HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.special.20230919AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
September 19, 2023
6:00 PM, City Council Chambers
I.Call to Order
II.Roll Call
III.Public Hearing
IV.Adjourn
Zoom
Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android device:
Please click this URL to join. https://us06web.zoom.us/j/89485330390?
pwd=CvfoCZUyepbxpsIaXeTU2bcz7iVAji.1
Passcode: 81611
Or join by phone:
Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
US: +1 719 359 4580
Webinar ID: 894 8533 0390
Passcode: 81611
International numbers available: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kb8eXb8n3e
Continued Public Hearing
Lumberyard Affordable Housing Planned Development
Ordinance #10, Series of 2023
Memo_9_19_23_Ordinance 10.pdf
Exhibit A_Original_Ordinance No. 10_Series of 2023.pdf
Exhibit B_Redlines_Ordinance No. 10_Series of 2023_.pdf
Exhibit C_All Public Comments Received Up To 9.15.pdf
1
1
2
2
Ordinance #10, Series of 2023
Lumberyard Affordable Housing Project
Staff Memo, 9/19/23
Page 1 of 8
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Torre and Aspen City Council
FROM: Sara Ott, City Manager
Ben Anderson, Community Development, Deputy Director
Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney
Kevin Rayes, Community Development, Principal Planner
MEMO DATE: September 15, 2023
MEETING DATE: September 19, 2023
RE: Second Reading, Lumberyard Affordable Housing Project
Continued Public Hearing from September 12, 2023
Request of Council
Sept 19, 2023, during a Special Meeting, will be a continuation of the public hearing on Ordinance 10-
2023, Planned Unit Development (PD) proposal for the Lumberyard Affordable Housing Project. On
September 12th, Council considered public comment and then began deliberation on Ordinance #10 and
discussed and voted on possible amendments. Staff used the memo from September 12th as the basis for
this memo – but eliminated some of the content to focus discussion and consideration on topics that had
not yet been addressed. Council is asked to continue this discussion and debate and provide direction on
the remaining topics and identify any topics that that should be addressed prior to consideration of a revised
Ordinance #10.
Currently Identified Debate Areas
Over the summer, the Council utilized additional work session time to work through a number of
considerations regarding the Lumberyard Affordable Housing Project. In these discussions, the Council
identified majority interest in debate areas for the
1. Density, Mass, Scale, and Height and Site Planning
a. Adjustments or amendment to the photovoltaic system.
b. Adjustment or amendments to the berming/sound walls near HWY 82.
2. Unit Mix and Unit Category
a. Unit Mix (1, 2, 3 bedrooms), including possible minimum and maximums.
b. Unit Categories/AMI to be served.
c. Consideration of Resident Occupied (deed restricted) or Market Rate Units.
3. Phasing of Construction of Buildings and rental/ownership structures
a. Adjustment or removal of building phasing plan.
3
Ordinance #10, Series of 2023
Lumberyard Affordable Housing Project
Staff Memo, 9/19/23
Page 2 of 8
b. Building 3 requirement to sell after 10 years of rental occupancy.
4. Use
a. Consideration of any portion of the project for commercial use.
The following reflects staff’s understanding of the conversation and direction that Council
has provided on these topics at the September 12th meeting. In some circumstances, staff
upon further analysis of the proposed amendments, has provided additional questions and
recommendations.
Dimensional Standards - Density, Mass, Scale, and Height
Revised Dimensional Table – Section 3
Council, tentatively agreed to the following revised Dimensional Table:
Planned Development Dimensional Standards
Standard Approved Dimension
Total Number of Dwelling Units
Building #1
Building #2
Building #3
Minimum of 277; Maximum of 304
Minimum of 94; Maximum of 114
Minimum of 82; Maximum of 100
Minimum of 74; Maximum of 90
Maximum Building Height 1 49 ft
Parapet Height 5 ft.
Roof Projections 2 Up to a maximum of 7 ft. above parapet
Renewable Energy Roof Projections Up to a maximum of 15 ft. above parapet
Total Maximum Gross Floor Area 3
Building #1
Building #2
Building #3
531,211 sq. ft.
206,073 sq. ft. +/- 10%
164,484 sq. ft. +/- 10%
160,654 sq. ft. +/- 10%
Parking Units 1.57:1 Parking Units per Dwelling Unit 4
Setbacks As established by elements located in the Site Plan. To
accommodate approved project elements, 0 (zero) ft.
setbacks are allowed and may be necessary.
1 As measured from finished floor of 1st floor elevation to top of parapet.
2 Includes all roof top elements unrelated to renewable energy equipment.
3 Gross Floor Area is measured to exterior face of exterior walls and centerline of any demising walls. The total Gross
Floor Area for the project and for each building additionally includes gross area of all patios and balconies. The
stated Total Gross Floor Area and for each building also includes 2% above the area included in the approved floor
plans to account for any technical changes as the project moves to building permit.
4 The Parking Units per Dwelling Unit ratio may decrease to 1.54:1 to accommodate the removal of up to 10 parallel
parking spaces adjacent to Building 1 to allow for the re-alignment of the AABC trail as described in Section 13
below. The Parking Units per dwelling unit may be further reduced in response to changes in unit number or unit
mix.
4
Ordinance #10, Series of 2023
Lumberyard Affordable Housing Project
Staff Memo, 9/19/23
Page 3 of 8
***Three staff questions/suggestions following reflection on Council discussion and the
proposed changes:
1) It may be prudent to establish a minimum number of on-site parking spaces. In staff’s
view, it might alleviate neighborhood concerns about added flexibility related to unit
number and unit mix – if a minimum amount of on-site parking spaces were
established.
2) If Council decides to include Resident Occupied (RO) units within the Category Mix,
staff would recommend including a maximum unit size dimension. In the RMF Zone
District, maximum unit size is 2,500 sf and can be expanded up to 3,000 sf with the
landing of TDRs. To prevent an allocation of project’s floor area to the RO units that
is disproportional to the Category Units, staff believes establishing a maximum unit
size would be prudent. APCHA’s minimum unit size for a 3BR is 1,200 sf. Staff would
recommend a maximum unit size of no larger than 1,500 sf.
3) Staff is fully supportive of the unit number flexibility that was proposed and negotiated.
However, upon further reflection, staff is not supportive of the flexibility proposed to the
Building Floor Areas. In staff’s view, the floor areas initially proposed are consistent
with the building footprints, number of stories, and maximum height. Changing floor
area – even minimally would likely translate into needed amendments to other
dimensions. It should also be noted that the maximum gross floor area as initially
proposed already includes a 2% flexibility above what is measured in the approved
floor plans.
Site Planning
Council tentatively agreed to the addition of a new Section 13 that includes the following language in its
entirety:
Section 13: Alignment of the AABC Trail and Related Landscaping and Sound Attenuation
Features.
The alignment of the AABC trail and the design of related site and landscaping features as proposed and
depicted is approved. However, as the project moves toward construction documents, for the purposes of:
improving sound attenuation, pedestrian and bicycle safety and comfort, snow storage capacity, and
aesthetics of the project as viewed from Highway 82, design flexibility is granted in the following areas:
• Adjustments to the alignment of the trail are allowed in accomplishing any or all of
the purposes stated above. Changes to the alignment can be proposed both on
property and in the CDOT right-of-way.
• Landscape retaining walls, to assist with any berming and sound attenuation along
the trail, whether located in a setback or not, are allowed up to a maximum height
of five feet from finished grade. If more than five feet of height for retainage is
necessary, retaining walls can be used in a staggered or stepped fashion, but no
individual retaining wall shall be greater than 5 feet in height.
• Sound attenuation walls or structures are allowed along AABC trail in association
with Buildings 1 and 3. Walls or structures shall not be greater than 20 feet from the
5
Ordinance #10, Series of 2023
Lumberyard Affordable Housing Project
Staff Memo, 9/19/23
Page 4 of 8
finished grade of the AABC trail. Such walls or structures may contain public art.
Walls or structures shall not extend beyond the property line.
• Final trail alignment and planting plan for vegetation along the trail, at grade, in
berms, or in planters, shall be reviewed by City Parks Staff (and CDOT, as
necessary) prior to building permit submission.
• Parking, approved along the frontage road in front of Building 1, may be reduced by
up to ten spaces, to accommodate an alternative alignment of the AABC trail, and
any necessary changes to adjacent landscaping.
Final design of the alignment of the AABC trail and related landscaping and sound attenuation features
shall be included in the submitted Final PUD Plans and Subdivision Plat identified in Section 5, above, and
shall be recorded prior to the submission of a building permit for the completion of Phase 0.
***Staff has no additional comments or recommendations related to this proposed change.
Unit Mix and Category Mix
Council had discussed and was considering these proposed changes when the item was continued. A
vote to include these changes had not yet been taken. Staff has identified a few minor changes and
considerations.
Revised Section 6: Growth Management
A. Growth Management Allotments. This approval grants up to a maximum of 304, Residential –
Affordable Housing Development Allotments.
B. Unit Mix. Sheet A003 – Unit Type and Module Matrix; depicts the approved Unit Mix (proportion
of 1BR, 2BR, and 3BR units) and distribution of the module types (unit layout variations) as
depicted in the application.
i. Final Unit Mix for each building does have flexibility as the project moves toward
construction as long as the Total Number of Units across the entire project is not reduced
below 277, or exceed 304, nor are units counts of any of the individual buildings reduced
below the minimum or exceed the maximum number of units as depicted in Section 3.
Additionally, the final unit mix shall not cause the project to exceed the Maximum Gross
Floor Area in total, or by building as depicted in Section 3.
ii. While the module types as depicted in the application are approved, final unit layouts can be
modified as long as the units continue to meet all provisions of APCHA Affordable Housing
Development Policy, particularly in relationship to unit size standards.
iii. Final determination of Unit Mix and unit layout shall be evaluated during building permit
review for conformance with the dimensions established this Ordinance and any applicable
requirements from APCHA or the Land Use Code.
6
Ordinance #10, Series of 2023
Lumberyard Affordable Housing Project
Staff Memo, 9/19/23
Page 5 of 8
C. Category / AMI (Area Median Income) Mix.
i. The project shall be 100% deed restricted affordable housing, with an approved
income/Category mix across all three buildings that reflects the following:
• 15% of units should serve households at or below 50% AMI (APCHA Category 1)
• 34% of units should serve households from 50 to 85% AMI (APCHA Category 2)
• 33% of units should serve households from 85 to 130% AMI (APCHA Category 3)
• 13% of units should serve households from 130 to 205% AMI (APCHA Category 4)
• 5% of units should serve households from 205 to 240% AMI (APCHA Category 5)
• Deed-Restricted Resident Occupied (RO) units may also be included within the overall
project’s Category / AMI Mix. In no case should the total number of RO units exceed more
than 5% of any individual building’s total unit count. If Resident Occupied Units are
included, other Categories shall be reduced pro-rata to include the RO units. Any RO units
included in this project may be exempted from APCHA rental rate restrictions for RO units.
Should RO units be included the project, they would be identified and defined in a
development agreement and the eventual deed restrictions will need to reflect any necessary
modifications to APCHA’s standard deed restriction.
ii. Aspen City Council reserves the right to amend this income mix as needed. Changes can be
made at Council discretion – and could be enacted by Resolution or in another format in
providing direction to the City Manager.
iii. Should flexibility related to Category / AMI Mix from the approved mix be desired as the
project moves toward construction, in all cases, final determination of Category /AMI Mix
shall be established prior to the recordation of deed restrictions and the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for a specific building.
iv. Should the City enter into a partnership with a private sector development, the Category /
AMI mix for any units connected to the partnership shall be established within a
development agreement in a form and with content satisfactory to the City Attorney.
v. Any units designated to serve households at or below 50% AMI or APCHA Category 1
should be deed restricted as 50 to 85% AMI or APCHA Category 2 and should include a
priority for households with incomes at or below 50% AMI or APCHA Category 1. In the
event the Category 1 priority is exercised, Category 1 rent, or otherwise rent commensurate
with 30% of income, should be charged. In the event that the Category 1 priority is not
exercised, then Category 2 rent may be charged.
vi. City Council reserves the right to set priorities within the pool of applicants for the units in
this project. Any Council direction on prioritization could be enacted by Resolution or in
another format in providing direction to the City Manager. However, absent any further and
specific direction on prioritization, in the initial lease-up of any project phase, the longest
Pitkin County work history should not be used to prioritize applicants. For turnover of units
after initial lease up of any project phase, the use of work history shall be subject to APCHA’s
Employee Housing Regulations.
7
Ordinance #10, Series of 2023
Lumberyard Affordable Housing Project
Staff Memo, 9/19/23
Page 6 of 8
vii. In any phase up to 10% fewer Category 1 priority units may be included, including flexibility
to eliminate all Category 1 priority multibedroom units. Also, in any phase, Category 2- and
3-unit quantities may be modified by plus or minus 10%, and up to 10% more Category 4
and 5 units may be included.
viii. The City of Aspen reserves the right to develop partnerships with area employers, to create
master lease agreements with area employers, or to facilitate agreements among area
employers and potential private developer operators, to include master lease agreements,
rights of first use and/or blanket leases.
ix. The City of Aspen additionally reserves the right to include additional affordability
restrictions, such as the potential for Colorado Housing Finance Authority (CHFA)
restrictions related to the potential use of low-income housing tax credits for funding
purposes or like programs. As part of any state or federal restrictions, the income categories
may be further broken down to a more detailed level of granularity for compliance with such
programs.
***STAFF DISCUSSION:
1) Upon further analysis and review of definitions in the Land Use Code, staff (ComDev and City
Attorney) believe that the inclusion of RO units as discussed on September 12th – with an
exemption from APCHA’s maximum rental rates – would be considered affordable housing
units per the LUC. This may alleviate some of the concerns that were raised during Council
discussion. However, staff has not evaluated if the inclusion of these types of units would have
any deleterious effects on the project related to eligibility for grants or other State or Federal
programs.
2) Staff has proposed some refinement of the language related to the RO units to bring additional
clarity to the topic. See highlighted language above.
***POSSIBLE MOTION: I move to include the proposed, revised Section 6: Growth Management as
depicted above.
Council has not yet discussed or debated any of the topics below.
Phasing
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.304.080.d, Development Orders, development rights for a property
can be granted for a maximum of ten years. The proposed application contemplates development of the
Lumberyard in four phases. Phase Zero consists of demolition of existing structures and the buildout out
of basic infrastructure improvements and utilities. The remaining phases – Phases One through Three –
consist of constructing Buildings One through Three respectively. The current draft ordinance allows for
the buildout of phases simultaneously as resources allow.
If Council is interested in seeking additional flexibility related to the buildout of phases, entitlements can
be redefined to allow for phases to be developed in no specific order. (Staff does recommend completing
phase zero in its entirety before pursuing subsequent phases.) Most of the detail on phasing is included in
drawings, rather than in the text of the Ordinance.
8
Ordinance #10, Series of 2023
Lumberyard Affordable Housing Project
Staff Memo, 9/19/23
Page 7 of 8
Revised Section 4: Phasing of Development and Vested Rights Approval
A. Phasing. Development of the project is contemplated in four phases:
Phase 0 – Demolition, Infrastructure and Road System
Phase 1 – Building 1
Phase 2 – Building 2
Phase 3 – Building 3
Phases may be developed independently or simultaneously as resources allow or
partnerships require. Other than Phase 0, which is necessary to initiate the project, Phases 1
through 3 do not need to be completed in any particular order.
B. Vested Rights. Ten (10) years of vested rights is approved to accommodate flexibility in the
phasing and timing of the project.
***POSSIBLE MOTION: I move to include the Revised Section 4: Phasing of Development and Vested
Rights Approval as depicted above.
Phase 3 (Building 3) – and Condominiumization
Flexibility related to the eventual fate of Building 3 (as it relates to rental v. ownership) was part of Council
discussion. As proposed, the units would eventually become ownership units. Granting flexibility in this
area could be resolved with the simple change of the word “shall” to “may”.
***POSSIBLE MOTION: I move to change the “shall” to “may” in Section 8, Paragraph 1. AND
add “If a condominiumization of Building 3 is proposed, a condominium map in
compliance…” to the beginning of Section 8, Paragraph 2. AND
add ““If a condominiumization of Building 3 is proposed…” to the beginning of
Section 8, Paragraph 3.
Commercial Conditional Use
If Council desires to allow for commercial use as a possibility as the project evolves, it would be important
to establish that now. Language could be added to give direction to this topic – in limiting the use to a
particular parcel and in determining who the eventual reviewer of a conditional use would be. In the LU
code, conditional uses are reviewed by P&Z commissioners, but Council could alternatively establish
Council as the review board within Ordinance #10.
Staff heard a majority of Council provide support for further debate related establishing commercial use as
a Conditional Use on Parcel 4. If this were to be agreed to by a majority, new language would need to be
established.
A new Section for Ordinance #10
Section 14 – Conditional Use
9
Ordinance #10, Series of 2023
Lumberyard Affordable Housing Project
Staff Memo, 9/19/23
Page 8 of 8
Commercial Use shall be established as a Conditional Use on Parcel #4 only. Should a Commercial Use
be proposed, Planning and Zoning Commission shall review a specific commercial use proposal under the
process and review criteria established in 26.425, Conditional Uses – as amended from time to time.
***POSSIBLE MOTION: I move to add a new Section 14 – Conditional Use, with the language proposed
above.
Alternatively, Council could be identified as the review authority on a conditional use proposal.
Mountain Rescue Aspen
Per comments made during the public hearing on September 12th, staff asks Council to consider the
addition of a new section that calls out the relationship of the Lumberyard project to Mountain Rescue
Aspen – particularly related to issues of vehicle access and the continuity of utility service.
Proposed Language – a New Section 16
Section 15 – Mountain Rescue Aspen
The City of Aspen and any potential development partners shall continue to work with Mountain Rescue
Aspen (MRA) throughout the stages of the development of the project to ensure that the operations of
MRA are not undermined or diminished. This includes throughout the stages of construction and by the
completed project. Particular attention should be given to issues of access and continuity of utility service.
