Park
d A perpetual public recreation access and maintenance easement through Lots 1 3 and
4 including those sections of former Gilbert and Hill Street public rightsofway directly
north and south of Lift One Park allowing continuous access from Willoughby Park
through Lift One Park and through the portion of Lot 1 directly south of Lift One Park
e A perpetual subsurface easement beneath Lot 3 Lift One Park and a portion of the
Gilbert Street right ofway for the use and benefit of the Lift One Lodge Project for
purposes of constructing accessing operating using and maintaining a below grade
parking garage and other lodge facilities foundations and structural support systems and
utility infrastructure including a ground source heat system
f A perpetual subsurface easement beneath Lots 1 and 3 for the use and benefit of the
general public for purposes of accessing and using portions of the parking garage
allocated for public use and subject to reasonable restrictions limitations and usage fees
as outlined in the Lift One Lodge Parking Garage Operations Plan as may be amended
from time to time
g A six foot wide no build and maintenance easement on the surface of the property
along the east and west property boundaries of Lot 3 and along the western property
boundary of Lot 4 for the purposes of accommodating sufficient fire protection and fire
code compliance for the proposed improvements on Lot 1 and Lot 2 and to accommodate
the periodic maintenance of same
h A perpetual snow storage easement along the western edge of Lots 1 2 and 4 for the
purposes of accommodating snow storage from street plowing The easement is only
needed in locations where the planting buffer between the street curb and the sidewalk is
located on private property
12 A Street Alleyway and Easement VacationDedication Plat that accomplishes the following
changes to public rightsofway as depicted on the Proposed Street VacationDedication Map
attached as Exhibit C
a Vacation of the eastern 375 feet of South Aspen Street from the centerline of the Hill
Street right ofway north to the southern edge of the Deane Street rightofway
b Dedication to public rightofway an area within the northwest portion of Lot 4
Willoughby Park associated with the proposed turnaround and drop off area at the
corner of South Aspen and Deane Street The final design and exact dimensions of this
dedication shall be as depicted and described in the Subdivision Plat
c Vacation of the northern 25 feet of Hill Street east of the South Aspen Street right of
way to the eastern boundary of the Eames Addition That portion of vacated Hill Street
Ordinance No 28 Series 2011
Page 6 of 37
P282
IX.c
3r
abutting proposed Lot 3 shall be conveyed by the City of Aspen to the Applicant to be
incorporated into proposed Lot 1
d Vacation of the remaining dedicated portions of the alleyway of Block 9 Eames
Addition
e Vacation of a Utility and Alleyway Easement encumbering the eastern 10 feet of Lot 2
Block 9 Eames Addition recorded at Book 203 Page 375
f Vacation or extinguishment of an easement for skiing purposes assigned to the City of
Aspen in connection with the conveyance of Lift One Park which affects Parcel B
g Vacation of Gilbert Street from the eastern edge of the South Aspen Street rightofway
east to a line extending south from the boundary between Lots 11 and 12 of Block 8 and
connecting to the boundary between Lots 3 and 4 of Block 9 Eames Addition
h Vacation of Juan Street east of the South Aspen Street right ofway to the eastern
boundary of the Eames Addition
i Vacation of the alleyway of Block 8 Eames Addition That portion of the vacated
alleyway abutting proposed Lot 1 shall be conveyed by the Applicant to the City to be
incorporated into proposed Lot 4
j Vacation of the alleyway of Block 7 Eames Addition
k Vacation or extinguishment of an easement for skiing purposes assigned to the City by
the Aspen Skiing Company in connection with the conveyance of Lift One Park which
affects a portion of Parcel B part of proposed Lot 1
13 A Final PUD Development Plan Set that includes
a An illustrative site plan showing the layout of planned improvements as depicted in
attached Exhibit D
b An architectural character plan showing the massing fenestration and materials of each
building as generally depicted in attached Exhibit E
c Dimensioned drawings of all buildings proposed within the project showing dimensions
for all zoning parameters in graphic and tabular format Project dimensions approved for
the project are as described in Exhibit F Heights of building shall be in substantial
conformance with those depicted in attached Exhibit G
d An exterior lighting plan meeting the Citys outdoor lighting limitations
e Illustrative plans for the reconstruction of South Aspen Street and for that section of
Deane Street right ofway between the South Aspen Street and South Monarch Street
The Plan shall be coordinated with the City of Aspen Community Development Parks
and Engineering Departments All of the 250000 allocated to Deane Street
improvements by Ordinance No 32 Series of 2005 the Chart House contribution shall
be allocated by the City for the design and implementation of these improvements The
skier drop off area planned for the intersection of Deane and South Aspen Streets shall be
Option 2 of Exhibit 4 of the civil plan supplemental to the application submitted May 5
2011 prepared by SGM Engineering and attached hereto as Exhibit H The design for
South Aspen Street north of Deane Street shall be Option 2 of Exhibit 2 of the civil plan
supplemental to the application submitted May 5 2011 prepared by SGM Engineering
and attached hereto as Exhibit H
Ordinance No 28 Series 2011
Page 7 of 37
P283
IX.c
f A Master Utility Plan including profiles and sections acceptable to the City Engineer and
the City of Aspen Utilities Department Some modification of the proposed location of
dry utilities may be necessary to avoid over digging of adjacent properties and to avoid
access lids within sidewalks
g A Drainage Plan and report that complies with the Citys Urban Runoff Management
Plan Pursuant to review by the City Engineer the initial drainage concept appears to
comply In addition to site drainage the project will have to address street drainage The
project proposes to change the hydraulics and capacity of Aspen Streets drainage
system Therefore the project will be required to install curb gutter and other drainage
control features such as inlets and piping on both sides of the street Also see
infrastructure investment recapture provisions of sections 31 32 and 33
Because the enhanced sanding method for maintaining Aspen street in winter months
will have negative impacts on street runoff water quality the City Engineer will require
additional water quality mitigation efforts that comply with the Urban Runoff
Management Plan The project will need to provide plans for water quality treatment of
Aspen Street runoff The proposed island off of Deane Street and the bulb outs on South
Aspen Street may be potential locations for water quality improvements as determined
acceptable by the City Engineer and City of Aspen Parks Department
h An Interpolated Natural Grade Plan
i A Tree Removal and Mitigation Plan
j A Landscape Plan for each of the four lots The landscape plans should be reviewed and
approved by The Parks Department with a required signature on the Landscape sheets
To the extent practical planting strips within the rightofway should provide 5 feet or
more in width between the back of curb and the edge of the sidewalk Planting strips
should be designed with 4 feet of good quality topsoil and growing media The
Applicant will be required to use structural soils where a non compacted continuous root
zone cannot be provided These soils will be required within the City rights ofway
andor as may be required on the private property Structural Soils are applicable in
situations where tree rooting potential is insufficient in designated planter areas adjacent
to sidewalks
Spacing and type of tree must be coordinated with the Parks Department Sidewalks
shall be designed and built in a manner that reduces the impact to existing trees and roots
systems All sidewalks located within the drip line of trees to be saved shall be built on
grade in a manner that allows for the sub grade prep and sidewalk to float over the roots
preventing any excavation into the soil All work in protection zones is to be
accomplished by handwork only without machines Plantings within the City rightof
way must be approved by the City Parks Department All plantings along the edge of
private property and the City ROW should be of size and species which will not require
major maintenance pruning or trimming due to over growth Tree lighting electrical
conduits must comply with City of Aspen standards