An agreement, in a form to be mutually agreed to by the City and MRA, shall be executed prior to the
issuance of a building permit. This agreement shall:
• Define a plan to ensure vehicle access and utility service during construction.
• Define the relationship of the final design of the new intersection with MRA’s access needs.
• Identify any necessary access easements.
• Define any allowed ancillary use of Lumberyard parking by MRA during emergencies or
other events where MRA may need additional parking capacity.
• Provide a process for resolution of any conflicts that may emerge.
***Proposed Motion: I move to include a new section 15 as described in the language provided.
CONCLUSION:
This memo is the product of staff efforts to summarize areas for additional discussion. Additionally, it
contains proposals for possible responses in the Ordinance to arrive at a project with more flexibility as it
progresses toward construction. It important to note that the proposals for amendments to Ordinance #10
are just that – proposals. There are likely numerous paths within the Ordinance to arrive at Council desired
outcomes. Staff will be ready to discuss alternatives to the proposals as Council’s discussion progresses.
EXHIBITS:
A – Original Version of Ordinance #10, Series of 2023
B – Redline Version of Ordinance #10 that includes amendments as discussed by Council on 9/12.
C – New public comments received since 9/5.
10
Council Ordinance #10, Series of 2023
Page 1 of 8
ORDINANCE #10
(SERIES OF 2023)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A MAJOR PUBLIC
PROJECT REVIEW, AMENDMENTS TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP, A
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT – PROJECT REVIEW AND DETAILED REVIEW, MAJOR
SUBDIVISION, PARKING & TRANSPORTATION REVIEW, AND GROWTH
MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR LOT 3, COMMUNICATIONS SUBDIVISION,
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED OCTOBER 3, 1988, IN PLAT
BOOK 21 AT PAGE 34, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 105 WOODWARD LANE (AKA THE
MINI-STORAGE FACILITY); LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1, ASPEN AIRPORT BUSINESS
CENTER, FILING NO. 1, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREFOR RECORDED IN
PLAT BOOK 7 AT PAGE 79. LESS THAT STRIP OF LAND CONVEYED IN QUIT
CLAIM DEED RECORDED SEPTEMBER 25, 1984, IN BOOK 474 AT PAGE 1,
COMMONLY KNOWN AS 38005 CO-82 (AKA THE LUMBERYARD/BUILDERS FIRST
SOURCE PROPERTY); AND LOT 1D, FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT OF LOT 1A,
BURLINGAME RANCH, ACCORDING TO THE FINAL PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED
JANUARY 31, 2023, IN PLAT BOOK 135 AT PAGE 25 (AKA THE TRIANGLE PARCEL).
Parcel ID: 2735-031-02-003, 2735-031-01-802, 2735-031-01-801, and 2735-031-00-805
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the City
of Aspen, 427 Rio Grande Pl. Aspen, CO 81611 c/o Sara Ott, City Manager (Applicant), requesting
approval for the following land use review approvals:
• Major Public Project Review pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.500; and
• Amendments to Official Zone District Map (Rezoning) pursuant to Land Use Code
Section 26.310; and
• Major Subdivision pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480; and
• Planned Development – Project Review and Detailed Review pursuant to Land Use
Code Section 26.445; and
• Transportation & Parking Management pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.515;
and
• Growth Management Review pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470; and,
WHEREAS, the application for development proposes:
• 277 affordable housing units in three buildings
o 129 one-bedroom units
o 106 two-bedroom units
o 42 three-bedroom units
• 435 on-site parking spaces; and,
11
Council Ordinance #10, Series of 2023
Page 2 of 8
WHEREAS, the application contemplates development of a childcare center on Parcel 4 in
the future, triggering additional land use reviews in accordance with the applicable provisions of
Title 26 at the time of the request; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed development has been informed by months of public outreach and
feedback from open houses, City Council work sessions, and pop-up events; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application for
compliance with the applicable review standards; and,
WHEREAS, the Development Review Committee, consisting of the Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District, City Engineering, the Building Department, the Environmental Health
Department, the Parks Department, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, and the Utilities
Department provided referral comments to the Community Development Department; and,
WHEREAS, on May 3, 2023, during a duly noticed public hearing, the City of Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission approved Resolution #04, Series of 2023, recommending approval of the
request for Major Public Project Review, Amendments to Official Zone District Map, Planned
Development – Project Review and Detailed Review, Major Subdivision, Transportation and
Parking Management and Growth Management Review; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the request 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
comments at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council reviewed the application at a regular meeting on May
23rd, 2023 and approved Ordinance 10, Series of 2023 in a _ to _ (_ to _) vote at First Reading;
and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council reviewed the application at a regular meeting on
_________, 2023, and approved Ordinance #10, Series of 2023 in a _ to _ (_ to _) to approve the
request; 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 RESOLVED, THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVES
THE FOLLOWING:
Section 1: Rezoning:
The Mini-Storage and Lumberyard properties are currently located within the
Service/Commercial/Industrial (S/C/I) zone district and the undeveloped ‘Triangle Parcel’ is
12
Council Ordinance #10, Series of 2023
Page 3 of 8
located within the Conservation (C) and Rural Residential (RR) zone district. The subject parcels
are hereby rezoned to Multi-Family Residential (R/MF) with a Planned Development Overlay.
Section 2: Subdivision:
Currently the subject land area consists of four lots within the City’s municipal boundary. The lots
shall be reconfigured into ten parcels with a neighborhood street network providing unobstructed
vehicular access to each parcel. Upon dedication of the street network, the existing access easement
(Reception No. 692896) shall be vacated.
A final Development Agreement shall be drafted by the City pursuant to Land Use Code Section
26.490 and filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days of this approval.
Section 3: Planned Development Dimensional Standards:
Three buildings shall be developed with the following dimensional standards:
PD Dimensional Standards Contemplated for Multi-Family Dwellings
(Dimensional standards apply cumulatively to all three dwellings)
Standard Dimensions
Number of dwelling Units 277 Units
Maximum Building Height 1 49 ft.
Roof Projections2 Up to 7 ft. above parapet
Renewable Energy Roof Projections Up to 15 ft. from point of attachment
Gross Floor Area 531,211 sq. ft.
Parking Units 1.57:1 Parking Units per Dwelling Unit
Setbacks Represented on Final PUD Plans
1. As measured from finished floor elevation to top of parapet.
2. Includes all improvements unrelated to renewable energy equipment.
Section 4: Phasing of Development and Vested Rights Approval:
Development of the project is contemplated in four phases. Ten years of vested rights is approved
to accommodate phasing. Phases may be developed independently or simultaneously (as resources
allow).
Section 5: Final PUD Plans and Subdivision Plats:
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.090, Documents & Deadlines, the Applicant shall
prepare and submit a Subdivision/PUD agreement to the Community Development Department.
within one hundred eighty (180) days following the date of final approval. Community
Development staff shall work with the Applicant to finalize and record documents. Building
permits may be applied for, but not issued prior to recording the documents described herein.
13
Council Ordinance #10, Series of 2023
Page 4 of 8
Section 6: Growth Management:
The project shall be 100% deed restricted affordable housing, with the income mix shown below
and with additional conditions also described:
• 15% of units should serve households at or below 50% AMI or APCHA Category 1
• 34% of units should serve households from 50 to 85% AMI or APCHA Category 2
• 33% of units should serve households from 85 to 130% AMI or APCHA Category 3
• 13% of units should serve households from 130 to 205% AMI or APCHA Category 4
• 5% of units should serve households from 205 to 240% AMI or APCHA Category 5
14
Council Ordinance #10, Series of 2023
Page 5 of 8
Additional Conditions and Flexibility:
• Any units designated to serve households at or below 50% AMI or APCHA Category 1
should be deed restricted as 50 to 85% AMI or APCHA Category 2 and should include a
priority for households with incomes at or below 50% AMI or APCHA Category 1. In the
event the Category 1 priority is exercised, Category 1 rent, or otherwise rent commensurate
with 30% of income, should be charged. In the event that the Category 1 priority is not
exercised, then Category 2 rent may be charged.
• For initial lease-up of any project phase, the longest Pitkin County work history should not
be used to prioritize applicants. But work history priority for turnover of units after initial
lease up of any project phase shall be at APCHA’s discretion.
• In any phase up to 10% fewer Category 1 priority units may be included, including
flexibility to eliminate all Category 1 priority multibedroom units. Also, in any phase,
Category 2- and 3-unit quantities may be modified by plus or minus 10%, and up to 10%
more Category 4 and 5 units may be included.
• The City of Aspen reserves the right the City reserves the right to develop partnerships
with area employers, to create master lease agreements with area employers, or to facilitate
agreements among area employers and potential private developer operators, to include
master lease agreements, rights of first use and/or blanket leases.
• The City of Aspen additionally reserves the right to include additional affordability
restrictions, such as the potential for Colorado Housing Finance Authority (CHFA)
restrictions related to the potential use of low-income housing tax credits for funding
purposes or like programs. As part of any state or federal restrictions, the income categories
may be further broken down to a more detailed level of granularity for compliance with
such programs.
• Aspen City Council reserves the right to amend this income mix as needed.
Section 7: Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Conditions of Approval:
1. Deed restrictions shall be recorded prior to issuing a Certificate of Occupancy for applicable
phases. Designation of categories for each phase shall be reviewed by APCHA prior to
recording.
2. An operations and maintenance agreement that defines operations and maintenance of facilities
shall be memorialized for all rental units prior to certificate of occupancy of each phase.
3. The City reserves the right to facilitate agreements with area employers and private developers
including, but not limited to master lease agreements, rights of first use, and blanket easements.
4. Up to six dwelling units shall be reserved for APCHA-qualified on-site property management
and maintenance staff as needed.
15
Council Ordinance #10, Series of 2023
Page 6 of 8
Section 8: Condominiumization of Building 3:
1. The dwelling units in Building 3 shall be condominiumized and sold to APCHA qualified
tenants within the first ten years of receiving a certificate of occupancy.
2. A condominiumization map in compliance with current plat requirements in place at the time
of filing shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for evaluation and
approval by the City Engineer prior to recordation.
3. A condominium association with governing documents including but not limited to
declarations and bylaws shall be memorialized. A Capital Reserve Study shall be provided to
the association defining the capital reserve savings plan for the association.
4. The City reserves the right to include additional affordability restrictions, including but not
limited to the Colorado Housing Finance Authority restrictions related to use of low-income
housing tax credits for funding purposes.
5. Aspen City Council reserves the right to amend income mix as needed.
Section 9: Parks Department Conditions of Approval:
1. Protection fencing along the property line shall be installed to protect Deer Hill from
encroachment during applicable construction phases.
2. During applicable construction phases, a six (6) foot lined fence one (1) foot inside the property
line shall be installed to keep all activity outside of the Deer Hill Open space.
3. The existing character of landscaping shall be maintained to the extent practicable.
4. A tree removal plan shall be submitted at the time of building permit.
5. Tree protection fencing shall be installed for all trees that are to be retained.
6. No construction activity, including, but not limited to the storage of equipment or material
shall be allowed within the tree protection zone (TPZ)
7. To the extent practical, trails shall remain open and re-routes shall be the minimal needed.
8. AABC trail width shall be ten (10) feet with a one (1) foot freefall area on each side of the trail
in areas constricted by the CDOT ROW and MRA property boundary. The remainder of the
trail sections shall be twelve (12) feet with two (2) foot freefall area on each side of the trail.
9. To the extent practical, solutions to mitigate snow removal debris from Highway 82 impacting
the approaches to the underpass shall be incorporated in the design. Solutions to be analyzed
for consideration shall include but are not limited to skylights, fencing, walls or shed roofs.
10. Snow storage shall not block or impact trails.
11. Thirty (30) inches of good soil shall be required within the five (5) foot planting strip where
trees are planted along the right-of-way.
Section 10: Environmental Health Department Conditions of Approval:
1. The Applicant shall continue working with Environmental Health to optimize trash, recycling,
and composting operations.
2. The Applicant shall coordinate with Environmental Health regarding the revised air quality
study to ensure applicable air quality standards are met.
16
Council Ordinance #10, Series of 2023
Page 7 of 8
Section 11: Engineering Conditions of Approval:
1. At the discretion of the City Attorney, a guarantee to develop offsite infrastructure and other
infrastructure improvements shall be submitted at the time of Building permit.
2. Unobstructed legal and vehicular access from Highway 82 to Mountain Rescue shall be
maintained through all phases of development.
3. An exhibit depicting anticipated queuing distance at the Highway 82 intersection including
impacts from Mountain Rescue pursuant to the Traffic Impact Analysis shall be submitted to
the Community Development Director prior to Council Review.
4. Easements for walkways, drainage, and utilities shall be memorialized on the final plat.
5. Delineated right-of-way for roadway, utilities, swales, parking and sidewalks shall be
memorialized on the final plat.
6. Offsite grading within CDOT right-of-way is contingent upon CDOT final approval. The
finalized plan shall either utilize CDOT ROW for stormwater detention or accommodations
will be made onsite.
Section 12: Building & Zoning Conditions of Approval:
1. The address of each building shall be memorialized as part of the final plan set of the Planned
Development.
2. The materials associated with shading device elements represented on the exterior elevations
shall be Accoya, Kebony, Moso Bamboo or similar acetylated wood, perennial wood or
equivalent minimal-maintenance wood product.
3. Approach clearances at bathing fixture tub or shower may need to be modified in type A units
to meet building code.
4. Proposed solar arrays may require Aspen Fire review pursuant to IFC section 605.11.
Section 13: Material Representations
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented
before the Council, are hereby incorporated in such site development approvals and the same shall
be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 14: 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 ordinances repealed or amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 15: 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.
17
Council Ordinance #10, Series of 2023
Page 8 of 8
INTRODUCED, READ, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED, as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 23rd day of May 2023.
ATTEST:
___________________________________ ________________________
Nicole Henning, City Clerk Torre, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed, and approved by a _ to _ (_-_) vote on this ____ day of _____2023.
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
____________________________ ________________________
James R. True, City Attorney Torre, Mayor
Attest:
____________________________
Nicole Henning, City Clerk
18
Council Ordinance #10, Series of 2023
Page 1 of 13
ORDINANCE #10
(SERIES OF 2023)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A MAJOR PUBLIC
PROJECT REVIEW, AMENDMENTS TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP, A
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT – PROJECT REVIEW AND DETAILED REVIEW, MAJOR
SUBDIVISION, PARKING & TRANSPORTATION REVIEW, AND GROWTH
MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR LOT 3, COMMUNICATIONS SUBDIVISION,
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED OCTOBER 3, 1988, IN PLAT
BOOK 21 AT PAGE 34, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 105 WOODWARD LANE (AKA THE
MINI-STORAGE FACILITY); LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1, ASPEN AIRPORT BUSINESS
CENTER, FILING NO. 1, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREFOR RECORDED IN
PLAT BOOK 7 AT PAGE 79. LESS THAT STRIP OF LAND CONVEYED IN QUIT
CLAIM DEED RECORDED SEPTEMBER 25, 1984, IN BOOK 474 AT PAGE 1,
COMMONLY KNOWN AS 38005 CO-82 (AKA THE LUMBERYARD/BUILDERS FIRST
SOURCE PROPERTY); AND LOT 1D, FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT OF LOT 1A,
BURLINGAME RANCH, ACCORDING TO THE FINAL PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED
JANUARY 31, 2023, IN PLAT BOOK 135 AT PAGE 25 (AKA THE TRIANGLE PARCEL).
Parcel ID: 2735-031-02-003, 2735-031-01-802, 2735-031-01-801, and 2735-031-00-805
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the City
of Aspen, 427 Rio Grande Pl. Aspen, CO 81611 c/o Sara Ott, City Manager (Applicant), requesting
approval for the following land use review approvals:
• Major Public Project Review pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.500; and
• Amendments to Official Zone District Map (Rezoning) pursuant to Land Use Code
Section 26.310; and
• Major Subdivision pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480; and
• Planned Development – Project Review and Detailed Review pursuant to Land Use
Code Section 26.445; and
• Transportation & Parking Management pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.515;
and
• Growth Management Review pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470; and,
WHEREAS, the application for development proposes:
• 277 affordable housing units in three buildings
o 129 one-bedroom units
o 106 two-bedroom units
o 42 three-bedroom units
• 435 on-site parking spaces; and,
19
Council Ordinance #10, Series of 2023
Page 2 of 13
WHEREAS, the application contemplates development of a childcare center on Parcel 4 in
the future, triggering additional land use reviews in accordance with the applicable provisions of
Title 26 at the time of the request; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed development has been informed by months of public outreach and
feedback from open houses, City Council work sessions, and pop-up events; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application for
compliance with the applicable review standards; and,
WHEREAS, the Development Review Committee, consisting of the Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District, City Engineering, the Building Department, the Environmental Health
Department, the Parks Department, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, and the Utilities
Department provided referral comments to the Community Development Department; and,
WHEREAS, on May 3, 2023, during a duly noticed public hearing, the City of Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission approved Resolution #04, Series of 2023, recommending approval of the
request for Major Public Project Review, Amendments to Official Zone District Map, Planned
Development – Project Review and Detailed Review, Major Subdivision, Transportation and
Parking Management and Growth Management Review; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the request 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
comments at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council reviewed the application at a regular meeting on May
23rd, 2023 and approved Ordinance 10, Series of 2023 in a _ to _ (_ to _) vote at First Reading;
and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council reviewed the application at a regular meeting on
_________, 2023, and approved Ordinance #10, Series of 2023 in a _ to _ (_ to _) to approve the
request; 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 RESOLVED, THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVES
THE FOLLOWING:
Section 1: Rezoning:
The Mini-Storage and Lumberyard properties are currently located within the
Service/Commercial/Industrial (S/C/I) zone district and the undeveloped ‘Triangle Parcel’ is
20
Council Ordinance #10, Series of 2023
Page 3 of 13
located within the Conservation (C) and Rural Residential (RR) zone district. The subject parcels
are hereby rezoned to Multi-Family Residential (R/MF) with a Planned Development Overlay.