The landscape plans shall include provision of irrigation connections that provide
adequate pressure and coverage for landscaped areas of the right of way and the two
public parks The City shall be provided adequate access to maintain and control
irrigation of the two public parks The Development Agreement shall address
Ordinance No 28 Series 2011
Page8of37
P284
IX.c
maintenance control and responsibilities for the irrigation for these two parks to the
satisfaction of the Parks Department
k A plan for a stub and manifold for an additional zone of the sidewalk snowmelt system to
accommodate a future snowmelt system for that section of South Aspen Street between
Durant Street and Deane Street acceptable to the City Engineer
Section 2 Rezoning
Contemporaneously with and effective upon the recording of the Subdivision and Street
Vacation Plats the Lots within this Subdivision as described above and reflected in the
Subdivision Plat shall be zoned as follows
Lot 1 Lodge Planned Unit Development LPUD
Lot 2 Lodge Planned Unit Development Historic LPUD H
Lot 3 Public Planned Unit Development Historic P PUD H
Lot 4 Public Planned Unit Development Historic P PUD H
Section 3 Development Agreement
Contemporaneously with the recording of the Subdivision and Street Vacation Plats the record
owners of the lands within the Lift One Lodge SubdivisionPUD shall prepare execute and
record a Development Agreement meeting the requirements of Section 264450700to be
reviewed to ensure each item and condition of approval is documented to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director the City Engineer and the City Attorney prior to final
signatures by the Mayor and recordation The Development Agreement shall set forth a
description of the proposed improvements and obligations of the parties including the following
31 The reconstruction of South Aspen Street Deane Street and associated sidewalks curbing
and drainage improvements as depicted in the Final PUD Plans The Development
Agreement shall include a provision that the City shall require that in the event property
owners adjacent to improved portions of South Aspen Street seek improvements to their
property such property owners shall be responsible for their prorata share of the cost of the
improvements associated with this section and such costs shall be reimbursed to the
Applicant prior to the adjacent property owner receiving their building permit The prorata
share shall be further defined in the Development Agreement but generally will be based
upon linear feet of frontage along South Aspen Street as compared to the total amount of
property frontage along South Aspen Street The City of Aspen as owner of property along
South Aspen Street shall not be subject to this reimbursement as their prorata share shall be
borne by the Applicant
The reconstruction shall include implementation of the initial infrastructure needed to add a
snowmelt system for South Aspen Street between Durant Street and Deane Street consisting
of a stub and manifold within the sidewalk snowmelt system allowing for a future zone to be
added at the discretion of the City
32 The installation andor relocation of all utilities depicted and described in the Master Utility
Plan of the Final PUD Plans The Development Agreement shall include a provision that the
City shall require that in the event property owners adjacent to improved portions of South
Aspen Street seek improvements to their property such property owners shall be responsible
Ordinance No 28 Series 2011
Page9of37
P285
IX.c
1
for their prorata share of the cost of the improvements associated with this section and such
costs shall be reimbursed to the Applicant prior to the adjacent property owner receiving
their building permit The prorata share shall be further defined in the Development
Agreement but generally will be based upon linear feet of frontage along South Aspen Street
as compared to the total amount of property frontage along South Aspen Street The City of
Aspen as owner of property along South Aspen Street shall not be subject to this
reimbursement as their prorata share shall be borne by the Applicant
33 The installation of all drainage facilities depicted and described on the Drainage Plan of the
Final PUD Plans The Development Agreement shall include a provision that the City shall
require that in the event property owners adjacent to improved portions of South Aspen
Street seek improvements to their property such property owners shall be responsible for
their prorata share of the cost of the improvements associated with this section and such costs
shall be reimbursed to the Applicant prior to the adjacent property owner receiving their
building permit The prorata share shall be further defined in the Development Agreement
but generally will be based upon linear feet of frontage along South Aspen Street as
compared to the total amount of property frontage along South Aspen Street The City of
Aspen as owner of property along South Aspen Street shall not be subject to this
reimbursement as their prorata share shall be borne by the Applicant
34 Identification of all public improvements to be subject to Section 315 Financial Assurance
and Performance Bond This shall include provision of 62000 for purchase and outfitting a
sanding truck for the City of Aspen dedicated for South Aspen Street winter maintenance and
a lump sum payment of 20000 for the annual provision of special sanding material
35 An agreement to provide a public locker facility The facility shall have a mix of 40 day
lockers 50 seasonal lockers and 40 shoe cubbies all in no less than 900 square feet with
direct access to the ski corridor as represented in the Final PUD Application The seasonal
lockers shall be made available to the general public free of charge on a seasonal basis via a
valley wide lottery and daily lockers and cubbies on a first come first served basis The
seasonal locker rental agreements shall prohibit assignment and subrental
36 An agreement to provide a dedicated maintenancestorage facility of up to 290 square feet
within the parking garage for the use by the City of Aspen Parks Department for the storage
of maintenance vehicles used for maintenance of parks facilities located within the central
area of Aspen
37 A Modified Historical Society Ski Museum Lease Agreement between the Historical Society
and the City of Aspen is contemplated with approval from the City Attorneys Office and
the Parks Department The lease agreement will be modified to include an operations plan
clearly indentifying and describing the leased areas within Willoughby Park and general
operating characteristics of the museum including typical operation special events outdoor
uses outdoor displaysexhibits permitting responsibilities and maintenance responsibilities
of the grounds The operations plan shall describe public access to the museum and limits
thereto and provide flexibility for insignificant changes from time to time
The operations plan shall recognize and permit public access to all exterior areas ofWilloughbyParkexcludingexteriorareasrestrictedforsafetysecurityorsimilar
considerations and shall permit pedestrian and skiing access in and through these exterior
areas The operations plan shall specify expectations and responsibilities regarding
Ordinance No 28 Series 2011
Page 10 of 37
P286
IX.c
maintenance of improvements and the grounds including irrigation and shall include
enforcement provisions and remedies The operations plan shall permit occasional changes
to the operating characteristics of the property and the responsibilities of the parties by
approval of the City Manager and the Historical Society Director If the Manager and thePPtYgYg
Director cannot agree the changes shall be forwarded to the Aspen City Council for
resolution
Failure to agree on an operations plan shall not unreasonably restrict the Applicant from
proceeding with fmalizing other required documents or proceeding with other aspects of the
development plans If necessary this provision may be amended to be finalized prior to
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on the museum building located in Willoughby Park
38 A Skiing Snow Surface Conditioning and Maintenance Agreement between the Applicant
and the City of Aspen to regularly groom and maintain the snow conditions in the surface lift
corridor from Willoughby Park to the Lift 1A terminal The agreement shall allow a third
party operator to provide this service This agreement may include operational provisions
and usage limitations for safety and functional reasons This agreement shall not prohibit the
making moving spreading and grooming of this area and preparing of an artificial snow
base in the ski and surface lift corridor in accord with typical annual snowmaking terrain
opening logistics and mountain operations