Section 2: Subdivision:
Currently the subject land area consists of four lots within the City’s municipal boundary. The lots
shall be reconfigured into ten parcels with a neighborhood street network providing unobstructed
vehicular access to each parcel. Upon dedication of the street network, the existing access easement
(Reception No. 692896) shall be vacated.
A final Development Agreement shall be drafted by the City pursuant to Land Use Code Section
26.490 and filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days of this approval.
Section 3: Planned Development Dimensional Standards:
Three buildings shall be developed with the following dimensional standards:
PD Dimensional Standards Contemplated for Multi-Family Dwellings
(Dimensional standards apply cumulatively to all three dwellings)
Standard Dimensions
Number of dwelling Units 277 Units
Maximum Building Height 1 49 ft.
Roof Projections2 Up to 7 ft. above parapet
Renewable Energy Roof Projections Up to 15 ft. from point of attachment
Gross Floor Area 531,211 sq. ft.
Parking Units 1.57:1 Parking Units per Dwelling Unit
Setbacks Represented on Final PUD Plans
1. As measured from finished floor elevation to top of parapet.
2. Includes all improvements unrelated to renewable energy equipment.
Planned Development Dimensional Standards
Standard Approved Dimension
Total Number of Dwelling Units
Building #1
Building #2
Building #3
A minimum of 277 and maximum of 304 units
A minimum of 94 and maximum of 114 units
A minimum of 82 and a maximum of 100 units
A minimum of 74 units and a maximum of 90 units
Maximum Building Height 1 49 ft
Parapet Height 5 ft.
Roof Projections 2 Up to a maximum of 7 ft. above parapet
Renewable Energy Roof Projections Up to a maximum of 15 ft. above parapet
Total Maximum Gross Floor Area 3
Building
#1
531,211 sq. ft.
206,073 sq. ft. +/- 10 %
164,484 sq. ft. +/- 10 %
160,654 sq. ft. +/- 10 %
Formatted: Justified
Formatted: Indent: Left: -0.1", Hanging: 0.09"
Formatted: Indent: Left: -0.1", Hanging: 0.09"
Formatted: Indent: Left: -0.1", Hanging: 0.09"
Formatted: Indent: Left: -0.1", Hanging: 0.09"
Formatted: Indent: Left: -0.1", Hanging: 0.09"
Formatted: Indent: Left: -0.1", Hanging: 0.09"
Formatted: Indent: Left: -0.1", Hanging: 0.09"
Formatted: Indent: Left: -0.1", Hanging: 0.09"
Formatted: Indent: Left: -0.1", Hanging: 0.09"
21
Council Ordinance #10, Series of 2023
Page 4 of 13
Building
#2
Building
#3
Parking Units 1.57:1 Parking Units per Dwelling Unit 4
Setbacks As established by elements located in the Site Plan.
To accommodate approved project elements, 0
(zero) ft. setbacks are allowed and may be
necessary.
1 As measured from finished floor of 1st floor elevation to top of parapet.
2 Includes all roof top elements unrelated to renewable energy equipment.
3 Gross Floor Area is measured to exterior face of exterior walls and centerline of any demising walls. The
total Gross Floor Area for the project and for each building additionally includes gross area of all patios
and balconies. The stated Total Gross Floor Area and for each building also includes 2% above the area
included in the approved floor plans to account for any technical changes as the project moves to building
permit.
4 The Parking Units per Dwelling Unit ratio may decrease to 1.54:1 to accommodate the removal of up to 10
parallel parking spaces adjacent to Building 1 to allow for the re-alignment of the AABC trail as described
in Section 13 below. The Parking Units per Dwelling Unit ratio may be further reduced in response to
changes in unit number and unit mix.
Section 4: Phasing of Development and Vested Rights Approval:
Development of the project is contemplated in four phases. Ten years of vested rights is approved
to accommodate phasing. Phases may be developed independently or simultaneously (as resources
allow).
Section 5: Final PUD Plans and Subdivision Plats:
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.090, Documents & Deadlines, the Applicant shall
prepare and submit a Subdivision/PUD agreement to the Community Development Department.
within one hundred eighty (180) days following the date of final approval. Community
Development staff shall work with the Applicant to finalize and record documents. Building
permits may be applied for, but not issued prior to recording the documents described herein.
Section 6: Growth Management:
A. Growth Management Allotments. This approval grants up to a maximum of 304,
Residential – Affordable Housing Development Allotments.
Formatted: Indent: Left: -0.1", Hanging: 0.09"
Formatted: Indent: Left: -0.1", Hanging: 0.09"
Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: -0.1", Hanging:
Formatted: Justified
Commented [JO1]: This amendment was not voted on by
Council
Formatted: List Paragraph, Justified, Numbered +Level: 1 + Numbering Style: A, B, C, … + Start at: 1 +Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
Formatted: Justified, Space After: 6 pt, No bullets ornumbering
22
Council Ordinance #10, Series of 2023
Page 5 of 13
B. Unit Mix. Sheet A003 – Unit Type and Module Matrix; depicts the approved Unit Mix
(proportion of 1BR, 2BR, and 3BR units) and distribution of the module types (unit layout
variations) as depicted in the application.
i. Final Unit Mix for each building does have flexibility as the project moves toward
construction as long as the Total Maximum Number of Units across the entire project does
not exceed 304, nor do any of the individual building exceed the maximum number of units
per building as depicted in Section 3. Additionally, the final unit mix shall not cause the
project to exceed the Maximum Gross Floor Area in total, or by building as depicted in
Section 3.
ii. While the module types as depicted in the application are approved, final unit layouts can
be modified as long as the units continue to meet all provisions of APCHA Affordable
Housing Development Policy, particularly in relationship to unit size standards.
iii. Final determination of Unit Mix and unit layout shall be evaluated during building permit
review for conformance with the dimensions established in this Ordinance and any
applicable requirements from APCHA or the Land Use Code.
C. Category / AMI (Area Median Income) Mix.
i. The project shall be 100% deed restricted affordable housing, with an approved income
mix across all three buildings that reflects the following:
• 15% of units should serve households at or below 50% AMI; (APCHA Category 1)
• 34% of units should serve households from 50 to 85% AMI; (APCHA Category 2);
• 33% of units should serve households from 85 to 130% AMI; (APCHA Category 3)
• 13% of units should serve households from 130 to 205% AMI; (APCHA Category 4)
• 5% of units should serve households from 205 to 240% AMI; (APCHA Category 5)
• Deed-Restricted Resident Occupied (RO) units that are excluded from rental rate
restrictions may also be included within the overall project’s Category / AMI Mix. In no
case should the total number of RO units exceed more than 5% of a building’s total unit
count.” and other categories shall be reduced pro-rata.
ii. Aspen City Council reserves the right to amend this income mix as needed. Changes can
be made at Council discretion – and could be enacted by Resolution or in another format
in providing direction to the City Manager.
Formatted: List Paragraph, Justified, Numbered +Level: 1 + Numbering Style: A, B, C, … + Start at: 1 +Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
Formatted: Justified, Space After: 6 pt, No bullets or
numbering
Formatted: List Paragraph, Justified, Numbered +Level: 1 + Numbering Style: i, ii, iii, … + Start at: 1 +Alignment: Right + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
Formatted: Justified, Space After: 6 pt, No bullets ornumbering
Formatted: List Paragraph, Justified, Numbered +Level: 1 + Numbering Style: i, ii, iii, … + Start at: 1 +Alignment: Right + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
Formatted: Justified, Space After: 6 pt, No bullets ornumbering
Formatted: List Paragraph, Justified, Numbered +Level: 1 + Numbering Style: i, ii, iii, … + Start at: 1 +Alignment: Right + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
Formatted: Justified, Space After: 6 pt, No bullets ornumbering
Formatted: List Paragraph, Justified, Numbered +Level: 1 + Numbering Style: A, B, C, … + Start at: 1 +Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
Formatted: Justified, Space After: 6 pt, No bullets ornumbering
Formatted: List Paragraph, Justified, Numbered +Level: 1 + Numbering Style: i, ii, iii, … + Start at: 1 +Alignment: Right + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
Formatted: Justified, Space After: 6 pt, No bullets ornumbering
Formatted: List Paragraph, Justified, Bulleted + Level: 1+ Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 11 pt, Italic
Formatted: Justified
Formatted: List Paragraph, Justified, Numbered +Level: 1 + Numbering Style: i, ii, iii, … + Start at: 1 +Alignment: Right + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
Formatted: Justified, Space After: 6 pt, No bullets ornumbering
23
Council Ordinance #10, Series of 2023
Page 6 of 13
iii. Should flexibility related to Category / AMI Mix from the approved mix be desired as the
project moves toward construction, in all cases, final determination of Category /AMI Mix
shall be established prior to the recordation of deed restrictions and the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for a specific building.
iv. Should the City enter into a partnership with a private sector development, the AMI mix
for any units connected to the partnership shall be established within a development
agreement in a form and with content satisfactory to the City Attorney.
v. Any units designated to serve households at or below 50% AMI (APCHA Category 1)
should be deed restricted as 50 to 85% AMI (APCHA Category 2) and should include a
priority for households with incomes at or below 50% AMI (APCHA Category 1). In the
event the Category 1 priority is exercised, Category 1 rent, or otherwise rent commensurate
with 30% of income, should be charged. In the event that the Category 1 priority is not
exercised, then Category 2 rent may be charged.
vi. City Council reserves the right to set priorities within the pool of applicants for the units in
this project. Any Council direction on prioritization could be enacted by Resolution or in
another format in providing direction to the City Manager. However, absent any further
and specific direction on prioritization, in the initial lease-up of any project phase, the
longest Pitkin County work history should not be used to prioritize applicants. For turnover
of units after initial lease up of any project phase, the use of work history shall be subject
to APCHA’s Employee Housing Regulations.
vii. In any phase up to 10% fewer Category 1 priority units may be included, including
flexibility to eliminate all Category 1 priority multibedroom units. Also, in any phase,
Category 2- and 3-unit quantities may be modified by plus or minus 10%, and up to 10%
more Category 4 and 5 units may be included.
viii. The City of Aspen reserves the right to develop partnerships with area employers, to create
master lease agreements with area employers, or to facilitate agreements among area
employers and potential private developer operators, to include master lease agreements,
rights of first use and/or blanket leases.
ix. The City of Aspen additionally reserves the right to include additional affordability
restrictions, such as the potential for Colorado Housing Finance Authority (CHFA)
restrictions related to the potential use of low-income housing tax credits for funding
purposes or like programs. As part of any state or federal restrictions, the income categories
may be further broken down to a more detailed level of granularity for compliance with
such programs.
Formatted: List Paragraph, Justified, Numbered +Level: 1 + Numbering Style: i, ii, iii, … + Start at: 1 +Alignment: Right + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
Formatted: Justified, Space After: 6 pt, No bullets ornumbering
Formatted: List Paragraph, Justified, Numbered +Level: 1 + Numbering Style: i, ii, iii, … + Start at: 1 +Alignment: Right + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
Formatted: Justified, Space After: 6 pt, No bullets ornumbering
Formatted: List Paragraph, Justified, Numbered +Level: 1 + Numbering Style: i, ii, iii, … + Start at: 1 +Alignment: Right + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
Formatted: Justified, Space After: 6 pt, No bullets ornumbering
Formatted: List Paragraph, Justified, Numbered +Level: 1 + Numbering Style: i, ii, iii, … + Start at: 1 +Alignment: Right + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
Formatted: Justified, Space After: 6 pt, No bullets ornumbering
Formatted: List Paragraph, Justified, Numbered +Level: 1 + Numbering Style: i, ii, iii, … + Start at: 1 +Alignment: Right + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
Formatted: Justified, Space After: 6 pt, No bullets ornumbering
Formatted: List Paragraph, Justified, Numbered +Level: 1 + Numbering Style: i, ii, iii, … + Start at: 1 +Alignment: Right + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
Formatted: Justified, Space After: 6 pt, No bullets ornumbering
Formatted: List Paragraph, Justified, Numbered +Level: 1 + Numbering Style: i, ii, iii, … + Start at: 1 +Alignment: Right + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
24
Council Ordinance #10, Series of 2023
Page 7 of 13
[1] AMI percentages shall correlate to APCHA Categories in effect on the date this Ordinance
was passed.
The project shall be 100% deed restricted affordable housing, with the income mix shown below
and with additional conditions also described:
• 15% of units should serve households at or below 50% AMI or APCHA Category 1
• 34% of units should serve households from 50 to 85% AMI or APCHA Category 2
• 33% of units should serve households from 85 to 130% AMI or APCHA Category 3
• 13% of units should serve households from 130 to 205% AMI or APCHA Category 4
• 5% of units should serve households from 205 to 240% AMI or APCHA Category 5
Formatted: Justified, Space After: 6 pt, No bullets ornumbering
Formatted: Justified, Space After: 6 pt
25
Council Ordinance #10, Series of 2023
Page 8 of 13
Additional Conditions and Flexibility:
• Any units designated to serve households at or below 50% AMI or APCHA Category 1
should be deed restricted as 50 to 85% AMI or APCHA Category 2 and should include a
priority for households with incomes at or below 50% AMI or APCHA Category 1. In the
event the Category 1 priority is exercised, Category 1 rent, or otherwise rent commensurate
with 30% of income, should be charged. In the event that the Category 1 priority is not
exercised, then Category 2 rent may be charged.
26
Council Ordinance #10, Series of 2023
Page 9 of 13
• For initial lease-up of any project phase, the longest Pitkin County work history should not
be used to prioritize applicants. But work history priority for turnover of units after initial
lease up of any project phase shall be at APCHA’s discretion.
• In any phase up to 10% fewer Category 1 priority units may be included, including
flexibility to eliminate all Category 1 priority multibedroom units. Also, in any phase,
Category 2- and 3-unit quantities may be modified by plus or minus 10%, and up to 10%
more Category 4 and 5 units may be included.
• The City of Aspen reserves the right the City reserves the right to develop partnerships
with area employers, to create master lease agreements with area employers, or to facilitate
agreements among area employers and potential private developer operators, to include
master lease agreements, rights of first use and/or blanket leases.
• The City of Aspen additionally reserves the right to include additional affordability
restrictions, such as the potential for Colorado Housing Finance Authority (CHFA)
restrictions related to the potential use of low-income housing tax credits for funding
purposes or like programs. As part of any state or federal restrictions, the income categories
may be further broken down to a more detailed level of granularity for compliance with
such programs.
• Aspen City Council reserves the right to amend this income mix as needed.
Section 7: Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Conditions of Approval:
1. Deed restrictions shall be recorded prior to issuing a Certificate of Occupancy for applicable
phases. Designation of categories for each phase shall be reviewed by APCHA prior to
recording.
2. An operations and maintenance agreement that defines operations and maintenance of facilities
shall be memorialized for all rental units prior to certificate of occupancy of each phase.
3. The City reserves the right to facilitate agreements with area employers and private developers
including, but not limited to master lease agreements, rights of first use, and blanket easements.
4. Up to six dwelling units shall be reserved for APCHA-qualified on-site property management
and maintenance staff as needed.
Section 8: Condominiumization of Building 3:
1. The dwelling units in Building 3 shall be condominiumized and sold to APCHA qualified
tenants within the first ten years of receiving a certificate of occupancy.
2. A condominiumization map in compliance with current plat requirements in place at the time
of filing shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for evaluation and
approval by the City Engineer prior to recordation.
3. A condominium association with governing documents including but not limited to
declarations and bylaws shall be memorialized. A Capital Reserve Study shall be provided to
the association defining the capital reserve savings plan for the association.
Formatted: Indent: Left: -0.1"
27
Council Ordinance #10, Series of 2023
Page 10 of 13
4. The City reserves the right to include additional affordability restrictions, including but not
limited to the Colorado Housing Finance Authority restrictions related to use of low-income
housing tax credits for funding purposes.
5. Aspen City Council reserves the right to amend income mix as needed.
Section 9: Parks Department Conditions of Approval:
1. Protection fencing along the property line shall be installed to protect Deer Hill from
encroachment during applicable construction phases.
2. During applicable construction phases, a six (6) foot lined fence one (1) foot inside the property
line shall be installed to keep all activity outside of the Deer Hill Open space.
3. The existing character of landscaping shall be maintained to the extent practicable.
4. A tree removal plan shall be submitted at the time of building permit.
5. Tree protection fencing shall be installed for all trees that are to be retained.
6. No construction activity, including, but not limited to the storage of equipment or material
shall be allowed within the tree protection zone (TPZ)
7. To the extent practical, trails shall remain open and re-routes shall be the minimal needed.
8. AABC trail width shall be ten (10) feet with a one (1) foot freefall area on each side of the trail
in areas constricted by the CDOT ROW and MRA property boundary. The remainder of the
trail sections shall be twelve (12) feet with two (2) foot freefall area on each side of the trail.
9. To the extent practical, solutions to mitigate snow removal debris from Highway 82 impacting
the approaches to the underpass shall be incorporated in the design. Solutions to be analyzed
for consideration shall include but are not limited to skylights, fencing, walls or shed roofs.
10. Snow storage shall not block or impact trails.
11. Thirty (30) inches of good soil shall be required within the five (5) foot planting strip where
trees are planted along the right-of-way.
Section 10: Environmental Health Department Conditions of Approval:
1. The Applicant shall continue working with Environmental Health to optimize trash, recycling,
and composting operations.
2. The Applicant shall coordinate with Environmental Health regarding the revised air quality
study to ensure applicable air quality standards are met.
Section 11: Engineering Conditions of Approval:
1. At the discretion of the City Attorney, a guarantee to develop offsite infrastructure and other
infrastructure improvements shall be submitted at the time of Building permit.
2. Unobstructed legal and vehicular access from Highway 82 to Mountain Rescue shall be
maintained through all phases of development.
3. An exhibit depicting anticipated queuing distance at the Highway 82 intersection including
impacts from Mountain Rescue pursuant to the Traffic Impact Analysis shall be submitted to
the Community Development Director prior to Council Review.
4. Easements for walkways, drainage, and utilities shall be memorialized on the final plat.
28
Council Ordinance #10, Series of 2023
Page 11 of 13
5. Delineated right-of-way for roadway, utilities, swales, parking and sidewalks shall be
memorialized on the final plat.
6. Offsite grading within CDOT right-of-way is contingent upon CDOT final approval. The
finalized plan shall either utilize CDOT ROW for stormwater detention or accommodations
will be made onsite.
Section 12: Building & Zoning Conditions of Approval:
1. The address of each building shall be memorialized as part of the final plan set of the Planned
Development.
2. The materials associated with shading device elements represented on the exterior elevations
shall be Accoya, Kebony, Moso Bamboo or similar acetylated wood, perennial wood or
equivalent minimal-maintenance wood product.
3. Approach clearances at bathing fixture tub or shower may need to be modified in type A units
to meet building code.
4. Proposed solar arrays may require Aspen Fire review pursuant to IFC section 605.11.
Section 13: Alignment of the AABC Trail and Related Landscaping and Sound Attenuation
Features.
The alignment of the AABC trail and the design of related site and landscaping features as
proposed and depicted is approved. However, as the project moves toward construction
documents, for the purposes of: improving sound attenuation, pedestrian and bicycle safety and
comfort, snow storage capacity, and aesthetics of the project as viewed from Highway 82, design
flexibility is granted in the following areas:
• Adjustments to the alignment of the trail are allowed in accomplishing any
or all of the purposes stated above. Changes to the alignment can be
proposed both on property and in the CDOT right-of-way.
• Landscape retaining walls, to assist with any berming and sound
attenuation along the trail, whether located in a setback or not, are allowed
up to a maximum height of five feet from finished grade. If more than five
feet of height for retainage is necessary, retaining walls can be used in a
staggered or stepped fashion, but no individual retaining wall shall be
greater than 5 feet in height.
• Sound attenuation walls or structures are allowed along AABC trail in
association with Buildings 1 and 3. Walls or structures shall not be greater
than 20 feet from the finished grade of the AABC trail. Such walls or
structures may contain public art. Walls or structures shall not extend
beyond the property line.
• Final trail alignment and planting plan for vegetation along the trail, at
grade, in berms, or in planters, shall be reviewed by City Parks Staff (and
CDOT, as necessary) prior to building permit submission.
• Parking, approved along the frontage road in front of Building 1, may be
reduced by up to ten spaces, to accommodate an alternative alignment of
the AABC trail, and any necessary changes to adjacent landscaping.
Final design of the alignment of the AABC trail and related landscaping and sound attenuation
features shall be included in the submitted Final PUD Plans and Subdivision Plat identified in
Formatted: Justified
Formatted: List Paragraph, Justified, Indent: Left: 1",Hanging: 0.5", Outline numbered + Level: 1 +Numbering Style: Bullet + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indentat: 0.5"
Formatted: Justified, Indent: Hanging: 0.09", Nobullets or numbering
Formatted: Justified
29
Council Ordinance #10, Series of 2023
Page 12 of 13
Section 5, above, and shall be recorded prior to the submission of a building permit for the
completion of Phase 0.
Section 143: Material Representations
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented
before the Council, are hereby incorporated in such site development approvals and the same shall
be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 154: 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 ordinances repealed or amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 165: 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.
INTRODUCED, READ, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED, as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 23rd day of May 2023.
ATTEST:
___________________________________ ________________________
Nicole Henning, City Clerk Torre, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed, and approved by a _ to _ (_-_) vote on this ____ day of _____2023.
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
____________________________ ________________________
James R. True, City Attorney Torre, Mayor
30
Council Ordinance #10, Series of 2023
Page 13 of 13
Attest:
____________________________
Nicole Henning, City Clerk
31
August 2, 2021
Via E-Mail
James R. True, Esq.
City Attorney, City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Stormwater Management for Development of BMC West
Dear Jim:
I am writing on behalf of Aspen Business Park Investors, LLC (“ABPI”). ABPI is the owner of
the property located at 205 AABC in the Aspen Airport Business Center. This property is legally
described as Lot 3, Block 1, Amended and Restated Plat of Aspen Airport Business Center Filing No. 1,
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
We understand that the City of Aspen is getting closer to commencing development work on the
former BMC West lumberyard property located at 38005 and 37925 Highway 82. From what we have
read in the papers, it appears the development will entail a significant amount of housing, drive lanes,
parking, etc. – all impervious surface areas that can be expected to create a significant amount of
stormwater runoff that will require substantial detention or retention facilities.
The ABPI property includes a stormwater detention basin that is subject to an easement for the
benefit of the City. This detention basin is located in the northeast corner of the ABPI property at the
intersection of Pass Go Lane and the AABC 200 road. The detention basin is located across Pass Go Lane
from the Annie Mitchell housing project constructed by the City of Aspen. It was installed with
development of the Annie Mitchell project to help provide detention for stormwater flowing from the
Annie Mitchell project. This was because a prior existing (and reportedly larger) basin located on the
Annie Mitchell property was eliminated by the City when the housing project was developed. A copy of
the Grant of Easement between Qwest Corporation (my client’s predecessor) and the City is enclosed with
this letter. It was entered into in early 2004 and is recorded in the real estate records of Pitkin County at
Reception No. 494986. It is worth noting that the Grant of Easement provides that maintenance and
operation of the detention basin is the responsibility of the City and no maintenance has ever been
completed to our knowledge, although there have been instances of it overflowing and debris has filled
portions of the basin.
As it relates to the City’s plans for development of the former BMC West property, there are two
important things of which we would like to make sure the City is aware.
First, even though the drainage easement granted to the City is contiguous with the BMC West
property for 10’ at the very southern end of the easement, the Grant of Easement recorded in early 2004
does not run to the benefit of the BMC West property. This is because the City did not acquire the BMC
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
32
West property until December 2007. Because the City did not own the BMC West property in 2004 when
the drainage easement was granted, the BMC Property cannot have been an intended beneficiary of the
drainage easement. Rather, the drainage easement was granted for the benefit of the Annie Mitchell
housing project that the City was undertaking at that time on the east side of Pass Go Lane adjacent to the
easement area.
Second, the stormwater detention basin that is constructed within the easement area does not
appear to have any excess capacity to accommodate additional stormwater created by development of the
BMC Property. This detention facility previously overflowed in large storm events in 2005, 2007, 2009
and 2011 and, as we understand it, lead to a lawsuit filed by the owner of the Ski.com building against the
City of Aspen and the Annie Mitchell condominium association. When ABPI developed the existing self-
storage facility on its property, it conservatively engineered its stormwater management systems with the
assumption that the existing detention facility does not exist and is not available to receive additional
stormwater runoff for the purpose of calculating compliance with the applicable runoff and detention
standards.
For the reasons stated above, we believe it is important that the City not rely on any additional
capacity existing within the detention basin on the ABPI property when it is engineering the stormwater
management system for its development on the BMC West property, and any stormwater runoff from the
BMC West property and areas northerly should be completely retained onto the BMC West property and
not flow onto ABPI’s property. Please share this communication with the appropriate members of the
City’s project team for the BMC West development.
Let me know if you have any questions I might be able to answer. Thanks very much.
Sincerely,
Bart Johnson
for
WAAS CAMPBELL RIVERA
JOHNSON & VELASQUEZ LLP
cc: David Hotchkin
Enclosures
{A0075221 / 1 }
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
33
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
34
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
35
My name is Tom Gorman, and I currently serve on Aspen’s Planning & Zoning board. With our
Lumberyard meetings complete, I’m writing about a couple of issues related to that proposed
project. To be clear, I’m writing as a citizen, not a commissioner. The facts I cite are in the
public record, but any interpretations or opinions are my own.
First, some background on one of P&Z’s conditions for approval, further study of the
intersection at Lumberyard and Hwy 82. As you know, the City’s decision to rely on a single
traffic signal intended to serve 500 or so new Lumberyard residents (plus Mountain Rescue
Headquarters) has long been a concern. Because that stretch of Hwy 82 is already busy, an
additional, overburdened intersection would add more congestion to that corridor, especially
during peak travel times. It would obviously be detrimental to quality of life for the entire
Valley.
As part of their application, the City engaged a consultant, Fehr & Peers, to perform a traffic
impact study. Their report was part of a packet submitted to P&Z this spring. In response to
questions commissioners raised during P&Z’s March meetings, the City invited the principal
author of the study to attend our April 4 meeting, which was also open to the public.
During our Q&A with the author, it became evident that both traffic and emissions impacts
were more significant than the Executive Summary had indicated. Among these were:
1. Average delays would be somewhat longer – in the body of the report they were
estimated at about 96 seconds for the AM rush, and another 1.6 minutes in the
afternoon.
2. Trip generation at Lumberyard would potentially be twice the Fehr & Peers’ “worst
case” estimate from the summary; the raw number is 99 trips per hour during peak
times. Getting to their reduced trip count of 50 per hour would require that about half
of Lumberyard residents would choose not to drive on a given day. With current plans
for RFTA pickups set for twice an hour, it’s difficult to know if this hope would prove
realistic.
3. These peak-time trips would produce frequent red light requests to and from the
Lumberyard site, each one stopping traffic on Hwy 82. If I recall correctly, the author’s
estimate were ‘about 36’ times per hour. We did not get clarity on how that number
was chosen, and I could not find a detailed explanation in the report. Each cycle might
last 40-60 seconds, depending on what traffic engineers decide.
4. Fehr & Peers’ report did not provide much detail about these red light cycles. Nor did it
look at the effects of stopping 20-40 vehicles on Hwy 82 each time the light tripped
during peak hours. It did discuss the fact that several traffic lights in that corridor are
already rated as below satisfactory for delays.
5. The report did not analyze the likelihood of a ‘cascade’ effect, in which delays at one
light impede progress at others. When they occur, traffic can build in a non-linear
fashion. It did discuss the use of queuing and synchronizing this intersection with other
nearby signals to reduce delays.
6. Fehr & Peers did not engage in a study of time saved by new Lumberyard residents vs
time lost for other down valley commuters, so I had to make some guesses. By my
estimate, about 200 former down valley residents could shorten their drives by an
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
36
average 30 minutes daily by moving into Lumberyard. That adds up to 6,000 minutes,
which would be a significant savings. However, a much larger number of vehicles, about
5,000, would be delayed at the Lumberyard traffic light during peak times. Because
down valley commuters’ cumulative hours lost (5,000 vehicles stalled for about three
minutes is 15,000 minutes lost daily), cumulative time lost to Roaring Fork Valley drivers
greatly exceed time saved by new Lumberyard residents. I’ve heard the thought
expressed that this extra time is a ‘tax’ that City Hall is willing to impose on its down
valley neighbors in its quest to solve Aspen’s own housing problems.
7. Fehr and Peers also did not look at a linkage between these new delays and increased
vehicle emissions. Traffic delays and greater emissions are flip sides of the same
problem. Fehr & Peers’ study showed about 19,000 vehicles passing the Lumberyard
intersection each day, about half during our peak hours. This would rise to about 20,000
if Lumberyard is built. Each minute of new delay by these 5,000 vehicles would produce
higher tailpipe emissions, including CO2. I get different answers to this emissions
question, but they all show an increase. Because Fehr & Peers failed to examine this
new delays/new emissions question at all, it's my opinion that their estimate of annual
CO2 reductions in the range of 500,000-600,000 lbs. shouldn’t be accepted unless an
emissions specialist studies it and concurs.
Added congestion would negatively impact thousands of people every day, and these
unresolved questions are more easily examined at this point rather than waiting until it’s too
late to fix them. While I view each of these questions as significant, only Council can decide
whether it’s worth the time and money it would take to get answers. Council might not need to
reopen the entire traffic study in order to get better information about these specific items.
However, if reducing CO2 is an important reason to build Lumberyard, the net emissions
equation might warrant a more careful look. At our May 2 meeting, the applicant seemed
optimistic that the City could get the proposed light at Lumberyard and Hwy 82 to operate at a
Level of Service ‘C’ or better, even during peak times. You’ll recall that a ‘C’ allows an average
up to 35 seconds of stoppage. After that, delays and public frustration rise in tandem.
At a March P&Z meeting, the applicant also briefed those present about Lumberyard’s
projected costs. Although the board was not empowered to discuss this aspect of the project,
our packet confirmed that construction estimates have continued rising; at that point they
were expected to be about $380,000,000. It was not clear whether that number included
interest expenses. If not, any estimates would have to be revised upward to reflect them.
Aspen’s recent balance sheets and the pace of recent RETT collections make it likely that there
will not be enough cash on hand to pay for a project this size. That will mean borrowing a lot of
money. Although many construction inputs have experienced inflation lately, interest rates may
have risen the fastest. If interest costs are not already built into the $380 million number, it
seems probable that total project costs (land, planning, construction, and interest until the loan
is retired) will exceed $500,000,000.
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
37
Among reasons to think costs could go higher is the City’s lack of experience managing large
construction projects, where overruns are common. $500,000,000 pencils out to about $1.8
million per unit, and is nearly $1 million per bed. By contrast, Skico’s recent employee housing
project, The Hub at Willits, houses 140-150 people at a reported cost under $20 million, or
about $140,000 per bed. I hope Council engages the City in a detailed and robust discussion
about how Lumberyard got so expensive. Half a billion dollars could buy a lot of other public
goods and services.
Almost everyone agrees that housing has been a persistent problem here and in other
mountain resort towns. Deciding if Lumberyard is the best way to address our housing issues
seems less straightforward. Adding 8% to APCHA’s inventory would help, but probably not
fundamentally alter Aspen’s housing dynamics. Once built, Lumberyard would mean another
step away from Aspen’s small-town character. It would mean more people, more traffic, more
public debt, more lots of things.
It seems only fair to ask our citizens whether they want to go that route. A public vote to
approve building (and paying for) Lumberyard would provide a legitimacy to this decision not
available to an ever-changing roster of City officials. There have been widespread rumors of
plans to circumvent Aspen’s citizens by financing it without using a conventional bond approval
process. I’d urge you to resist that gambit. Put Lumberyard to a vote, and let the people
decide.
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
38
From:Pam Alexander
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard input
Date:Sunday, June 11, 2023 6:32:49 PM
Hi,
In full support of community housing, my feedback about the Lumberyard project includes these areas:
—Do we have all of the information we need to go ahead with this project without understanding the potential
unintended consequences for environmental sustainability in the RFV?
—Traffic is already causing air quality and quality of life issues for all Aspen and RFV residents.
I served on the Community Transportation Taskforce for almost three years, and the very issues we addressed with
most concern included the traffic congestion on 82, particularly with daily commutes through the entrance to Aspen.
The decisions we make about housing locations that would add more congestion now could have vastly more
unintended consequences for the quality of life for all residents in our Valley.
Thank you,
Pam Alexander
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
39
From:The Red Ant
To:Public Comment
Subject:ANT ALERT: Give Lumberyard Feedback Today!
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 8:50:55 AM
Slow down. The community deserves specific information on the budget, the financing plans, the traffic plans
(including alternatives to the proposed stoplight), a detailed report on how these 277 units will relieve
APCHA's current shortcomings, community infrastructure impact reports and a statement from this council
regarding the growth from this project and how it adheres to the AACP.
Issue #251 | June 12, 2023
ANT
THE RED ANT
Political Commentary, Aspen Style
ANT ALERT: Give Lumberyard
Feedback Today!
"The Lumberyard is just another of the many fingers
in the dike trying to restrain the forces of
gentrification flooding our community."
-- Mick Ireland
IMPORTANT
Tomorrow at 3p, city council will be voting to lock in development plans
for The Lumberyard. This is reckless and absurd. There are far too many
unanswered questions and the community is being kept in the dark.
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
40
It is ESSENTIAL that you click HERE and write a note - however brief -
expressing your vehement disapproval. (Very little public comment has
been received thus far, so council continually refers to "feedback" they
received when they originally asked housing seekers "what do you want
at The Lumberyard?" This is hardly what we want guiding such a
monumental decision!)
You do not have to be an Aspen voter to voice your opposition!
SPEAK NOW!
A "no" vote will not stop the project, but it will pause it so the community
can see:
A) The budget
B) The financing plans
C) The traffic plans
D) The specifics on who will eventually reside there
E) A study on the impacts to our schools, hospital and other vital
infrastructure
F) Impacts on the community in terms of real growth.
Today, we have ZERO information on these issues.
The Lumberyard plans are not ready to be memorialized, but city hall is
rushing to get things underway. Once underway, they'll say it's too late to
change anything. This is their modus operandi.
A couple important tidbits:
The Lumberyard stands to be the largest municipal project in
Aspen's history.
It has no funding source nor budget.
Nearly $30 million has already been spent on the land.
Over $4.3 million has already been spent on design, but only as far
as the "schematic" phase. Much more design work is still to come.
City staff has told council there are "9 financing models" yet none
have been publicly shared. (My guess is they don't exist.)
City staff continually tells council that the city has "significant"
funding options for the project yet won't reveal them. (Could they be
referring to the drastically shrinking RETT revenues?)
While P&Z has technically approved The Lumberyard, they stated
grave concerns over Hwy 82 traffic impacts, infrastructure at the
ABC and a new stoplight/intersection - topics that were outside the
scope of their review yet big enough to be raised. The city has
ignored their feedback.
Estimates have units costing $1.5 million per to build while the
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
41
Roaring Fork School District is building housing for teachers for
$573K/unit. Maybe we ought to at least look at what they're doing?