39 A final Transportation Management Plan approved by the Transportation Director The
conceptual plan is acceptable as outlined in the April 2011 TDA Traffic Analysis in theppPpY
TDM section on pages 22 and 23 The following changes are required
a Provision of a Lift One Lodge Garage Operations Plan for the 50 public parking spaces
including pricing entryexit technology residential permit distribution and monitoring
carpool parking distribution and monitoring enforcement and special event usage Staff
11 requests the designated parking spaces for carshare and carpool uses be combined to a
pool of 11 TDMrelated parking spaces that can be utilized for either use as determined
appropriate by the City Parking Director every two years during the first 10 years For
example these spaces could become 3 carshare spaces and eight carpool spaces or
whichever combination is deemed appropriate at that time
b A reporting requirement every two years for the first 10 years to include garage usage
trends and TDM program participation At each two year cycle elements of the Plan
may be changed as needed and as acceptable to the City Transportation Director and the
Applicant
310 Timeshare and Transfer Disclosure Documents An agreement to incorporate the
requirements and restrictions of the Citys Timeshare Regulations into the final timeshare
instruments including State requirements provisions for reserve funds for ongoing
maintenance prohibited practices and uses limits on marketing techniques a prohibition
against long term storage of owner vehicles and prohibitions on offering non Aspen gifts
within a marketing plan
Real estate transfer documents shall include disclosure of the future construction operation
and maintenance of a surface lift uploading skiers from Willoughby Park to a point south of
Lot 1 through the easement described in Section 11a above and in the recorded
Subdivision Plat
Ordinance No 28 Series 2011
Page 11 of 37
P287
IX.c
p
Real estate transfer documents shall include disclosure of the future construction operation
and maintenance of a skiing corridor and associated improvements and operations necessary
for skiing including creating and maintaining acceptable snow surface conditions for skiing
through the easement described in Section 11b above and in the recorded Subdivision Plat
Real estate transfer documents shall include disclosure of the public rental requirement for
time spans not utilized by owners as cited below in section 312 and as included in the
Condominium Declaration
311 Occupancy report After the third and fifth years of lodge operation the Applicant shall be
required to provide an occupancy report The report shall include occupancy rates by month
season and year and by type of occupant ie owner or general public This report shall be
submitted to the Community Development Director and shall be made available to the
Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council
312 A public rental requirement assuring that unused lodge rooms will be available to the
general public at market rates so as to encourage their rental Such rental requirement shall
be documented in the Lift One Lodge Condominium Declaration and shall contain a
provision that this requirement cannot be eliminated from the Condominium Declaration
without approval from the City of Aspen City Council
313 A plan for dormitory operations including the following
a A statement by the Applicant that the deed restriction and subsequent rental rate restrictions
are being provided voluntarily by the Applicant
b The template lease for the on site dormitory units must be reviewed by APCHA along with
the initial rental amount as it is not stated in the Guidelines Once the rental amount is set
and stated in the recorded deed restriction the rent may increase annually by the lesser of
3 or the Consumer Price Index as such index is stated in the APCHA Guidelines
c The dormitory units must be rented to qualified employees within Pitkin County and must
be qualified through APCHA prior to occupancy If the owner is unable to fill the units
with employees of the development then the units shall be leased to other qualified
employees The owner must provide signed leases to APCHA within five days of both
parties signatures The leases shall be for at least a six month period of time
d The owneroperator of the dormitory units must provide and maintain the following
amenities for use by the tenants a common laundry facility in the basement area eight
reserved parking spaces within the Lift One Lodge parking garage sixteen storage units
one for each resident in the basement area a fully functional kitchen and common area
e The ongoing maintenance and upkeep of the dormitory units
f Paid memberships to the carto go program for dormitory residents for the first 5 years of
operation of Lift One Lodge
314 An Employee Generation Audit and Reconciliation The Applicant shall agree to submit an
employee generation audit two years after operations have commenced and reconcile any
difference in actual additional employees and mitigated employees The agreement shall
require mitigation of additional employees be provided through the provision of housing
units within the Urban Growth Boundary including buy downs the provision of cash in
Ordinance No 28 Series 2011
Page 12 of 37
P288
IX.c
lieu at the rate applicable on the date of payment the provision of employee mitigation
credits for extinguishment or a combination thereof
The Applicant shall agree that the City may revoke the Certificate of Occupancy for Lift One
Lodge as a remedy if after proper notice and remedy to cure the Applicant fails to provide
required additional mitigation within a reasonable timeframe or other such remedies as
identified in the Development Agreement Credit for actual additional employees being less
than mitigated shall be reconciled by City issuance of employee mitigation credits in the
amount of overage
315 Financial Assurances Performance Bond The Development Agreement shall include the
Applicantscommitment and agreement that before a Building Permit is issued for the Lift
One Lodge on Lot 1 the Applicant shall provide to the Community Development Director
and the City Attorney for review and approval satisfactory evidence that the Applicant has in
place sufficient financing to accomplish and complete the construction of the development
including all public improvements required under the Development Agreement and covered
by the Building Permit Such financing may include without limitation a construction loan
from an institutional lender or lenders and equity capital investments from the Applicant
andor third party investors
Supporting cost estimates for all improvements covered by the requested Building Permit
shall be prepared by the ApplicantsGeneral Contractor
The Applicant shall further commit and agree that before a Building Permit is issued for the
Lift One Lodge on Lot 1 the Applicant shall provide to the Community Development
Director and the City Attorney for review a copy of a Performance and Payment Bond issued
or committed to be issued to the ApplicantsGeneral Contractor by an institutional surety
company The Performance and Payment Bond shall name the Applicant as the beneficiary
or insured thereunder to grant them a direct right of action under the Performance and
Payment Bond in order to construct or finish public improvements and to complete the
construction of the improvements covered by the Bond Separately the Applicant shall
provide the City of Aspen with an assignment of its rights under the Performance and
Payment Bond
316 Site Protection Fund The Development Agreement shall include the Applicants
commitment and agreement that before a Building Permit is issued for the Lift One Lodge on
Lot 1 the Applicant will deposit with a title company Escrow Agent the sum of 100000
in the form of cash or wired funds the Escrow Funds and will execute an Escrow
Agreement and Instructions with the Escrow Agent which recites and agrees as follows
In the event construction work on Lift One Lodge on Lot 1 shall cease for sixty 60 days or
longer work stoppage without a cure of such work stoppage after fifteen days 15 days
notice by the City and such work stoppage not being a result of any event of force majeure
prior to a final inspection by the City of the work authorized by the FoundationStructural
Frame Permit on the Project then the City in its discretion may draw upon the Escrow Funds
from time to time as needed for purposes of protecting and securing the Project site and
improvements from damage by the elements andor from trespass by unauthorized persons
and for purposes of improving the Project site to a safe condition such that it does not
become an attractive nuisance or otherwise pose a threat to neighbors or other persons The