The cheap-looking design is massive. The 4-story buildings are 64'
in height. You do the math.
Despite the likelihood of becoming an all-rental complex, LY units
have been designed larger than required by APCHA, with walk-in
closets, in-unit laundry, mudrooms, storage closets and balconies
or porches. Is this efficient? Necessary? Or just plain stupid?
The city is both judge and jury in this application - they are pushing
for council's approval of their own development plans. If an outside
developer proposed this nonsense they'd be laughed out of the
room.
Many more "contracts" are in the immediate pipeline awaiting
approval. If plans are approved on Tuesday, the spending will begin
in earnest - with no funding source.
Don't take my word for it. BY FAR THE BEST RESOURCE for facts and
info on The Lumberyard has been provided by my friends at
Aspen Deserves Better, a non-political platform dedicated to fostering
community engagement and conversation. HERE is their newsletter from
last night on this critical issue.
I also encourage you to subscribe. I wholeheartedly agree: Better
engagement and processes can only lead to better governance.
* * *
I implore you. Please take 3 minutes NOW and write a brief note to
council expressing how The Lumberyard is "not ready" for approval, in
your own words. Weigh in and be counted. Your opinion does matter.
Thank you!!
SUBSCRIBE TO THE RED ANT - IT'S FREE
PLEASE SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS AND COMMENTS
Or, simply "reply" to this email
Elizabeth Milias TheRedAntEM@comcast.net
The Red Ant | Elizabeth Milias, PO Box 4662, Aspen, CO 81612
Unsubscribe {recipient's email}
Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice
Sent by theredantem@comcast.net powered by
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
42
Try email marketing for free today!
THIS IS A TEST EMAIL ONLY.
This email was sent by the author for the sole purpose of testing a draft message. If you believe you have received
the message in error, please contact the author by replying to this message. Constant Contact takes reports of
abuse very seriously. If you wish to report abuse, please forward this message to abuse@constantcontact.com.
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
43
From:D Averitt
To:Public Comment
Subject:Vote NO on Lumberyard
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 8:17:40 AM
I am writing as a taxpayer and owner of property in Aspen to urge a NO vote to stop this
wrongheaded, unaffordable, boondoggle of a public housing project, The Lumberyard. It has
been proposed without sufficient public debate or transparency and is being rushed through by
a very few who will leave the larger rest of us figuring out how to pay for it and especially
having to deal with the enormity of this unneeded, massi and unaffordable spending scheme.
Here is more you really should read from Elizabeth Milias and,
Lumberyard: Please Voice Your Opinion!
myemail.constantcontact.com
Don R. Averitt
Aspen, Colorado
214.502.9070 averittd@icloud.com
Sent from my iPhone
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
44
From:Bob Bowden
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard
Date:Sunday, June 11, 2023 5:29:24 PM
To : All council members
From: Bob Bowden
Please vote NO on second reading on the lumberyard. It’s premature as it is a dysfunctional project at this poiint. The time to vote is once a feasible plan is presented.
Bob Bowden 970.948.7000 cell
https://url.avanan.click/v2/___www.b2aspen.com___.YXAzOmNpdHlvZmFzcGVuOmE6bzoyYzA4OTUxNzJjMWNlZTc0NTcwOGY5MDcwYzQxNTM1ZTo2OjA0ZDQ6ZDI0M2M3YzBmZGQ1OWVkMDk1NDRlNjI4Y2NlMDc3YmNkNTFlNjhlNGQ0OWJlMmY1NTNkM2E5ZWYyNGY1OGE3Yzp0OkY
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
45
From:Bruce Wank
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumber yard
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 9:01:00 AM
Stop and think about the impacts on traffic before you decide to move forward
Bruce
Sent from my iPhone
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
46
From:Nic Caiano
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 8:18:19 AM
I believe prior to moving forward with the Lumberyard project we need to do a comprehensive review of APCHA. I
personally know individuals that should not qualify for employee housing yet have worked the system to qualify. I
am part of the Aspen “middle class” that can neither qualify for employee housing nor afford free market housing. I
think a review of APCHA by an independent third party needs to be done and published for the public's review prior
to spending $450mm on 277 new units.
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
47
From:Ruth Carver
To:Public Comment
Subject:Yes lets proceed with the lumberyard
Date:Sunday, June 11, 2023 6:39:31 PM
38 feet high is best.
An underpass is a necessity.
Ut, lets keep going on the project!
Ruth C
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
48
From:Mlcasperaspen@yahoo.com
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 10:05:43 AM
The project is not ready for approval. So many unanswered questions. PLease vote no for
now.
Sent from my iPad
Mary Lynn Casper
124 East Durant Avenue #8Aspen, CO. 81611
970-618-0478
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
49
From:John Cavalieri
To:Public Comment
Subject:Public Comment re Proposed Lumberyard Development
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 8:48:52 AM
To Aspen City Council:
While philosophically I am supportive of facilitating affordable housing for local Aspen/Snowmass
employees (i.e., those currently employed in local businesses, as differentiated from the general
population or remote workers in general), I have serious concerns about the Lumberyard Proposal,
which I think warrant PAUSING the project until these questions can be addressed and the
information made public. Otherwise, proceeding would be simply irresponsible on behalf of the
ENTIRE COMMUNITY, regardless of the good intentions that may have motivated the project in the
first place.
1. The costs are exorbitant. As far as I can tell, the Lumberyard is the most expensive single
development proposal the city of Aspen has ever considered of any kind, public or private.
That alone should warrant investigation. And then, we see an approx $1.5m cost PER
UNIT??? That seems irresponsible to me. By contrast, the RFSD’s teaching housing project is
expected to cost $580k per unit. And the Lumberyard has over 5x the number of units, which
means the costs per unit should be LOWER, all else equal. Yet it’s coming out 3 times more
expensive? This needs to be re-evaluated for sure.
2. There is no clear plan for how to pay for it. And don’t confuse “financing” with “paying for
it”. Regardless of how it is financed, someone will still have to pay for it. And the fact that
staff is showing non-debt options essentially reflects their knowledge that voting taxpayers
won’t be in favor for expensive, poorly planned projects (even though the building schematic
look cool). That’s a big red flag. Another big red flag: The city has said that they have several
options for financing the project, but none of the models have been shared with the public
nor exist in the 1,400 page staff memo. Why the secrecy from the taxpaying public?
Philosophically, taxing the public should be the last resort toward addressing any problem.
There are already increasing taxes from all sides (STR, real estate assessments, etc). First you
should make sure the existing inventory of affordable housing is being used properly.
Maximize what is currently in place via compliance, stop free-market conversions, etc. Next,
can you find savings elsewhere in the budget? If this is such a priority, maybe other efforts
can be curtailed. Next, develop a cost-conscious plan, not an exorbitant one. Then make all
those efforts publicly available for review.
3. The design of the project is questionable, with many important issues left unaddressed.
For example, if more employee housing is so needed, why aren’t we maximizing the density of
the project? If traffic and car pollution are such issues, why are there 1.4 parking spots per
unit? We should be using the limited space to facilitate more housing, not more traffic-
inducing cars. If completed, the project will increase the total number of housing units at the
Aspen Airport Business Center by 131%, from 210 to 487, with no improvements to
infrastructure (think sidewalks and road improvements) and no increases in services (think
grocery stores and restaurants) in support of that community other than a new traffic light.
How can that make sense? Shouldn’t a project of this magnitude and impact be part of a
larger “Entrance to Aspen” master plan? The Highway 82 corridor in the upper valley links
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
50
multiple major upcoming civic projects. We are expanding the park-and-ride intercept lot at
Brush Creek Road. The airport is facing a major overhaul and terminal expansion and the
Castle Creek Bridge is nearing the end of its lifespan. These projects must be considered
together as part of a formal, integrated master plan rather than developed individually.
And lastly, I’d just say that I am against selling off any City owned units. These units are assets of the
city – the taxpayers really – and should be held indefinitely for rentals that benefit the city
indefinitely. There is no need to sell them off. They should be perpetually reserved to shelter local,
active employees. Once people cease to be local, active employees, their right to these subsidized
dwellings should go away, so that they can make space for the next generation of local employees.
Until these and other important questions are addressed, with reasonable, sensible answers and
solutions, I am against this project as currently proposed.
Best,
John C.
600 E Main Street
Aspen, CO 18611
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
51
From:Judd Clarence
To:Public Comment
Subject:Do NOT APPROVE this Project with so many Unresolved ISSUES!
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 10:17:16 AM
There is no plan for how this will be paid for or funded.
The project as it stands will be incredibly detrimental to the town and strain the
infrastructure.
There has been no solving of the traffic congestion and additional impact this
would have on the roads and access into Aspen.
This is not Workforce Housing – it’s a fully subsidized community. If it were
rental-only for actual workforce and to house employees, without adding
hundreds of cars and parking spaces, it may solve some issues – but not as
currently planned. Property sizes should be scaled down and parking and other
amenities usually required by ‘full-time’ residents should be eliminated or
reduced.
No further money should be spent on this project since it currently misses the
mark. We need a detailed and workable plan approved by the community for
how the property will be funded.
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
52
From:Kim Coates
To:Public Comment
Subject:We need more info please
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 8:57:23 AM
I’m very concerned about the increased traffic and density of the Lumberyard Project. I’m also even more concerned
as to how this project will be paid for. Time after time I learn of existing abuses to our employee housing system
(occupants who rent out their units while they winter in Hawaii, work requirements being completely unverified,
people owning existing property in the valley, etc). It all makes me wonder why we build more when we don’t even
have the resources to manage existing housing.
Please put the project on hold until we have real answers to existing questions.
Thanks,
Kim Coates
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
53
From:Chris Cook
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard Housing Project
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 8:44:43 AM
Dear City Council Members –
First, a thank you to you and the other members for your service. I realize that running for
public office is always a personal risk, and that this position is a thankless job.
I have owned a home in Aspen for over 9 years, and it is very important to me that we have
a sustainable workforce that can afford to live and work in Aspen. So I am fully supportive
of cost effective solutions that expand the affordable housing options available for those
working in Aspen.
I am concerned about the Lumberyard project, because of the exceptional cost per unit and
the failure to address the larger housing challenge for those working in Aspen looking for
affordable housing options.
Please vote NO on this current plan until we can get a more a solution that benefits the
housing challenge in a more productive and cost effective manner.
Regards,
Chris Cook
331 Pfister Dr.
Aspen, CO 81611
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
54
From:Karen Devlin
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard
Date:Sunday, June 11, 2023 7:14:40 PM
Ridiculous that they should cost 1.5M to build! This was my same objection to the firehouse development in the
N40. At that time they could have bought the same amount of units needed for half the price at Hunter Creek. They
wanted a Taj Mahal to themselves and the tax payers gave it to them.
The issue now is are there units on the market available to be purchased below that price?
If Pitkin County would not give away our FBO lease ( ours is in the top 3 on the world ) and spend the money to
hire actual negotiators, the county would generate so much money that the building cost of the lumber yard would
not be an issue.
Sent from my iPad
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
55
From:Jeff Dolan
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard.
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 9:13:48 AM
Please stop this horrible project. How are all the new tenets/owners supposed to get in and out of town? How is the
city planning on paying for this horrible idea?
STOP the Lumberyard NOW!
Thank you , Jeff Dolan
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
56
From:Leslie Duncan
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 8:11:00 AM
Please note No for the Lumberyard project. There needs t be a better plan for all aspects of the project - cost,
funding, congestion impacts.
Leslie Duncan
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
57
From:Richard Felder
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard project
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 9:20:40 AM
Do not approve this project until the citizens of Aspen are told how it will be paid for and what the
priorities are for who will occupy the units.
Sent from Mail for Windows
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
58
From:Comcast
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumber yard
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 8:23:50 AM
I do not have any faith in the transportation study that suggests 50 additional trips per day
because of the project. Maybe they should take a quick minute and study the number of trips
in and out of truscott place daily. That project is greatly smaller and there are far more than 50
trips at that property. It's more like 500. I think any reasonable person would agree that 50 new
trips daily for 400 new units is not looking at what's really going to happen.
Get Outlook for Android
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
59
From:Chuck Frias
To:Public Comment
Cc:Chuck Frias
Subject:Lumberyard
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 8:40:32 AM
We are not ready to add more mismanaged housing until we change APCHA rules to mange well what we already have. Only local workers should be allowed to use our valuable housing stock.
Qualifications should be made more regularly and reliably.
Funding for any new development should be secured and traffic impacts addressed.
Thanks.
Chuck Frias
Managing Partner
Frias Properties of Aspen
730 E Durant Ave
Aspen, CO 81611
970.429.2411 office
970.948.7979 cell
https://url.avanan.click/v2/___www.FriasProperties.com___.YXAzOmNpdHlvZmFzcGVuOmE6bzpiY2RhOTYyZjZjODUxNDVjNjNmNGNmYjZiMDI5ZjZmYjo2OmYxNGE6NzQwYzE2NjdlZGEzNDEyODllOWZiMDBmYzBmZjQyOGM4ZTgxYjUzNWY5MDJjNjg5MTZiNWIwZWQxOGZlZjUwMjpwOkY
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
60
From:Mike Sear
To:City Council
Cc:Christopher Everson; Kevin Rayes
Subject:FW:
Date:Thursday, June 15, 2023 9:04:51 AM
From: Cindy Fioroni <cindyat10ajax@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2023 8:03 AM
To: Public Comment <publiccomment@aspen.gov>
Subject:
Totally against th whole project!!!!
We think traffic in to town, & out of town is BAD NOW, what are our politicians thinking??
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
61
From:Mike Sear
To:City Council
Cc:Christopher Everson; Kevin Rayes
Subject:FW:
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 3:27:08 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Danis <tdanis314@me.com>
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2023 3:17 PM
To: Public Comment <publiccomment@aspen.gov>
Subject:
the lumberyard project is of great concern as to its scope, architectural design , funding and long term cost.
this needs to be reconsider in all aspects.
Sent from my iPhone
Thomas P Danis
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
62
From:Mike Sear
To:City Council
Cc:Christopher Everson; Kevin Rayes
Subject:FW: [Spam] Protect the Deer Hill Vista -- Eliminate Building C.
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 3:13:37 PM
From: Stan Clauson <stan@cra-designplanning.com>
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2023 3:05 PM
To: Public Comment <publiccomment@aspen.gov>
Subject: [Spam] Protect the Deer Hill Vista -- Eliminate Building C.
It was during my tenure as Community Development Director that the Burlingame
property was purchased for the development of affordable housing. At that time,
certain areas were permanently designated as protected open space. However, the
triangular area in front of Deer Hill and adjacent to Highway 82 was not felt to be a
development parcel and was not protected as open space. In retrospect, it should
have been so designated. This parcel extends from the present Mountain Rescue
Aspen headquarters to the intersection with the Harmony Road stoplight. It offers a
lovely open space vista of Deer Hill and contains a meandering segment of the AABC
bike trail to Aspen. This vista should be protected. Building C will destroy that vista in
a way that the other two proposed buildings will not. Building A is adjacent to existing
development. Although taller, it will not fundamentally change the nature of the
developed landscape. Similarly, Building B will tuck behind the MRA headquarters
and not be overly obtrusive. But Building C takes pristine open space and converts it
to massive development. This current plan needs to be re-thought. If the area
encompassing Building C were re-programmed to provide recreational open space for
the development, it would not significantly intrude on the views while offering better
livability for future lumberyard residents. In short, I do not believe that this plan is
ready to move forward without further consideration of the landscapes we have
worked to protect for many years.
Stan Clauson, FAICP, ASLA
CLAUSON RAWLEY ASSOCIATES INC
landscape architecture . planning . resort design
400 W. Main Street, Suite 203 Aspen, Colorado 81611
t. +1 970/925.2323 f. +1 970/920.1628 c. +1 970/274.3265
stan@cra-designplanning.com www.cra-designplanning.com
Owing to COVID-19, we are often working from home.
Please use cell phone or email for a prompt response.
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
63
From:Scott Miller
To:easim@aol.com
Cc:Kevin Rayes
Subject:FW: APCHA and the Lumberyard Project
Date:Thursday, August 31, 2023 4:56:35 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
Mr. Simon,
Thank you for your comments,
They will be entered into the case file for the Lumberyard project and have been shared with all
Council members.
Scott Miller
Public Works Director | City Manager’s Office
(O): 970.920.5085 | (C): 970.319.4754
www.cityofaspen.com
Our Values: Stewardship | Partnership | Service | Innovation
From: Nicole Henning <nicole.henning@aspen.gov>
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2023 1:10 PM
To: City Council <Council@cityofaspen.com>
Cc: Public Comment <PublicComment@cityofaspen.com>
Subject: FW: APCHA and the Lumberyard Project
From: easim@aol.com <easim@aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2023 1:06 PM
To: Public Comment <publiccomment@cityofaspen.com>
Subject: APCHA and the Lumberyard Project
Dear City Council
From what I hear and read, Aspen has more than enough employee housing.
The problem appears to me the way APCHA and other employee housing is
run and the lack of enforcement of its rules.
This being the case, why would the City spend $400 Million (well over one
million dollars a unit) on the Lumberyard project The project is planned to
have less than 300 units, which is not anywhere needed to address the
problem and is probably far less than could be made available by proper
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
64
running of the existing inventory. Further there are significant repairs and
improvements required for the existing inventory which could be done for a
fraction of the money required for the Lumberyard. In addition the
Lumberyard is locate miles from Aspen which will require transportation
generating more congestion. The time, effort and expense of approving and
building this project will not produce real results and may increase the
problem.
I believe our efforts and money would be better spent hiring staff and
establishing a real plan to properly administer and enforce our existing
employee housing to make sure it is only available to bone fide employees.
Surely if we spent a small fraction of the moneys otherwise allocated to the
lumberyard we could significantly or completely fix the existing issues.
Eric Simon
975 Horse Ranch Dr
Snowmass Village, CO 81615
561-350-3881
easim@aol.com
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
65
From:Mike Sear
To:City Council
Cc:Christopher Everson; Kevin Rayes
Subject:FW: June 13, 2023 meeting re Lumberyard Project
Date:Tuesday, June 13, 2023 9:48:29 AM
From: Porcaro, Jill <JPorcaro@seyfarth.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 9:00 AM
To: Public Comment <publiccomment@cityofaspen.com>
Subject: June 13, 2023 meeting re Lumberyard Project
Dear City Council,
I am writing to you as a full-time resident of the Aspen Airport Business Center to express
my concerns about the Lumberyard Project.
Specifically, I have serious concerns about the new road that will extend traffic from the
Lumberyard Project into the ABC connecting the two areas via Sage road. I have heard the
proponents of the Lumberyard project repeatedly express that the project will put people
before cars and that there will be benefit by reducing traffic coming from down valley.
However, the Lumberyard Project does this to the detriment of those of us living in the
ABC. Traffic will undoubtably increase dramatically in the ABC with the potential for having
an additional 400+ cars from residents, workers and visitors of the Lumberyard having
direct access to pass through the ABC to access highway 82 via Baltic Avenue. It is also
my understanding that heavy construction equipment used to build the Lumberyard Project
will be routed through the ABC down Sage road for period of up to 10 years needed to
complete the project. The residents of the ABC will therefore have to contend with
increased traffic congestion, noise and pollution being added to our neighborhood on an
ongoing basis without any steps being taken to protect the residents in the ABC. I am
particularly troubled that the ABC does not have adequate sidewalks or lighting for
residents (including children) walking in the neighborhood to access the grocery store, the
college and the bus stop. I anticipate that similar to Aspen’s West End, traffic from the
Lumberyard will be funneled though our neighborhood by Lumberyard residents and
workers who attempting to access highway 82 during the morning and evening rush.
Although there will be a new traffic light installed at the lumberyard, those who wish to avoid
traffic at that light will undoubtable travel through the ABC for no other reason than to
access highway 82 through the Baltic Avenue traffic light.
Presently, there are no speedbumps in the ABC and limited snow removal. In the winter
residents mostly walk in the street due to the lack of access to sidewalks. Residents on
bikes also routinely access the ABC bike trail using Sage Road and will have to interact
with the heavy flow of new traffic on Sage Road to access the bike path. This is a huge
safety issue for ABC residents and so far I do not see any plans to address these
concerns. I ask that the City of Aspen be a good neighbor to the ABC residents and takes
steps to mitigate the numerous safety issues raised by the added traffic in our
neighborhood. Some steps that could be take would be to build the new traffic light and
access from highway 82 to the Lumberyard first so that construction traffic would not need
to be routed through the ABC to access the Lumberyard. The City could also include a
stop sign and “no right turn” sign for traffic exiting the Lumberyard project so that traffic
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
66
exiting the Lumberyard remains on Sage road does not access the residential areas of the
ABC. The City could also work with the County to incorporate street lights, speed bumps
and sidewalks for residents to use to avoid walking through traffic.
Please consider us in your decisions. Aspen is also our home and many residents work in
the City of Aspen.
Thank you.
Jill Porcaro
Jill Porcaro | Partner | Seyfarth Shaw LLP
2029 Century Park East | Suite 3500 | Los Angeles, California 90067-3021
Direct: +1-310-201-5229 | Fax: +1-310-551-8411
jporcaro@seyfarth.com |
https://url.avanan.click/v2/___www.seyfarth.com___.YXAzOmNpdHlvZmFzcGVuOmE6bzpkZWQ2NmI1
MjA4ZmFlZDNkMmU3Mzk1MDI5NzY1YmE0Njo2OjEwY2U6NmI3ZmE4MmJiODJkODc3YWY0MjBjMGV
mMDFmMDE0NWVlYjAzZTA0YjE4YTMyMTA0ZDA5YWRiM2M0YTQxMmJiMzp0OkY
CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING: This email may contain privileged or confidential information and is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s). Any unauthorized use or disclosure of this communication is prohibited. If you believe that you have received this email inerror, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system.
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
67
From:Mike Sear
To:City Council
Cc:Public Comment; Christopher Everson; Kevin Rayes
Subject:FW: Lumber yard
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 12:04:21 PM
From: Stuart Townsend <stuart@marrgwen.com>
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2023 12:00 PM
To: Public Comment <publiccomment@aspen.gov>
Subject: Lumber yard
As property owners in Aspen we absolutely oppose this project. Every issue raised by Elizabeth Milias
must be fully addressed before this project moves forward at all. Anything less is likely criminal
malfeasance!
Stuart Townsend
Sent from Mail for Windows
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
68
From:Mike Sear
To:City Council
Cc:Public Comment; Christopher Everson; Kevin Rayes
Subject:FW: Lumber Yard
Date:Tuesday, June 13, 2023 8:49:00 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Miller <jmiller@haltoms.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 4:48 AM
To: Public Comment <publiccomment@aspen.gov>
Subject: Lumber Yard
Please do not rush this project through, it needs more clarity.
Sent from my iPad
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
69
From:Mike Sear
To:City Council
Cc:Christopher Everson; Kevin Rayes
Subject:FW: Lumberyard
Date:Tuesday, June 13, 2023 8:49:40 AM
From: Robert Winchester <mrchetski@outlook.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 6:28 AM
To: Public Comment <publiccomment@aspen.gov>
Subject: Lumberyard
I’m am a 49 year permanent resident of Aspen. I am against any vote today to lock in current
development plans for the Lumberyard Housing. I don’t believe it is ready for approval.
Robert P. "Chet" Winchester
777 Cemetery Lane
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Chet.Winchester@sir.com
Sent from Mail for Windows
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
70
From:Mike Sear
To:City Council
Cc:Public Comment; Christopher Everson; Kevin Rayes
Subject:FW: Lumberyard
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 1:38:34 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Slade <sgs@visiontexas.com>
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2023 1:17 PM
To: Public Comment <publiccomment@aspen.gov>
Subject: Lumberyard
Please study the lumberyard more before committing. I agree with recent editorials listing all the unknowns!
Sent from my iPhone
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
71
From:Mike Sear
To:City Council
Cc:Christopher Everson; Kevin Rayes
Subject:FW: Lumberyard
Date:Tuesday, June 13, 2023 8:50:02 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: WILLIAM LIPSEY <billriverstudio@me.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 7:43 AM
To: Public Comment <publiccomment@aspen.gov>
Subject: Lumberyard
Voting YES "because so much time & $$ has been spent" isn't rational decision making.
Taking a PAUSE makes sense so that the many problematic questions can publicly aired & so that taxpayers are not
blindsided.
For example: How many new management & maintenance employees will be generated & where will they housed?
400 + additional cars parked 3 miles from Aspen?
$70,000/below grade parking space?
Growth usually begets Growth. Large increments of Growth usually have unintended negative impacts on quality of
life.
Is it a quality optic to have a Vail-esque highly visible mega development as our "welcome to Aspen ".
Best, Bill Lipsey
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
72
From:Mike Sear
To:City Council
Cc:Christopher Everson; Kevin Rayes
Subject:FW: Lumberyard project finances
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 5:13:13 PM
From: Lindsay Gorman <lindsaycgorman@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2023 5:08 PM
To: Public Comment <publiccomment@aspen.gov>
Cc: Lindsay Gorman <lindsaycgorman@gmail.com>
Subject: Lumberyard project finances
Dear Council,
I am Lindsay Gorman, a full-time resident of Aspen and a retired CFO.
I am concerned about the financial plan for the Lumberyard project. The slide that Chris
Everson shared during his presentation June 6, purportedly showing a financial plan, was
cursory at best. My employer would not have found such a “plan” acceptable. Management
would have sent me back to the drawing board. I suggest you do the same, until much more
detail is made public.
Assuming you have no further information than was presented, here are some questions that I
think should be answered before the Lumberyard project moves forward:
· What assumptions were made to come up with the numbers on the presentation
revenue slide? (Part 1, page 35).
· Do these costs consider inflation?
o Does it include rising material costs?
o Does it include rising labor costs?
o Does it include interest on debt?
· How were the City’s estimated revenues calculated?
o Does the plan consider the effects of falling RETT collections? (This year’s
YTD real-estate revenues are currently down nearly 2/3 from last year at this
time, according to the Pitkin County Clerk’s office).
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
73
o How were the City’s estimates for future STR tax collections calculated?
§ Is $300,000,000 over 10 years realistic? (presentation part 1, page
32)
§ If the tax doesn’t generate this much income, what alternatives does
the city have?
· If the project is approved, what does the expenditure of over $400,000,000 do to
our current affordable-housing budget?
o Does it consider the need for continued maintenance on our present and/or
future properties?
o Does it consider possible judgements against the city from the current
litigations?
o Does it allow for buying back expiring affordable-housing deed restrictions?
· Will this require a tax increase for locals?
o If so, what form would these taxes take?
o How much would they need to increase?
· Each time I see a published estimate for the project, it seems higher. Was the City’s
estimate for the cost of the project independently verified?
o Did an experienced project contractor or someone other than city
employees predict the total costs for the project?
o Do these estimates include the cost of servicing and eventually retiring
project debt?
I urge you to pause approvals for the Lumberyard project until you have complete and
acceptable answers to each of these questions.
Regards,
Lindsay Gorman
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
74
From:Mike Sear
To:City Council
Cc:Christopher Everson; Kevin Rayes
Subject:FW: lumberyard project
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 3:11:28 PM
From: cjenkins150@comcast.net <cjenkins150@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2023 1:58 PM
To: Public Comment <publiccomment@aspen.gov>
Subject: lumberyard project
I am curious as to why the Lumberyard project is being voted on today. Does the public have
any input? Is there a well thought out, affordable budget? How many more units are to be
added to the city? What is the cost per unit? What are the impacts on the traffic ? We, Bob
and Carol Jenkins of Woody Creek, are very worried about the cost and possible (yet again)
massive increase in taxes and we wish to express our grave concerns on this being pushed
forward without more information on this project!
Sincerely,
Carol Jenkins
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
75
From:Mike Sear
To:City Council
Cc:Public Comment; Christopher Everson; Kevin Rayes
Subject:FW: Lumberyard project
Date:Wednesday, June 14, 2023 10:11:36 AM
From: don.suskind@gmail.com <don.suskind@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2023 10:08 AM
To: Public Comment <publiccomment@aspen.gov>
Subject: Lumberyard project
Dear City of Aspen,
My name is Don Suskind, I moved to Aspen in 2019 and have been a homeowner since 2021. I
believe our town needs more worker housing, and also believe this is a very difficult situation
without easy solutions.
From what I have gathered, I have several concerns about the Lumberyard project and request that
the City be able to address some questions before proceeding.
1. How will Aspen pay for the Lumberyard project? After reviewing the materials, the City does
not appear to have a plan to finance the project. I am concerned about approving high cost
projects without a financing plan. Can the city please provide detailed plans for funding the
project, including sources and timing of any funding plans?
2. Why would there be ownership units? This doesn’t seem to be the most efficient long-term
solution to solve the housing crisis and maintain the highest level possible of locally residing
workers.
3. What is the plan for seasonal workers? In the spring and fall offseasons, many locals leave
town. Why not have seasonal housing to match the seasonal demand for hospitality and
resort workers, essential services, etc.?
4. What is the shortfall between existing APCHA empty bedrooms and required bedrooms to
staff the town’s businesses? I would think this should be the fundamental question to point
the city in the right direction for the # of bedrooms to build, but can’t seem to locate an
answer to this question. Also this may illuminate how the existing inventory of APCHA housing
could be optimized to provide immediate housing for those in need rather than having empty
bedrooms, or bedrooms that aren’t serving local workers.
Thank you,
Don Suskind
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
76
From:Mike Sear
To:City Council
Cc:Christopher Everson; Kevin Rayes
Subject:FW: Lumberyard
Date:Thursday, June 15, 2023 9:04:02 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Shannon Andrews <shannon-andrews@comcast.net>
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2023 4:34 AM
To: Public Comment <publiccomment@aspen.gov>
Subject: Lumberyard
City Council,
I am writing to express my dissent against the Lumberyard Project. I will clarify that I am a proponent for
Affordable Housing in Aspen, but this particular project cannot pay for itself. How is the community going to find
an extra four hundred million dollars? There is only one way this happens and that is by raising taxes and fees.
That is not fair to hard working average citizens of Aspen. This town is not made up of just rich out of towners.
There are many citizens that live in moderate housing that is not part of APTCHA and their taxes will go up. They
are not in any position to pay more in taxes and fees, they are barely making it now. I have many friends that cannot
afford the raise in their assessed property taxes this year. I am talking about seven hundred thousand to one million
dollar properties, not twenty or thirty million dollar properties with part time occupants. This is wrong on all levels.
The city should repair and improve the properties that they already have in existence and start monitoring those who
are taking advantage of the system. If people that were breaking the rules were removed, a lot of housing would be
freed up for residents that actually work in Aspen. Then take the time to figure out a realistic way to build more
housing, perhaps down valley? I thought the city was against development. As usual, the people that will be hurt by
this proposed project are the hard working people that have not asked for any subsidies and now will be driven out
of their homes. Guess who will buy those homes? More part timers. Isn’t that what you are trying to avoid?
You haven’t even been able to figure out the road situation for the highway and yet you want to spend another
$400,000 we don’t have. This is typical government. Just raise taxes and take from the people and the real victims
are the middle class that have done all the right things.
Shannon Andrews
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
77
From:Mike Sear
To:City Council
Cc:Christopher Everson; Kevin Rayes
Subject:FW: Lumberyard
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 3:12:32 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: Deborah Tomlinson <dtomlinson552@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2023 2:27 PM
To: Public Comment <publiccomment@aspen.gov>
Subject: Lumberyard
Hello!
Would really like to see the council slow their role on the lumberyard project. We don't know enough not to mention
how it will be financed. In the meantime, it would be nice to have confidence that what we do have is managed
properly.
Thank you,
Deborah Tomlinson
Sent from my iPhone
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
78
From:Mike Sear
To:City Council
Cc:Christopher Everson; Kevin Rayes
Subject:FW: Lumberyard
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 5:03:46 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: Shelly Friedstein <shelly.friedstein@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2023 4:54 PM
To: Public Comment <publiccomment@aspen.gov>
Subject: Lumberyard
The council should vote no. Too many unanswered questions.
Shelly
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
79
From:Mike Sear
To:City Council
Cc:Public Comment; Christopher Everson; Kevin Rayes
Subject:FW: Lumberyard
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 1:37:50 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: mel ronick <melron347@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2023 1:00 PM
To: Public Comment <publiccomment@aspen.gov>
Subject: Lumberyard
I am absolutely against and amazed at the current proposal to go forward with the proposed Lumberyard
development.
Where are the funds to build this coming from? If you really have a viable source of funding why haven't you
disclosed it yet?
Seems that the City has not been doing an adequate job in keeping all the employee housing units occupied by true
employees so why would one suppose you'd do any better with all these units?
Have you adequately examined the traffic impacts on the already crowded highway?
Thanks,
Mel Ronick
Aspen Resident
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
80
From:Mike Sear
To:City Council
Cc:Christopher Everson; Kevin Rayes
Subject:FW: Lumberyard
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 3:12:03 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Peterson <edp@martin-eng.com>
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2023 2:22 PM
To: Public Comment <publiccomment@aspen.gov>
Subject: Lumberyard
I am very much against this project
Dictated by Ed Peterson
--
_"This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or
entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the system manager. Please
note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the company. Finally, the recipient should check the e-mail and any attachments for the presence
of viruses. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email."
_
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
81
From:Mike Sear
To:City Council
Cc:Christopher Everson; Kevin Rayes
Subject:FW: Lumberyard: Of course
Date:Tuesday, June 13, 2023 8:50:43 AM
From: Phyllis Bronson <phyllisbronsonphd@me.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 7:51 AM
To: Public Comment <PublicComment@aspen.gov>
Subject: Lumberyard: Of course
Dear Mayor and Aspen City Council,
The proposed Lumberyard project, while imperfect, is desperately needed if the Aspen core community is
to have a stake in its own survival. The Aspen Area Community Plan
was implemented with the hope of keeping those here who are part of the fabric of the community.
The concern is that the new city council will lose the big picture and that is the opposite of what is needed
now,
“The perfect can be the enemy of the good.”
Rachel Richard’s letter today, however said it perfectly.
Pb
Sincerely,
Phyllis
Phyllis J. Bronson, Ph.D.
Biochemical Consulting Company
Biochemical Research Foundation, Aspen
International Society for Orthomolecular Medicine
American Chemical Society
International College of Integrative Medicine
Institute of Bioidentical Medicine Board
Phyllisbronsonphd.com
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
82
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
83
From:Mike Sear
To:City Council
Cc:Public Comment; Kevin Rayes
Subject:FW: NEW Housing needed but what about Your Neighbors at Centennial?
Date:Tuesday, June 20, 2023 6:28:05 PM
From: Erik Skarvan <sundog@sopris.net>
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 4:45 PM
To: Public Comment <publiccomment@aspen.gov>
Subject: NEW Housing needed but what about Your Neighbors at Centennial?
Dear City Council,
As we approach the final consideration for this much needed project, I must weigh in as both a 40
year supporter of local housing and a fortunate resident in A.H. for almost 30 years. Unfortunately,
over 90 of us owners bought into the rotting out Centennial without our knowledge after being
poorly built to begin with, as you’re aware. “Value engineering” resulted in cutting corners, including
any protection from monsoon season and 300 inches of snow on average. With no real water
proofing or protection, our homes are rotting from the outside in and deteriorating more with time.