Ordinance No 28 Series 2011
Page 13 of 37
P289
IX.c
Escrow Funds or any remaining balance thereof shall be returned to the Applicant upon
completion by the City of a final inspection of the work authorized by the
FoundationStructural Frame Permit on the Project
The City shall be a named third party beneficiary of the Escrow Agreement with the express
right and authority to enforce the same from time to time
317 Cross References The Development Agreement shall include cross references to recorded
plats easements agreements and PUD plan sets as described herein
318 Tramway Variance Documentation of the State Tramway Board variance provided for the
surface lift
Section 4 Growth Management and Affordable Housing Obligations
41 Reconstruction Credits City Council Resolution No 52 Series 2009 confirmed the
following reconstruction credits have been verified by the City of Aspen and shall be
credited towards the Growth Management Quota System allotment and affordable housing
requirements of the Lift One Lodge Project
a A total of 38 lodging reconstruction credits consisting of 20 lodge units in the former
Holland House Lodge 10 lodge units in the former Skiers Chalet Lodge and 8 lodge
units in the former Skiers Chalet Steak House are credited towards the Lift One Lodge
Projects lodging GMQS allotment request The 38 reconstruction credits equate to 76
lodging pillows for allotment purposes
b One free market residential reconstruction credit from the former Holland House Lodge
is credited towards the Lift One Lodge Projects free market residential GMQS allotment
request
c A commercial reconstruction credit of 2429 square feet of net leasable area from the
Skiers Chalet Steak House is credited towards the Lift One Lodge Projects commercial
GMQS allotment request
42 Growth Management Allotments The following growth management allotments are granted
to the Lift One Lodge Project
a 46 lodging bedrooms 92 lodging pillows Added to the reconstruction credits the
project represents 84 lodging bedrooms or 168 pillows
b 4 free market residential allotments Together with the reconstruction credits the project
contains 5 free market residences
c 2834 square feet of net leasable commercial space Added to the reconstruction credit of
2429 square feet the project contains approximately 5263 square feet of commercial net
leasable space The projects commercial net leasable area is preliminary in nature and
based on an assumed ratio of net leasable to gross square footage of 85 percent Minor
adjustments to the final net leasable figure may occur
d 8 units of affordable housing situated in a dormitory style building on Lot 2 and housing
16 employees The building contains approximately 3184 square feet of floor area plus
additional basement space
Ordinance No 28 Series 2011
Page 14 of 37
P290
IX.c
e An essential public facility the ski museum owned and operated by the Aspen Historical
Society a not for profit organization The building and former pool house contains
approximately 4400 square feet of floor area with additional basement space
43 Lift One Lodge Employee Generation The Applicant has committed to provide affordable
housing mitigation for 100 percent of the net additional employees generated by the lodging
project This exceeds the 60 requirement The Projects employee generation is as follows
Employee Mitigation
Generation Requirement
FTEs FTEs
The Lift One Lodge Project contains 84 lodge bedrooms
and has a reconstruction credit of 38 bedrooms The 230 69
Projects 46 net new lodge bedrooms are expected to
generate 23 employees
The Project will contain 5263 square feet of net leasable
commercial space of which 2429 is a reconstruction
credit from the Skiers Chalet Steakhouse The Projects 877 263
additional net leasable commercial space of 2834 square
feet is expected to generate 877 employees
The Project will contain 5 free market residences one of
which is a reconstruction credit from the former Holland
House The City does not have employee generation 335 335
requirements for residences but does have inclusionary
requirements and replacement requirements The
Projectsfour new free market residences require housing
for 21 employees The replacement unit requires housing
for 125 employees
Additional employees generated 3512
Minimum mitigation required 1288
Mitigation required at 100 3512
44 Lift One Lodge Employee Housing Requirement A total of 3512 additional employees are
expected to be generated by the Lift One Lodge project and the applicant has represented a
commitment to mitigate 100 of this impact The applicant is providing on site dormitory
units for 16 employees The additional mitigation of 1912 FTEs must be provided through
the provision of housing units within the Urban Growth Boundary including buydowns
the provision of cash in lieu at the rate applicable on the date of payment the provision of
employee mitigation credits for extinguishment or a combination thereof prior to issuance
of a Certificate of Occupancy for Lift One Lodge The provision of cash in lieu for more
Ordinance No 28 Series 2011
Page 15 of 37
P291
IX.c
than a fraction of an FTE shall be subject to an additional review and approval by City
Council Offsite forsale units shall be transferred according to the APCHA Guidelines
Offsite rental units shall be available to all qualified employees in Pitkin County although
the applicant shall maintain the right to place qualified employees of the Lift One Lodge
45 Ski Museum Employee Housing Requirement The Community Development Director finds
the Museum meeting the defmition of an Essential Public Facility a facility which serves an
essential public purpose is available for use or benefit of the general public and serves the
needs of the community The Aspen Historical Society is a not forprofit organization with
a mission of enriching the community through preserving and communicating Aspens
remarkable history They are supported through donations limited fee services and the
Aspen Historic Park and Recreation District property tax The facility is proposed to serve
educational needs of the community and will be for the use and benefit of the general public
The employee needs for the museum are expected to be handled through existing staffing
with minimal additional demand In light of the projects overall commitment to affordable
housing and the significance of preserving and enhancing the Aspens skiing legacy the
employee housing requirements of the Museum are waived
Section 5 Building Permit Submission Requirements
In addition to the standard submission requirements for a building permit the Applicant shall
submit the following
a A signed copy of the Final HPC Resolution the final City Council Ordinance and the
Development Agreement granting land use approvals
b A letter from the primary contractor stating that the Final HPC Resolution the final City
Council Ordinance and the Development Agreement have been read and understood
c A tree removal plan and a tree protection plan See Section 10
d Detailed civil plans for the reconstruction of South Aspen Street Deane Street and
associated sidewalks curbing and drainage improvements as depicted in the Final PUD
Plans
e Detail civil plans for the installation andor relocation of all utilities depicted and
described in the Master Utility Plan of the Final PUD Plans
f Detail civil plans for the installation of all drainage facilities depicted and described on
the Drainage Plan of the Final PUD Plans
g A signage plan for approval by the Community Development Parking and Engineering
Departments signing both sides of Aspen Street as No Parking Fire Lane signing the
public parking spaces within the turn around as Emergency and Official Vehicles Only
and specifying location of sign receivers to be placed during construction Final verbiage
for the signs may be different as determined by said departments The City shall manage
the public rights ofway and all parking therein to achieve public policy objectives
which shall not prescribe or preclude public parking The City may change the physical
Ordinance No 28 Series 2011
Page 16 of 37
P292
IX.c
layout applicable policy posted signage or operational practices of the parking at its
sole discretion on a temporary or permanent basis Implementation of certain public
parking allowances and restrictions does not guarantee against or preclude future changes
to those allowances and restrictions on a temporary or permanent basis
h Ground Stability monitoring report as defined in Section 9
Section 6 Building Permit Issuance Requirements
In addition to the standard requirements for issuance of a building permit the following
conditions must be met prior to issuance of a building permit
a The Applicant shall pay all impact fees and school lands dedication fees applicable and per
the fee schedule in place at the time of building permit submission payable upon issuance
of the full building permit
b The Applicant shall provide sufficient evidence of financing and a performance bond as
required in Section 315
c The Applicant shall provide site protection escrow funds as required in Section 316
d The Applicant shall provide 150000 towards the relocation costs of the Willoughby
Volleyball Courts This is in addition to Parks Impact Fees This requirement must be
fulfilled in conjunction with the first building permit for Lot 4 the Ski Museum including
an AccessInfrastructure permit and shall represent the complete obligation of the Applicant
regarding volleyball relocation The funds shall be placed in a separate account within the
City of Aspen Parks Department so as to assure their use for volleyball court replacement
e The design for Lift One Lodge shall be compliant with projected mudflow impacts and
recommended design accommodations as identified in the mudflow and debris study
prepared by the Applicant and reviewed by the City of Aspen Engineering Department
f Lift One Lodge shall be designed to a highrise standard for fire protection and be
acceptable to the Fire Marshall and as described in the May 13 2011 Hughes Associates
letter
g The final application represented that the Lift One Lodge will meet specific energy
performance measures and commitments equivalent to LEED Gold certification Prior toissuanceofaBuildingPermitfortheLiftOneLodgesufficientevidencesuchasan
acceptance of the project registration and a LEED Design Review that indicates the
appropriate points are anticipated or pending demonstrating the project has been
designed to meet this standard shall be presented to the Chief Building Official for
acceptance In case the LEED process has changed prior to submittal the Chief Building
Official shall determine the equivalent requirement for documenting progress toward
LEED Gold certification
h The installation of vegetative protection fencing as required by Section 10
i Payment of ACSD connection fees per Section 11
Section 7 Construction Management Plan Requirements
A construction management plan must be submitted to the City Engineer in conjunction with the
first building permit application within the project excluding permits for repairs and upkeep of
Ordinance No 28 Series 2011
Page 17 of 37
P293
IX.c
existing buildings The plan must include a planned sequence of construction that minimizes
construction impacts to the public If the project is bifurcated into phases a CMP for each phase
will be required The plan shall describe management of parking stagingencroachments truck
and construction traffic during peak traffic and seasonal periods noise dust erosionsediment
pollution and emergency access during construction
Any Construction Management Plan for work within the project shall accommodate the annual
Winternational event operations to the satisfaction of the local FIS event coordinator and the
Aspen Skiing Company This may include work stoppage on event days
Section 8 Measurements
Height Due to the nature of this site and consistent with the approach taken in the review of this
project the maximum height for development within this project shall be calculated and
depicted in the building permit submission as the maximum distance possible measured
vertically from interpolated natural grade to the highest point or structure within a vertical plane
Architectural and mechanical appurtenances including but not limited to elevator overruns
mechanical equipment antennas chimneys flues vents trellises or similar structures shall be
depicted and not extend over ten 10 feet above the specified maximum height limit and be
limited to areas fifteen 15 or more feet from the outermost wall edges
Lot Area For the purposes of calculating Floor Area Ratio of development on Lots 1 2 and 4
the areas of the vacated rights ofway shall not be deducted from Lot Area
Floor Area Due to the nature of this site and consistent with the approach taken in the review of
this project floor area shall be calculated as that floor space within the surrounding exterior
walls as measured from the outside face of the nominal structure For any story that is partially
above and partially below interpolated natural grade only the floor space above the point at
which interpolated natural grade crosses the subfloor elevation of that story shall be counted
towards floor area The floor area tabulation shall include a separate measurement for decks
balconies exterior stairways gazebos porches and similar features Areas exempt from the
calculation of Floor Area shall be those areas identified in the Land Use Code in effect on the
day of initial application November 24 2006 as applicable to this project There is no
limitation for at grade landscape terraces
Reversion to Current Code The above provisions for measuring improvements shall be in effect
through the vested period or the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each building plus
six months whichever is later Upon reversion all built improvements and dimensions thereof
shall be considered conforming Subsequent improvements shall be measured according to the
method in effect at the time of building permit submission for such improvement
Section 9 Ground Stability Monitoring
In order to ensure the development does not exacerbate ground movement the existing
inclinometer shall continue to be maintained by the Applicant with bi annual readings taken
through issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Lift One Lodge The Building Permit
application shall include a report on the readings and a subsequent report is required prior to
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
Ordinance No 28 Series 2011
Page 18 of 37
P294
IX.c
3
Section 10 Tree Permits and Protection Requirements
Tree removal permits are required prior to issuance of a building permit for any demolition or
significant site work The City will issue a removal permit for the large spruce tree located on
the corner of Gilbert and S Aspen Streets Please contact the City Forester at 429 2026
Mitigation for removals must be met by paying cash in lieu planting on site or a combination of
both pursuant to Chapter 1320 of the City Municipal Code
A tree protection plan indicating the drip lines of each individual tree or groupings of trees
remaining on site shall be included in the building permit application for any demolition or
significant site work The plan shall indicate the location of protective zones for approval by the
City Forester and prohibit excavation storage of materials storage of construction backfill
storage of equipment and access over or through the zone by foot or vehicle The plan shall
include provision of six inches of mulch within each protection zone The plan shall include
irrigation of the protected vegetation throughout the entire length of the construction The
contractor must supply water to the trees at a rate which is appropriate for proper health Due to
the proximity and nature of the excavations the protective zones will be required to be twice the
width of the drip lines
Excavations within the protection zones shall be minimized and must utilize vertical excavation
only with no over digging These excavations must be soil stabilized in a manner that prevents
over excavation of the site This will require a one sided pour for all foundation walls located
within these protection zones Areas of roots cutting shall require burlap protection to cover over
the cut roots and additional watering in order to keep the soil and burlap moist along the cutting
edge
A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the protective zone edge for each individual tree
or groupings of trees remaining on site This fence must be installed and inspected by the City
Forester or hisher designee prior to issuance of a building permit for demolition or significant
site work The protective fencing and vegetation protection protocols shall remain in place
throughout the construction period or as otherwise allowed to be removed by the City Forester
Section 11 Sanitation District Requirements
Service is contingent upon compliance with the Districts rules regulations and specificationsliwhichareonfileattheDistrictofficeSinceanupgradedmainsanitarysewerlinewillbe
required to serve this new development a Line Relocation Request and a Collection System
Agreement will be required both of which are ACSD Board of Directors action items
Generally one tap is allowed for each building Shared service line agreements may be required
where more than one unit is served by a single service line
A wastewater flow study is required for this project to be funded by the Applicant The
Applicants engineer must provide the district an estimate of anticipated daily average and peak
flows from the project