Our increasing dues continue to replace rotten faces of our buildings one by one. We’ve invested
quite a lot in the wellbeing of our buildings over decades, but we’re not millionaires. Being low
income residents, we clearly don’t have the ability to fork over the estimate $13M for repairs and
therefore, are seeking a legal remedy, taking into account a lack of assistance. Just from a humanistic
standpoint, this is a sad state of affairs in how we treat each other in our community towards our
own fellow residents, friends and neighbors. When the estimate was about $3M, Torre had
proposed a relatively simple solution when campaigning for a combination of owner contributions, a
City contribution and coordination of a low interest loan at about $1M each. That cost has now
quadrupled with further delays and legal wrangling to apparently prevent setting a precedent for
other HOAs, a precedent of caring and holding up the integrity of APCHA.
How about we take care of what we have first AND FIX IT, before a hop, skip and a jump out the ABC
to spend a half a billion dollars (with cost overruns)? It’s fundamentally right, especially for a housing
program we boast about to the world. How can we take pride, when our second largest complex is
literally crumbling and hundreds of us are suffering because of it? How do you think that makes us
feel? The humanistic aspect, namely a lack of caring is probably the most hurtful aspect of the
Centennial issue that’s been festering for many years, while we’re given the Heisman.
Again, I support new housing as it’s clearly and desperately needed, especially in town. The
Lumberyard isn’t in town and will still generate a lot of car traffic, pollution and stress into the
entrance each day. Creative mobility solutions will be crucial. Speaking of air pollution, there was a
recent report in the newspaper about unhealthy air quality on Buttermilk Mt. How can a location
across from many dozens of flights (mostly private) and approx. 50,000 car trip daily (both rush
hours) be healthy just using commonsense and existing data? What about kids growing up in the jet
and car exhaust? It has to be toxic, but how toxic? We need more data at this is a health and safety
issue for future residents of the Lumberyard.
Thanks for your kind consideration of our community,
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
84
Erik
Erik Skarvan, Aspen
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
85
From:Mike Sear
To:City Council
Cc:Christopher Everson; Kevin Rayes
Subject:FW: No lumberyard
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 5:26:47 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephanie Lewis <stephanie@aspensnowmassliving.com>
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2023 5:24 PM
To: Public Comment <publiccomment@aspen.gov>
Subject: No lumberyard
To whom it may concern at City of Aspen:
I am a long term local, and homeowner in Aspen. Along with everyone I know, I see our affordable housing
program as an important component to the life of our town.
Yet it seems clear that City Staff and Council has not yet put forth a lucid strategy on how to finance the
Lumberyard project.
I ask City Staff and Council to make it far more clear to the Aspen community how it will come up with the
necessary $400mm before committing the town to such a project.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Lewis
970-948-7219
Aspen CO 81611
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
86
From:Mike Sear
To:City Council
Cc:Public Comment; Christopher Everson; Kevin Rayes
Subject:FW: The Lumberyard needs more study before a vote.
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 12:26:42 PM
From: DHM <dhm237@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2023 12:24 PM
To: Public Comment <publiccomment@aspen.gov>
Subject: The Lumberyard needs more study before a vote.
Does the City Council even care what the community thinks about it’s plans for the Lumberyard?
What is its response to the questions raised by citizens of Aspen??
Please take the time to study the concerns raised.
Thank you.
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
87
From:Mike Sear
To:City Council
Cc:Christopher Everson; Kevin Rayes
Subject:FW: The Lumberyard Project
Date:Thursday, June 15, 2023 9:03:15 AM
From: Constance Bonczek <constancebonczek@icloud.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2023 8:32 PM
To: Public Comment <publiccomment@aspen.gov>
Subject: The Lumberyard Project
I WILL VOTE NO TO THIS PROJECT AT THIS POINT UNTIL WE ARE FURNISHED WITH THE FOLLOWING
A) The budget
B) The financing plans
C) The traffic plans
D) The specifics on who will eventually reside there
E) A study on the impacts to our schools, hospital and other vital infrastructure
F) Impacts on the community in terms of real growth.
HOW CAN WE BE IN AGREEMENT WITHOUT THE ABVOVE INFORMATION
THANK YOU
CONSTANCE BONCZEK
LONG TIME REAL ESTATE OWNER
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
88
From:Mike Sear
To:City Council
Cc:Public Comment; Christopher Everson; Kevin Rayes
Subject:FW: Work Session 7/10/23
Date:Wednesday, July 5, 2023 10:28:04 AM
From: Elizabeth Milias <elizabeth.milias@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, July 4, 2023 3:26 AM
To: Public Comment <publiccomment@aspen.gov>
Subject: Work Session 7/10/23
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Cliff Weiss <cliffweiss49@gmail.com>
Date: July 3, 2023 at 11:13:51 PM EDT
To: TheRedAntEM@comcast.net
Subject: Lumberyard
I had an idea I wanted to run by you.
The first floor of each building should be commercial including retail and restaurants.
The income from condominiumizing and or leasing that space might provide a better
private partnership.
This solution might also alleviate the need for medium priced restaurants serving locals
and visiting families.
Sent from my iPhone
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
89
From:Alexandra George
To:Public Comment
Subject:Request to Vote Against the Lumberyard Project
Date:Sunday, June 11, 2023 5:45:31 PM
Dear Aspen City Council,
I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed
Lumberyard project and to respectfully request that you vote against its advancement. I
believe that this project, as it currently stands, raises significant concerns that warrant careful
consideration and further evaluation before any approvals are granted.
First and foremost, the lack of a clearly defined goal for the Lumberyard project is troubling.
Merely increasing the number of units without a comprehensive plan to address the
community's actual workforce needs is an inadequate approach. It is crucial to prioritize the
needs of essential workers, teachers, nurses, first responders, bus drivers, snow-plow drivers,
bartenders, housekeepers, retirees, and the Latino community. Furthermore, the absence of a
policy to ensure inclusivity and the opportunity for employers to purchase units raises
questions about the project's fairness and long-term viability.
Financial feasibility is another major concern. The absence of a well-defined financial plan for
construction, despite cost estimates approaching $500 million, is alarming. Reliance on
declining RETT and STR tax collections, which have proven to be insufficient, along with the
challenges associated with the proposed Public Private Partnership, raises doubts about the
project's ability to generate sustainable revenue. The potential ongoing subsidy required to
cover the project's annual debt service would place an unnecessary financial burden on the
city.
Moreover, it is important to consider whether the proposed 277 units in the Lumberyard
project adequately offset the expiring deed restrictions on other units. Preserving and
protecting existing units, which would likely be more cost-effective, should be a priority over
investing such a substantial amount of money in new construction.
I urge you to pause and carefully evaluate the larger implications of the Lumberyard project
within the context of a comprehensive master plan. Infrastructure considerations, such as the
park-and-ride intercept lot, the airport's expansion, and the need for a new traffic light and
improvements to the Castle Creek Bridge, should be integrated into a well-thought-out plan.
Rushing into individual projects without proper planning has led to costly mistakes in the past,
and I believe that taking the time to develop a responsible and sustainable plan will benefit the
community in the long run.
I strongly urge you to vote against the Lumberyard project in its current form.
Sincerely,
Alexandra George
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
90
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
91
From:David Gitlitz
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumber Yard Project
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 8:43:12 AM
The site is suitable for 1k housing units Yet it is being designed for less than 1/3 that number
Where is the “need “ study on number and type of units
How many units are needed over next 10 years -where is the land available that will accommodate demand?
Work force housing ???
Where is the RFP that would solicit proposals from private developers ?
I have been in the development business for over fifty years and cannot begin to understand the justification for
scope of budget or the urgency to proceed without sound economics
David Gitlitz
Sent from my iPhone
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
92
From:Robin Gorog
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 11:12:25 AM
I want to be on record that I feel that the Lumberyard project had problems on every side. The cost
of the project per unit is way too high, the height of the project is way out of bounds at 64 feet and
is out of character for Aspen and the impact this will have on 82 has not been considered at all.
Robin Gorog
Sent from Mail for Windows
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
93
From:g@ggrayson.com
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 10:12:16 AM
Hello,
I believe the Lumberyard project is being fast tracked without sufficient understanding of its
financing and who it will serve. We need workforce housing, but I don’t believe the way the project
is conceived at present, it will house the people that are needed.
Gerald Grayson
970-948-5090
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
94
From:Paul Grenney
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumber Yard Project
Date:Sunday, June 11, 2023 5:58:06 PM
Elected Council members
My family first came to Aspen in the 1960’s, and have enjoyed natures beauty since
Yes, real estate is expensive and employees need housing assistance
Those funding employee housing via taxation appreciate transparent financials on the Lumber Yard project in
adequate time for consideration before Council votes
In appreciation
Paul Grenney
June 2023
Sent from my iPhone
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
95
From:rwg@gunnfinancial.com
To:Public Comment
Subject:LUMBERYARD
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 9:27:39 AM
Before a vote should be taken the Board ands the community should have answers to all the
open questions, budget, financing etc. It is foolish a fundamental lack of responsibility to
move ahead with a vote at this point in time. Shows no fiscal responsibility. Bob Gunn
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
96
From:Dave Hotchkin
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 8:05:13 AM
Proceeding on this project is stupid. For the cost per unit, Aspen can buy condos in Snowmass
less expensive.
David Hotchkin
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
97
From:Michael Houlehan
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 8:58:01 AM
There should be no final decisions on the Lumberyard project until the budget and financing
plans are first available to the public to analyze. If they are, please let me know how to obtain.
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
98
From:Thomas Howells
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumber yard project
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 11:42:14 AM
This project is far to large and needs to be scaled back. far to much density !
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
99
When the community bought BMC 4.6 acres for 18 million in
2007:
◼ Airbnb had yet to inflate its first mattresses.
◼ We did not know about STRs and their erosion of the long
term rental base.
◼ We did not know that Covid would drive high end refugees
to our town
But we had already experienced the impact of tax cuts on
residential real estate, we saw what increasing income
inequality was doing to the housing market and we understood
the demographics of baby boomers moving into retirement. We
correctly anticipated that housing would be needed in the long
term.
Perhaps your metric for assessing housing needs is anecdotal:
the doubling of rents that drove two talented physicians out of
town for want of $300,000 a year rent, the inability of RFTA to
accept a grant that would have made bus service up and down
the valley free had we been able to hire more drivers, Paul
Anderson’s modest proposal asking for help from the Realtors
went unanswered and unacknowledged, the listing of a rental
at $125,000 per year.
Perhaps your lens for viewing the housing problem is quantified
data, the decline in population measured by the Census
between 2020 and 2022, the increase in vacant units to an
unprecedented 70%, the loss of 250 housing units in the past
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
100
few years that already offsets what is proposed for the
Lumberyard.
Given the above, I urge the council to decline the temptation to
kick the Lumberyard can down Highway 82. You will be asked to
put a hold on this badly needed housing while an RFP is put out
to private sector developers.
You heard last week from the Bard of Centennial, Ed Cross. No
matter how you feel about the merits of his case, it is important
to remember that Centennial was designed by “World Class”
architects and needed city help for financing. Burlingame I and
II were also RFP productions with some unhappy results that
resulted in litigation. And don’t forget the private sector
dragged the community through six years of litigation,
Myerstein I and Myerstein II in an attempt by a subsequent
owner to avoid keeping their P in a PPP.
I recommend the council maintain control of the project by
obtaining the entitlements, doing the infrastructure and
managing the construction process to a high standard. On
completion of those steps, I am certain the council could then
sell the project for the value of the rental stream AND the
resultant housing credits which the purchaser could resell and
which the city cannot, under the Land Use Code, market to the
developers and home expanders who need them.
With the average rental income on 193 proposed set at the
present $1,800 per month, the income stream would be
$347,400 per month or $4,168,800 per year. The value of that
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
101
income stream using a capitalization rate of 4% per year would
be $104,220,000. In other words, the market would pay
approximately $104 million for an investment that pays
$4,168,800 annually. This is the basis of investment decisions
everywhere and, given the demand for rental units, the
purchase just of the income stream from renting the city owned
land and units would be a no brainer.
In addition, opponents do not acknowledge that the sale of 82
ownership units would generate another $32 million given an
approximate average sale price of $32 million.
Finally, the city could make the project eligible for affordable
housing credits that can be sold to private developers needing
housing mitigation. Such credits could easily generate $150
million for the city through a private partnership.
Consider:
Rental income stream: $104 million
Owner occupied units: $32 million
Mitigation credits: $150 million
Total $287 million.
Before using tax dollars, approximately 70% of the estimated
cost could be raised through capital markets and sale of
mitigation credits. The remaining $120 million is easily finances
using RETT and other housing revenues.
Thank You.
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
102
Mick Ireland
mick@sopris.net
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
103
From:Richard Jones
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 10:01:29 AM
It is always far more prudent to err on the side of thoroughness and transparency good
leadership suggests thoughtful analysis with all opinions and options open. Let's pause and
reflect.
Get Outlook for iOS
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use
by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that
any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
104
From:James Martin
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 8:54:28 AM
I am dismayed that our Aspen Government is considering spending our
money on such an ill conceived project.
I am an Aspen voter having been in the community for 25 years. DO NOT
DO THIS! The government needs to take the time to carefully consider all
aspects of the project.
------------------------------------------------
Jim Martin
620 West Hallam St.
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
105
From:Margaret Mason
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard Project
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 8:13:38 AM
I urge the City of Aspen to inform the citizens of the plans and
Amount of funding needed for the lumberyard project. We need to know details and source of money before you
pass this.
Peggy Mason
Sent from my iPhone
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
106
From:DrPikes1
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 8:16:14 AM
For gosh sakes, slow down and look up the word "transparency" please. Without sharing basic
information with the people who have to live with and pay for this reckless project, this is an
insult to anyone living in our town. How dare you hide facts from taxpayers?
APCHA is still broken. Fix it first before another private city project is approved. The city of
Aspen won't share basic info which screams something is wrong.
Stop this waste of $$.
Michael McLaughlin
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
107
From:laurie michaels
To:Public Comment
Subject:Please slow down the Lumberyard project.
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 9:14:50 AM
To whom it may concern,
Traffic on Hwy 82 is bad and only getting worse. The Lumberyard project is going to increase the number of people
who will be driving that very congested stretch from ABC to town.
Laurie Michaels
Sent from my iPad
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
108
From:Kristy Mora
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard project is not ready for approval
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 8:14:03 AM
There are way too many unknowns to approve this project tomorrow. The information that is publication available
makes it seem as if there is no one in charge that knows what they are doing. The units are way too expensive and
frivolous. You need a CPA, a practical designer, and people with common sense working on this plan and project.
The fact that the school district can build housing for 1/3 the cost should be a huge wake up call for the people in
charge of the Lumberyard. And teachers are essential workers. This project should not go forward until a
responsible plan is put into place
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
109
From:Roger Moyer
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 6:45:55 AM
The major flaw in my mind is placing the entire project along the highway, better would be to build
a berm along the highway pacing the development away from same making the actual units quieter,
less obtrusive , the cycling and walking pathways safer and also less close to the highway.
Sent from Mail for Windows
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
110
From:Lucy Nichols
To:Public Comment
Subject:NO to the Lumberyard
Date:Sunday, June 11, 2023 8:22:22 PM
Lucy Nichols
Sotheby’s International Realty
c. 970-379-1587
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
111
From:Douglas Peckham
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard
Date:Sunday, June 11, 2023 5:20:55 PM
It is unquestionable that Aspen needs affordable housing, but it is seriously doubtful that the
Lumberyard project as it stands today is the solution Aspen needs.
A pause is called for to reconsider both priorities and options. Are we seeking to house our
local workers? Or is the city simply seeking to import more sycophants, dependent on City
Management’s largess to enjoy the Aspen lifestyle at the expense of Free Market taxpayers.
We cannot afford the current plan. Its implementation will further divide the city and county
into billionaire part-timers, and subsidized free-loaders. Business owners, retirees, and all
others who contribute to the community will be forced out. Luxury blight will be the result.
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
112
From:Chris Penrose
To:Public Comment
Subject:The Lumberyard
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 11:13:07 AM
Been following this Titanic of a project for some time. Don’t quite understand why the City of Aspen
is not taking advantage of the private-sector.
I developed and owned millions of square feet of Federal Government properties occupied by
various Federal Govt tenants. As part of my federal Government portfolio, I developed and owned 7
FBI filed offices, from Hawaii to Baltimore. Some of the most sophisticated buildings on earth
(certainly not apartments).
But the federal Government (GSA) got it right when it came to the actual development bidding
process. These were highly competitive/complex projects, starting with developer qualifications
(sometimes over 100 teams applied) and ending with the selection of 5 finalists. Quality, creativity,
and price were all considered and graded. In short, the he GSA took full advantage of the private
sectors development experience, imagination, and financing expertise. Unbelievably, none of that is
happening here. Why not?
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
113
From:Jim Perry
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 11:33:46 AM
My name is James Perry. I am a registered voter in Aspen. I am 100% against the approval of the lumberyard
housing project. There are far better places to spend the tax payers money than a the Lumberyard. I encourage the
council to vote against this project.
Thank you.
Sincerely
James H. Perry
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
114
From:Alycin Bektesh
To:Public Comment
Subject:Public Comment on behalf of ACRA membership
Date:Tuesday, June 6, 2023 5:35:23 PM
Attachments:DA page 1.png
DA page 2.png
DA page 3.png
Housing data 2023.pdf
To: Mayor Torre and Aspen City Council
I am writing to you on behalf of the ACRA Public Affairs Committee, and the 750 businesses and
thousands of employees that make up the ACRA membership.
We commend this council for identifying affordable housing as a primary goal, “recognizing the
urgent need to create a high-quality, sustainable, lived-in community.” The Lumberyard affordable
housing development embodies the Council's vision, is a concrete step towards implementing the
Affordable Housing Strategic Plan, and a testament of your commitment to the future of Aspen.