If the study projects flows exceeding the planned reserve capacity of the existing collection
system or treatment system an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the
downstream collection system constraint the treatment capacity constraint or both constraints
Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of
concern in order to fund the improvements needed
Ordinance 28 Series 2011
Page 19 of 37
P295
IX.c
If the study projects flows exceeding the existing capacity of the current collection system or
treatment facility the development will be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire
portion of the system that would be overwhelmed In this case the District will fund the costs of
constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern only for the material cost difference for a
larger line The District will not approve a recapture provisions
The final design must provide enough room for all utilities in the redesign of Aspen street to
accommodate the main sanitary sewer line relocation according to ACSD specifications ACSD
will administer and construct the proposed new main sanitary sewer line in Aspen Street at the
developers expense The main sanitary sewer line relocation will have to be extended
approximately an additional 200 feet to the south to accommodate the upper traffic circle in
Aspen Street the Ski Companys on mountain sewer line and the service line for the Shadow
Mountain Condominiums When new service lines are required for existing development the old
service lines 3 must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to
specific ACSD requirements and prior to all soil stabilization activities
Onsite sanitary sewer utility plans require approval by ACSD Onsite drainage and
landscaping plans require approval by the district must accommodate ACSD service
requirements and comply with rules regulations and specifications Permanent improvements areprohibitedinareascoveredbysewereasementsorrightofwaystothelotlineofeach
development
Below grade development will require installation of a pumping system Plumbing plans for the
pool and spa areas require approval of the drain size by the district Glycol snowmelt and heating
systems must have containment provisions and must preclude discharge to the public sanitary
sewer system All clear water connections are prohibited roof foundation perimeter patio
drains including trench drains for the entrances to underground parking garages
Oil and Grease interceptors are required for all new and remodeled food processing
establishments Oil and Sand separators are required for public vehicle parking garages and
vehicle maintenance facilities The elevator drains must also be plumbed to the os interceptor
Plans for interceptors separators and containment facilities require submittal by the applicant
and approval prior to a building permit application
The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and requirements once detailed
building and utility plans are available All ACSD total connection fees must be paid prior to the
issuance of a building permit
Amendments to the above requirements agreed to in writing by the Applicant and the Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District shall supersede the sanitation requirements listed herein
Section 12 Requirements for Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy on Lift One Lodge
Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for Lift One Lodge the following
conditions must be met
a Completion of the improvements to Deane Street as described in the Final Plat PUD
Plans and Development Agreement An additional surety at twice the remaining
estimated costs of improvements may be accepted by the City to address timing issues
related to seasonal construction or other practical issues
Ordinance No 28 Series 2011
Page 20 of 37
P296
IX.c
b Approval and filing of a deed restriction for the affordable housing units located in the
Skier Chalet Steakhouse building
c Voluntary transfer of 1 10 of one percent undivided interest in the dormitory units on
Lot 2 to the City of Aspen to the extent determined necessary by the City Attorney
d Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the affordable housing units located in the
Skier Chalet Steakhouse building
e Completion of the Ski Museum building located on Lot 4 to a white box or shell
level of finish This shall be met either through issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
for the building or by completion of all structural utility gradingdrainage
access egress ADA fire protection and fenestration improvements covered by the
building permit and all exterior improvements required by the final HPC approval for the
Ski Museum
f Provision of employee housing for 1912 FTEs through the provision of housing units
within the Urban Growth Boundary including buy downs the provision of cash in lieu
at the rate applicable on the date of payment the provision of employee mitigation
credits for extinguishment or a combination thereof
g Provision of 600000 to be held in escrow by the City of Aspen for the eventual planned
installation of a surface ski lift aka platter lift with an expected terminal facility
located in Willoughby Park adjacent to the Skiers Chalet Steakhouse on Lot 2 and
taking skiers uphill to the existing or relocated Lift 1A terminal This 600000 shall be
held in a separate account that is specifically earmarked for a planned surface lift
connecting Willoughby Park and Lift 1A as presented in the application In the event
that there is not a surface lift installed within 5 years of the Certificate of Occupancy of
the Lift One Lodge upon agreement between the City Council and the Applicant such
funds may be made available for contribution to an alternative means of transporting
skiers from Willoughby Park to Lift 1 A
h The final application represented that the Lift One Lodge will meet specific energy
performance measures and commitments equivalent to LEED Gold certification Prior to
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Lift One Lodge a final tabulation certified
by the Project Architect and a Commissioning Report will be submitted that verifies each
of the components that were a part of the LEED Design Review noted in Section 6 were
completed as a part of the project This tabulation shall be presented to the Chief
Building Official for acceptance
i Provision of 62000 to the City for a sanding truck dedicated for winter maintenance of
South Aspen Street and a lump sum payment of 20000 for future sanding materials that
are unique to the site
Section 13 Willoughby Park Lift One Park Volleyball
The Parks Department and The City of Aspen appreciate the Applicants commitment to
contribute 150000 towards the relocation costs of the Willoughby Volleyball Courts Payment
of this shall represent the complete obligation of the Applicant regarding volleyball relocation
The City will decommission the volleyball court on Willoughby Park prior to or upon issuance
of an Access Infrastructure permit for Lot 4
Ordinance No 28 Series 2011
Page 21 of 37
P297
IX.c
Section 14 Environmental Health Department
The State of Colorado mandates specific mitigation requirements with regard to asbestos
Additionally code requirements to be aware of when filing a building permit include a
prohibition on engine idling regulation of fireplaces fugitive dust requirements noise abatement
and pool designs
Section 15 Water Department
The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards with Title 25 and
with the applicable standards of Title 8 Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code of
the Aspen Municipal Code as required by the City of Aspen Water Department UtilityppqY
placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards
Section 16 Outdoor Spaces
Outdoor terraces balconies decks trellised areas and the pool deck may have umbrellas
canopies awnings trellises fans portable or integrated heating elements and similar devices to
facilitate comfort and use of these exterior spaces These spaces shall not be enclosed with
temporary or permanent walls windows or otherwise enclosed as interior conditioned space
without an amendment to this approval
Section 17 Public Restaurant and Ayres Ski Deck
The final application has represented and provided assurance that the entirety of the restaurant
located on level 3 and a portion of the apres ski deck located on level 4 will be accessible to the
general public and will not be an owners only amenity This does not prohibit the applicant or
operator from limiting public access from time to time in the normal course of business This
obligation shall be memorialized in the Development Agreement Any changes that limit the
publics access to the publicly accessible portions of this amenity ie an owners only or
similarly restricted amenity shall require a substantial amendment of the PUD
Section 18 Skiers Chalet Steakhouse and Lodge Buildings
Prior to redevelopment the Skiers Chalet Steakhouse a designated historic landmark and the
Skiers Chalet Lodge proposed for reuse shall be maintained in a reasonable state of repair by
its owner Periodic access shall be afforded the Citys Historic Preservation staff to view the
condition of the buildings and to conduct follow up visits to ensure that the resources are not
becoming damaged through neglect
The Skiers Chalet Lodge and Skiers Chalet Steakhouse may continue to be utilized including
necessary upgrades as housing for working residents prior to relocation and redevelopment of
the buildings The continued temporary use as housing shall not affect a change in use in the
properties and shall not be subject to the Citys Housing Replacement Program All building and
fire codes must be met
Relocation and rehabilitation of these two structures and the old lift one stanchion within Lift
One Park shall be according to the allowances and limitations of the final Historic Preservation
Commission approvals
Upon fmal installation of the original Lift 1 stanchion within Lift One Park the official zone
district map shall be amended to reflect Lot 3 of the Lift One Lodge SubdivisionPUD and this
relocated structure as a designated historic landmark
Ordinance No 28 Series 2011
Page 22 of 37
P298
IX.c
Upon issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the relocated Skiers Chalet Steakhouse the
dormitory the official zone district map shall be amended to reflect Lot 2 of the Lift One Lodge
SubdivisionPUD and this relocated structure as a designated historic landmark
Upon issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the relocated Skiers Chalet Lodge the ski
museum the official zone district map shall be amended to reflect Lot 4 of the Lift One Lodge
SubdivisionPUD and this relocated structure as a designated historic landmark
Section 19 Development of Surface Lift Approved
The proposed future development construction operation and maintenance of a surface lift
aka platter lift through Lots 1 3 and 4 and other associated improvements necessary for
uploading skiers from Willoughby Park to a point south of Lot 1 such that a skier could access
Lift 1A or a relocated Lift 1A is hereby approved subject to a final review by the Community
Development Director for sighting of stanchions sighting of other necessary apparatus sighting
for safe alignment with Lift 1A confirmation of approval from the State Tramway Board and
the required reviews by the Historic Preservation Officer and the Building Department for
issuance of any permits required for its construction
Section 20 Condominiumization Approved
Condominiumization of units including the parking spaces to define separate ownership
interests within a Lot of the Lift One Lodge SubdivisionPUD is hereby approved by the City of
Aspen subject to recordation of a condominiumization plat in compliance with the current at
the time of condo plat submission plat requirements of the Citys Community Development
Department
Section 21 Amendments
Conversion of fractional lodge units to whole ownership residential units or non fractional lodge
units shall require a substantial amendment The conversion of whole ownership residential
units to fractional lodge units may be approved administratively
Section 22 Representations Preserved
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 Planning and Zoning
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
Section 23 Vested Rights
The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site specific development plan vested
for a period of five 5 years from the date of issuance of a development order However any
failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the
forfeiture of said vested property rights Unless otherwise exempted or extended failure to
properly submit all plats and agreements required to be recorded as specified herein within one
year of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said
vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section126104050VoidpermitsZoningthatisnotpartoftheapprovedsitespecificdevelopment
1 plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right
Ordinance No 28 Series 2011
Page 23 of 37
P299
IX.c
No later than fourteen 14 days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain
a development order as set forth in this Ordinance the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a
newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen a notice
advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a
vested property right pursuant to this Title Such notice shall be substantially in the following form
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan
and the creation of a vested property right valid for a period of five 5 years pursuant to the
Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24 Article 68 Colorado Revised Statutes
pertaining to the following described property Lift One Lodge SubdivisionPlanned Unit
Development located on property commonly known as 233 Gilbert Street 710 South Aspen
Street 720 South Aspen Street Willoughby Park and Lift One Park City of Aspen Pitkin
County Colorado as more fully described in City of Aspen City Council Ordinance No 28
Series 2011
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and
approvals required by this approval of the general rules regulations and ordinances or the City of
Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review the
period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the
date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section
26304070A The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado
Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter
Section 24
This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances
Section 25
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 26
That the City Clerk is directed upon the adoption of this Ordinance to record a copy of this
Ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder
Section 27
A public hearing on the Ordinance was held on the 26 day of September 2011 at 500 in the
City Council Chambers City hall 130 South Galena Street Aspen Colorado fifteen 15 days
prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general
circulation within the City of Aspen
Section 28
This ordinance shall become effective thirty 30 days following final adoption
Ordinance No 28 Series 2011
Page 24 of 37
P300
IX.c
INTRODUCED READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the CityCounciloftheCityofAspenonthe12dayofSeptember2011
Attest
4 4KathrynS1Ctyerk Michael C Ireland Mayor
FINALLY adopted passed and approved this 14 day of November 2011
Attest
Kathryn S lc i City Clerk ichae C Ireland Mayor
Approved as to form
n orcester City Attorney
ExhibitA Property Descriptions
Exhibit B Proposed Subdivision Map
Exhibit C Proposed Street VacationDedication Map
Exhibit D Proposed Illustrative Site Plan
Exhibit E Proposed Architectural Character Plan
Exhibit F Proposed Dimensional Allowances and Limitations
Exhibit G Proposed Heights
Exhibit H Design for Deane Street Skier Dropoff South Aspen Street
Ordinance No 28 Series 2011
Page 25 of 37
P301
IX.c
Exhibit A
Legal Descriptions
The subject property is generally located on the east side of South Aspen Street south of Deane
Street The subject property consists of five parcels and the rights of way to be vacated in
connection with this Application described as follows
Parcel A is legally described as Lots 1 2 13 and 14 Block 9 of the Eames Addition to the City
and Townsite of Aspen including the portion of the vacated alley between Lots 1 and 14 and the
west 20 feet of Lots 2 and 13 Parcel A is the former site of the Holland House Lodge which
was demolished in 2008
Parcel B is legally described as Lots 4 and 11 less the west twentytwo feet thereof and Lots 5
through 10 Block 9 of the Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen including the
portion of the vacated alley between said Lots Parcel B is currently the site of the Skiers Chalet
Lodge
Parcel C is legally described as Lots 12 13 and 14 Block 8 of the Eames Addition to the City
and Townsite of Aspen Parcel C is located adjacent to South Aspen Street on the north side of
Gilbert Street Parcel is currently the site of the Skiers Chalet Steak House
Parcel D is legally described as Lots 3 and 12 and the west 22 feet of Lots 4 and 11 Block 9 of
the Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen including a portion of the undeveloped
alley between said lots Parcel D is commonly known as Lift One Park and is owned by the City
of Aspen who has consented to the application
Parcel E is legally described as Lots 1 through 14 Block 7 and Lots 1 through 3 Block 8 of the
Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen including the undeveloped portion of Juan
Street between Blocks 7 and 8 and the undeveloped alley within Blocks 7 and 8 Parcel E is
commonly known as Willoughby Park and is owned by the City of Aspen who has consented to
the application and is leased in whole to the Aspen Historical Society who has consented to the
application
The following is a summary of the street vacations and dedications associated with the Lift 1
Lodge proposal
Vacation of the eastern 375 feet of the South Aspen Street right ofway from the
centerline of the Hill Street right ofway north to the southern edge of the Deane Street
right ofway
Dedication to public rightofway an area within the northwest portion of the proposed
Lot 4 Willoughby Park associated with the proposed turnaround and drop off area at
the comer of South Aspen and Deane Streets The final design and exact dimensions of
this dedication shall be as depicted and described in the Subdivision Plat
Vacation of the northern 25 feet of Hill Street east of the centerline of South Aspen Street
to the eastern boundary of the Eames Addition That portion of vacated Hill Street
abutting proposed Lot 3 shall be conveyed by the City of Aspen to the Applicant to be
incorporated into proposed Lot 1
Ordinance No 28 Series 2011
Page26of37
P302
IX.c
Vacation of the remaining dedicated portions of the alleyway of Block 9 Eames
Addition
Vacation of a Utility and Alleyway Easement encumbering the eastern 10 feet of Lot 2
Block 9 Eames Addition recorded at Book 203 Page 375
Vacation of Gilbert Street rightofway from the eastern edge of the South Aspen StreetgYgP
right ofway east to a line extending south from the boundary between Lots 11 and 12 of
Block 8 and connecting to the boundary between Lots 3 and 4 of Block 9 Eames
Addition
Vacation of the Juan Street rightofway east of the South Aspen Street right ofway toYp
the eastern boundary of the Eames Addition
Vacation of the alleyway of Block 8 Eames Addition That portion of the vacated
alleyway abutting proposed Lot 1 shall be conveyed by the Applicant to the City to be
incorporated into proposed Lot 4
Vacation of the alleyway of Block 7 Eames Addition
Vacation or extinguishment of an easement for skiing purposes assigned to the City by
the Aspen Skiing Company in connection with the conveyance of Lift One Park which
affects a portion of Parcel B part of proposed Lot 1
Ordinance No 28 Series 2011
Page 27 of 37
P303
IX.c
Exhibit B
Proposed Subdivision Map
Z
R
it 1 a EE
O t a
z I 1i o
u t 0 a
y ti a d y ioda
H I d u cOm
W 1332118 I WWf1S dq9 a e 2 2Y
1 W
tg
cn
U I I 410s
14311V j J j J
01
E
cIIIE
133a1S11IH I PI
i 1 o
a
I IFNo gal o cz
I
1 z
L L
I a
0
1 I W
W W W013a1S1a3a11020OOJZ1IW
K 0NWi1Zz
11 W1 d
z
I r i HIo
133211SNVflf I I
0 id oamoJI2izW
LL G W WIJZa2rSAZ
a
I 0W
z
I B
I
13381S 3NY30
il
W W
l
J I
HNOb
Ordinance No 28 Series 2011
Page 28 of 37
P304
IX.c
Exhibit C
Proposed Street VacationDedication Map
ir1CI3d2alC02
i 0
Ii
ii g
cn
i i 8 a Z5bA
i 00i11111ie
i ii ii I i g 1 1 cDiINiixrs0
1 2 2 2 2
1 1i 0 5 1 i i IllatE1
11 Itri 11 4r 44
1 r Lj
ta71
iaf1c
41sT
e
i 51 51 422jli1isq
I i
GRAM STKET
c1 it
1 il5
i i
i
1 t1iOlafPdiEmaltiEalvuipNa11i1i7L744L414ii
r eilit 1 i11aii
Viltat giV427 a br4 i
e 14017015 OA LiVrd 1 II
1
I p 0115 i
i a g Iiqfpiiz
1 I
I1
CallEIMUT EE 1teE e
1 i L
h II i fm
il1i1
a LP
M
Ordinance No 28 Series 2011
Page 29 of 37
P305
IX.c
Exhibit D
Illustrative Plan
sPSI
pr
ilkii
max
Iii Tr11L1
i r L 1
O
I rib
ra LO
sW2rr
111 1
171AI i
aa rrsr
MPPr l l
sil 5 1
I 1
p
Y
1 I I
4erL 411 siI
1 441 snwr
ow Corr I hi scrrrN
is
Mei
1 T N 7 i
Joxrr arnrii1JLIFO
Stibdivi
ILLUSTRP
Ordinance No 28 Series 2011
Page 30 of 37
P306
IX.c
Exhibit E
Approved Architecture
r
rte
r
q1 M2
ii Vie
sg
IF risffts
or tiolAgaw
West Elevation of West Win
i Alliillii
0 I 4 4
I
iiizis O
Vice of Lodge from southwest
it
1 1
1 1 ii
11 1eIf7N
d Ill
Representative Architectural Floor Plan of Lodge Unit and Lock Offs
Ordinance No 28 Series 2011
Page 31 of 37
P307
IX.c
Exhibit F
Approved Dimensions
Dimensional Requirement Proposed Standard Lodge Zone District
Requirements
Lift One Lodge Lot 1
Minimum Lot Size 41258 sq ft 3000 sq ft
Lot Area for Density 19296 Site Specific
Lot Area for Floor Area 38954 Site Specific
Lodge Unit Density Standard 537 sq ft of lot area per unit See Note Below
Minimum Lot Area per 3859 sq ft 3000 sq ft
dwelling Unit free market
Minimum Required Lot Area 19296 sq ft 15000 sq ftsqft
Minimum Lot Width 265 ft 30 ft
Minimum Front Yard Setback East Wing 1 ft 5WestWing4ft
East Wing North 1 ft
East Wing South 1 ft
Minimum Side Yard Setback 5
West Wing North 2 ft
West Wing South 3 ft
Minimum Rear Yard Setback East Wing 12 ft 5WestWing1ft
Maximum Height Per height plan as represented Sloped Roofs 38 Ft
in Exhibit G Flat Roofs 42 Ft
Floor Area Ratio
Lodge Units 1161 or Lodge Units 21 or 75848
Ordinance No 28 Series 2011
Page 32 of 37
P308
IX.c
Dimensional Requirement Proposed Standard Lodge Zone District
Requirements
45129 sq ft sq ft
Commercial Uses 0151 or Commercial Uses 0251 or
5698 sq ft 9481 sq ft
Non Unit Space 0311 or Non Unit Space 051 or
12206 sq ft 18962 sq ft
Free Market Residential Free Market Residential
Units 17 of total lodge Units 25 or 19252
floor area or 13108 sq ft Total 251 or 97385 sq ft
Total 195 or 76141 sqft
Pedestrian Amenity Space No Requirement No Requirement
Lodge Units 42 Spaces Lodge Units 05 SpacesUnit
Commercial Uses 6 Spaces Commercial Uses 1
Space 1000 Sq Ft Net
Free Market Residential 5 Leasable
Spaces
Residential Uses 1
Project Parking Affordable Housing Units 8 SpaceUnit
Spaces
Public Parking 50 Spaces
Lodge Members 44 Spaces
Other 8 Spaces
Skiers Chalet Steak House Affordable Housing Lot 2
Minimum Lot Size 3562 sq ft Established via PUD
Lot Area for Density None See Note Below
Lot Area for Floor Area 3562 See Note Below
Minimum Lot Area per 445 sq ft 8 Units Established via PUDDwellingUnit
Minimum Lot Width 95 ft Established via PUD
Ordinance No 28 Series 2011
Page 33 of 37
P309
IX.c
Dimensional Requirement Proposed Standard Lodge Zone District
Requirements
Minimum Front Yard Setback 5 ft Established via PUD
Minimum Side Yard Setback North Side Yard 10 ft Established via PUDSouthSideYard30ft
Minimum Rear Yard Setback None Established via PUD
Maximum Height 33 ft Established via PUD
0891 or 3184sq ft Established via PUD
Floor Area ratio
Pedestrian Amenity Space Remainder of lot Established via PUD
Aspen Historical Society Museum and Willoughby Park Lot 4
Minimum Lot Size 41918 sq ft Established via PUD
Minimum Lot Width 190 ft Established via PUD
Minimum Front Yard Setback 50 ft Established via PUD
Minimum Side Yard Setback East Side Yard 20 ft Established via PUDWestSideYard125ft
Minimum Rear Yard Setback 25 ft Established via PUD
Maximum Height 31 ft Established via PUD
0101 or 4400 sq ft Established via PUD
Floor Area ratio
Pedestrian Amenity Space Remainder of lot Established via PUD
li Notes
Lodge Unit Size Standard The Applicant is requesting a Special Review for the average
lodge unit size
Ordinance No 28 Series 2011
Page 34 of 37
P310
IX.c
Dimensional Requirement Proposed Standard Lodge Zone District
Requirements
Floor Area Ratio Lots 1 2 and 4 For the purposes of calculating a Floor Area Ratio on1Lots12and4thatmoreaccuratelyrepresentsthenumericalrelationshipbetweenland
area and floor area the area of vacated rights of way have not been deducted from Lot
Area This calculation is not intended to modify the definition of Lot Area as set forth
in the Land Use Code
Pedestrian Amenity This site is outside of the area requiring pedestrian amenity space
Project Parking The project parking section of this table reflects the entire project not
just Lot 1
Maximum Height The heights for the Skiers Chalet Steakhouse Affordable Housing
and Aspen Historical Society are taken from the ridge of the roof
Floor Area Ratio Lot 4 This includes both the Museum and pool house
Ordinance No 28 Series 2011
Page 35 of 37
P311
IX.c
Exhibit G
Height Representations
4200 ft
7 5600ft 7 4690ft
4390 ft
3700 ft c
r
420ft
I 1 ir IrIfI
Heights West Wing
3850 ft
3950 ft
4440 ft
40 ft
ikfI1Pig1I
1
ig
IN 1 3775 f I 4350 ftm
1 ace ii 7 mil LI 1i r
emu ll gym t111
Heights East Wing
Ordinance No 28 Series 2011
Page 36 of 37
P312
IX.c
Exhibit H
Skier Drop Off Area
Deane Street So Aspen St
1
1 I
1 I I
COA TYPICAL h
30 Ce
5 1 CQq SPILL
DETACHED 5 I I I TYPE CSC
SIDEWALK sync
ki 1 T r 1CckZQ12J9S
h DO NOT
i SOH 5
4 a ASPEN i al295uMkSTREET
f
ATTACHED
GRAPHIC SCALE I sioEx
0 SO W 1C
I a FEET
1 inch 30 ft
ObN 1 B w 6n 9war5u 200
7lonsSCHMGORDON1MEYERrGc0009aasCoonporcaeo
970 ws 100 FAX ro701 9s594e
UR Coe aOdQI 16 ENGINEERS I SURVEYORS AIM C0 ro7
FA
OAA0 019250727
Revision DE E7dM0
Guw64 CO 1970 64 5355
1
Ordinance No 28 Series 2011
Page 37 of 37
P313
IX.c