As we all know, businesses are increasingly finding it challenging to hire and retain staff due to the
lack of affordable housing options. Research conducted by Destination Analysts included checking in
with the business community each month over the course of the last year. In all instances, the
number one business concern was housing costs for employees. We also know from polling business
owners, that the top cited reason that employees give for leaving their job is a loss of housing. More
than 90 percent of ACRA’s membership says that new affordable housing should be built.
(Data Attached)
As you know from the 200 pages of community input included in your packet tonight – the
community has been shaping a vision of the Lumberyard through extensive outreach over the last
three years. They have made the time to attend open houses, participate in surveys, and write
thoughtful responses about the best use of this property. Today you are being asked to honor that
process and make the land use changes needed to turn the Lumberyard into a neighborhood.
By providing stable affordable housing closer to work, the council has the opportunity to address
your other top goals of Mobility and Community Building and Health. We know those with longer
commutes are more likely to experience depression, financial concern, and stress. By creating
accessible housing adjacent to our “multi-modal and integrated transportation system” you are
“Designing and promoting opportunities for creating human connections among locals” - these are
your words and we support them.
We also support your efforts to seek partnerships in building the Lumberyard. Aspen’s businesses
and nonprofits are eager to provide access to affordable housing as an employee benefit. However,
the majority of Aspen’s businesses can not compete in the real estate free market, and instead are
looking for ways to collectively buy in on new units. As you seek financial opportunities, we ask that
you seek partnership models that include small, local businesses.
In conclusion, the Lumberyard affordable housing development isn't just a project. It's a testament
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
115
to your commitment towards the future of Aspen, where businesses thrive because their employees
have a stable, affordable place to call home.
We are asking you to vote yes on Ordinance 10 today and follow through on the work the
community has put in to bring affordable housing on line, enabling the workforce to remain in this
community.
We believe the ordinance allows enough flexibility to continue improving the final development
after this phase. At the very least, please show your commitment to our businesses and workforce
tonight by passing through Sections 1 and 2 which rezoning the property and update the subdivision
designation – measures which are necessary regardless of other ongoing conversations.
After decades, you have the unique opportunity today to secure our economic future and affirm
your commitment to equity, inclusivity and belonging. Thank you.
Alycin Bektesh
Public Affairs Manager
590 N Mill Street | Aspen, CO 81611
t 970.920.7149 | f 970.920.1173
Follow us Instagram | Twitter | Facebook
Visit us at www.aspenchamber.org
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
116
From:Alan Quasha
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 8:33:05 AM
This project should definitely be voted down now. At a minimum, there should be further fact finding on a number
of very important issues, which need to be articulated and shared with the community. These include financing of
the project, impact on traffic, and justification of the cost of building each unit.
Thank you,
Alan Quasha
Sent from my iPhone
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
117
From:Denice Reich
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumber Yard
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 9:20:38 AM
To Whom it May Concern:
The lumber yard - $400 million? To be built by the City of Aspen, and run by individuals without any
economic background? The city should never be in charge of running a project like this. There are
no knowledgeable people in the government of Aspen for this type of project. The government
should not be in the housing business.
Remember the missing $75 million at Burlingame?
Sent from Mail for Windows
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
118
From:Alison Richman
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumber Yard
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 8:08:54 AM
This project is a NO vote if it was to be re-asked.
All the issues that are top of the list are all issues for a Fat No!
Traffic, population impact, water, sewer, pollution! All are just on the short list for a No.
You cannot gaurentee the quality nor professionalism of the renters and that does not solve the staffing issue. Do
you even realize that when you grow and bring more jousting you also need more of everything else you are trying
to satisfy.
No No No not needed and the benefits Do Not outweigh the costs!
Alison Richman
Sent from my iPhone
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
119
From:Will Rutledge
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard Project - Request To Postpone Vote
Date:Sunday, June 11, 2023 6:25:21 PM
Dear Aspen City Council,
Regarding the Lumberyard Project, as a manager of hundreds of deed
restricted, employee housing units, I can speak from a very educated
standpoint on the following questions I hope you will get answered
before putting your stamp on this project.
First, as you know, Burlingame Ranch II has a multi-million dollar
construction defect claim against the City. The City is claiming
immunity from the claim as a governmental entity. With Burlingame III
already postponed due to construction issues, how do you plan to protect
new employee housing association's rights to defect claims? If the City
considers itself both the developer/declarant, but is attempting to deny
the owners this process, how does what the City hands over as,
effectively, a free market community association seek protection from
construction issues in their complex?
Second, these community associations are often populated by owners who
are new to owning property; and, thus may not have the education to
properly manage these communities. The APCHA study of maintenance and
reserve deficiencies found that practically every employee housing
community does not have the ability to manage their fiduciary
responsibilities or hold someone accountable for the shortcomings. With
the Lumberyard being the largest development yet, how will the City
handle responsibility/accountability for owners within these
associations to protect the asset down the road? How do you require
current owners to be accountable for the responsibilities generated on
their watch, so future owners are not left holding the bag?
Thank you in advance for your time and consideration of these issues.
Will Rutledge
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
120
From:R
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard housing
Date:Sunday, June 11, 2023 6:35:11 PM
I grew up in aspen and it has become barely livable due to outgrowing it’s natural size. I’m just a common person
with common concerns.
The lumber yard housing is going to be the final nail in the once beautiful area.
- we can’t take more traffic!
- adding 1,000 people to our population causes a huge change in every part of our town. Infrastructure, eating,
shopping, water, hiking, biking, basic living.
- no housing project should be built on the west side of the round-a-bout. Common sense to control traffic. Maybe
rebuild centennial?
- noise! Has anyone considered how loud it is across from the airport? Go for a walk on the rio grande trail there on
a weekend and you can’t even hear your iPod.
- cost. Let’s be real. Half a billion dollars?
- is there a guarantee to house teachers, emergency services workers, and government employees, or are we just
trying to relocate the town of Carbondale into aspen?
In my opinion This will be a disaster that changes aspen forever. Overpopulation has ruined many gem cities in the
country. It’s ok to say NO once in awhile.
Sincerely
Mr. Ryan
Aspen
Sent from my iPhone
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
121
From:Hillary Simon
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumber Yard
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 9:41:08 AM
VOTE NO!
We the people do not have enough information!!
No! no! No!
Hillary Simon - Woody Creek
Sent from my iPhoneX
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
122
From:Andrew Skewes
To:Public Comment
Subject:concern over financing of Lumberyard project
Date:Sunday, June 11, 2023 7:16:58 PM
Dear City of Aspen:
I write to you with regard to public comment over the lumberyard project.
As a long term local, and homeowner in Aspen, I very much see our affordable housing
program as an important component to the life of our town.
Yet I am very concerned about proceeding with more time and funding of the Lumberyard
project, until we have a real understanding of how it will be financed.
As someone who spent their entire career in the world of finance, I can say with great
confidence that this an area where I have expertise.
Yet despite innumerable conversations I have had with people, I have yet to hear a lucid
strategy of how the LY will be financed.
I implore you to act responsibly and put forth an honest assessment of where the money will
come from, before proceeding any further.
Sincerely,
Andrew Skewes
835 East Durant Ave
Aspen CO 81611
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
123
From:Steven Sklar
To:Public Comment
Subject:lumberyard
Date:Sunday, June 11, 2023 7:24:28 PM
Build it already
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
124
From:Tiffany Smith
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard Project
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 8:35:51 AM
Dear City of Aspen,
While I wholeheartedly support increasing affordable housing units for local “boots on the ground” workers in
Aspen and the RFV, the Lumberyard Project plans are not ready to be approved. The price per unit cost is truly
unbelievable (my husband is a local developer who has done AH and he will verify this), the total expense of the
project must have solid, provable and transparent financing in advance, and the impact on the local infrastructure
needs to be thoroughly studied and any negative impacts and stressor points must be resolved first, before approving
this massive project.
I realize public emotion is on the side of approve now, deal with the consequences later, but that is not only fiscally
irresponsible, it is also personally irresponsible. For the sake of the community and Aspen’s bottom-line, get your
ducks in a row first. Take the time you need to make the right decision, whatever it is, and don’t get pushed by
influencers into a hasty and potentially disastrous decision for the city.
Thank you for your service to the community,
Tiffany Smith
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
125
From:Susan Spalding
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard {Project
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 8:18:58 AM
Dear City Council Members:
Please vote NO on the Lumberyard project. It is outrageously expensive; the financials have not
been fully disclosed; it will probably cost more than you are currently estimating; and this decision is
a rushed one at best. If you support this project you are violating your fiduciary duties for our city.
The public has a right to full disclosure on a project that is this massive in cost and size.
Thank you in advance for voting “no” so as to better vet this out.
Regards,
Susan Spalding
Aspen Resident
Sent from Mail for Windows
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
126
From:David Spencer
To:Public Comment
Subject:The Lumberyard Project
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 9:02:38 AM
My wife and I have owned a large condo in the core since 1983.
We vehemently oppose and disapprove the Lumberyard Project and the vote there upon.
David and Debi Spencer
--
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
127
From:David Stapleton
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumber Yard
Date:Sunday, June 11, 2023 6:03:30 PM
I do believe in Employee housing. But where does it end and at what cost.
I am very concerned about the increased traffic and an additional stop
light that will be added to our already traffic problem. That is my
biggest concern.
David Stapleton
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
128
From:Michael Stolper
To:Public Comment
Subject:The cost is insane
Date:Sunday, June 11, 2023 7:30:01 PM
The project is ill conceived, poorly planned, and unaffordable.No new employee housing should be built until
APCHA is completely reformed. More important, SkiCo and other employers should pay a wage that makes housing
and child care affordable, even with a commute, rather than cost shifting to property owners , business owners, and
tourists, through real estate transfer taxes, property taxes( RAFTA) , and sky high sales tax.Under any circumstance,
units should be rentals to allow consistent enforcement of APCHA rules.
Aspen is expensive, as is Park Avenue, Beverly Hills, River Oaks, etc. Working in an affluent area should provide
higher wages, but isn’t a housing entitlement anywhere in the world.Marolt has a case of pathological nostalgia.
Mick Ireland has a well- documented history of creating class conflict at every opportunity, i.e., the politics of envy.
mstolper@gmail.com
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
129
From:Berg, Summer
To:Public Comment
Subject:Put the Breaks on the Lumberyard
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 9:18:04 AM
While the community acknowledges the need for more affordable housing, rushing on
this project does not make sense.
The traffic impacts of this project directly correlate to Aspen's other major problem:
traffic into Aspen.
If you make traffic worse by adding another traffic light, you are increasing the need
for more housing INSIDE of Aspen.
Many Aspen workers prefer to live downvalley for several reasons. Many
employers inside of Aspen will tell you that workers dont want to commute from
Downvalley because it can take up nearly 2 hours of their day.
If we make getting in and out of Aspen to work easier, we also ease the need to
house every worker inside of Aspen City Limits and for the government to provide
subsidized housing.
As an employer (and many other employers) can attest to this issue.
Also, as a real estate attorney and professional that is part of many other
organizations, economic and real estate related on a regional and national level, the
data is pointing to a shift in the market and prices coming down. In Aspen we are
already seeing vacancies and price reductions in rents. The rental market follows the
data on hotel vacancies that isnt looking good this summer. Aspen got out of control
during Covid but is now normalizing.
There are so many other factors to fully consider before rushing a vote on this
project. We need more community feedback and analysis of the impacts of this
massive project, considering the new economic lens in which we need to view this
project through, as well as HOW to pay for it.
Thank you.
Summer Berg, Esq.
President | Managing Broker | Licensed Partner
ENGEL&VÖLKERS
Engel & Völkers Aspen Snowmass | Roaring Fork
720 E. Hyman Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611 USA
Tel: +1 970.925.8400
Mobile: +1 970.379.6626
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
130
Internet: aspen.evrealestate.com
Mail to: summer.berg@evrealestate.com
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please immediately
delete its contents and notify us. This email was checked for virus contamination before being sent - nevertheless, it is
advisable to check for any contamination occurring during transmission. We cannot accept any liability for virus
contamination.
No Attorney-Client Relationship or Legal Advice. Communication of information from this email address and your
receipt or use of it (1) is not provided in the course of and does not create or constitute an attorney-client relationship, and (2)
is not intended to convey or constitute legal advice. Although a licensed attorney, Summer Berg does not practice law by,
for, or through Engel & Volkers, which is a real estate sales company. You should not act upon any such information without
first seeking qualified professional counsel on your specific matter.
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
131
From:fun22
To:Public Comment
Subject:[Spam] Lumberyard.
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 8:40:35 AM
Greetings.
No doubt it is a huge undertaking in approving the lumberyard moving forward.
I AM NOT AGAINST EMPLOYEE HOUSING AT ALL!!!!!
1-traffic impacts need to be realistically addressed.
2- car trips will not be off set by buses, i see empty buses cruise by everyday, in and out of
town!!!
3 what is the incentive not to drive in from lumberyard?... What is Burlingame Bus ridership
numbers?
4 contrary to outspoken anti employee housing advocates ... LAUNDRY ROOMS, LARGE
CLOSETS, BALCONIES are well deserved and are needed design inclusions!!!
5-Jet noises are extremely loud, EXTREMELY
6 - Presently all AABC APCHA units are utilizing 100% of parking... People have cars, this is
reality.
7-another stop light will force more traffic back up.
8 Building height and density very uncharacteristic, too big.
Again I am 100% in favor of employee housing... But the scale, mass, congestion and
design...and LOUD JETS... need to be reconsidered not simply pushed thru, because it is.
Employee housing..
Go sit out by the lumberyard parking for 6 hours on a Saturday or late Friday, to see first hand,
noise and traffic Im pacts.
MORE RESPECTABLE HOUSEING, NEEDS A BIT MORE REDESIGN....AND
THOUGHT.
Thank you
Mark Tye
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
132
From:Amos Underwood
To:Public Comment
Subject:Citizen Comment
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 9:35:36 AM
Councilmembers and Mayor,
If you are still considering the approval of the lumberyard, please keep this in mind.
Outreach for the project did occur, but when you only ask the questions you want to hear will
you get the answers you want. At not one of the outreaches the city provided was the option
of NO let's not move forward on this project.
This project will be approved
Could the size a scope be reduced...I hope so.
If this project is approved as described by City Staff, it will move the needle of cash-on-lieu off
the charts! This will be the end of the credit program as the new accepted COA cost for a one-
bedroom will be $1,500,000 while the cash-in-lieu rate sits at less than $400,000
Should the size and scope be reduced...Yes
Traffic studies for this project are absurd! The numbers might make some sort of sense when
viewed within the property lines but when applied to the community (the entire valley) this
project will drop another 500 vehicles onto highway 82.
The lumberyard is located outside the roundabout. This is contrary to the AACP.
As a resident of affordable housing I appreciate the need for the product. What is
disheartening is how the lumberyard has been steam-rolled along by a few council members
and city staff.
You may have already made up your mind on this project, thanks for reading my comments
anyway.
-amos underwood
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
133
From:Walter Voight
To:Public Comment
Subject:It appears that there are a lot of specifics that the public needs to see. Principally, I don"t think that there is
enough of a demand. There are no more American ski bums ( young people wanting to live here to ski). They
have higher aspirations and wa...
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 8:53:18 AM
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
134
From:Lorrie B. Winnerman
To:Public Comment
Subject:LUMBERYARD
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 8:54:54 AM
Wow-PLEASE BE RESPONSIBLE-everyone should be asking these questions
Can you produce:
1. Traffic plan
2. Financials
3. How and who will finance
4. Will this stop all other “affordable” housing fixes and/or builds
5. $1.500,000 per unit??????
What private developer could EVER bring this before you without above and more backup?
PLEASE BE RESPONSIBLE AND STOP UNTIL YOU CAN PRESENT ANSWERS.
THANK YOU
Lorrie B. Winnerman
Lorrie B. Aspen, Incorporated
Broker/Owner
C: (970) 618-7772
https://url.avanan.click/v2/___www.lbaspen.com___.YXAzOmNpdHlvZmFzcGVuOmE6bzpjMmE1NW
YwNTM3YzgwYzBjNzVmZGVkZTg0YTU4MmYxZjo2OjhhMjg6ZDU2OTMwMWI0MTk0YThkMzA5YjQyO
DI2ZGQ5ZjljZjI4MGExZGQ5NjE1MTkyMDVmOGU1MmUzOGMxNzE1OWU1Mzp0OkY
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
135
From:rick wojcik
To:Public Comment
Subject:Employee housing
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 9:25:03 AM
Dear Sir/ Madame:
I am all for employee housing and maintaining opportunities for all people to live in Aspen regardless of
income level.
I just don't see a coherent strategy that encompasses:
Existing employee housing
Proposed employee housing
Coherent rules that allows for all income levels
The city needs to present a comprehensive plan that encompasses all aspects of the above- including a
solid budget.
I cannot support the Lumberyard project until the big picture is clear.
Best regards,
Richard Wojcik
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
136
From:dennis young.biz
To:Public Comment
Subject:Please vote no on the Lumberyard
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 8:51:47 AM
I believe this vote is premature with so much information unknown and a poor
history of the city managing projects, never before of this size and cost. Much
more information needs to be released in the public sphere in order to assure
vigorous and intelligent debate for a good decision in the light of day.
Dennis Young
Phone: 970-920-4706
Mobile: 970-379-2423
Email: dennis@young.biz
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
137
From:Millard Zimet
To:Public Comment
Subject:Public Comment: Lumberyard
Date:Monday, June 12, 2023 4:16:06 AM
honest question:
if you were truly evil, and you actually wanted to design a plan that would, to the maximum extent possible, divide
the community, worsen traffic, and cost the most money, how would you be acting differently?
housing belongs downtown not out at the Lumberyard.
don’t be evil.
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
138
1
Kevin Rayes
From:BRENT MILLER <captbsm@aol.com>
Sent:Sunday, September 10, 2023 1:09 PM
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumber Yard Proposal Sept. 12, 2023
To whom it may concern:
This project appears swimming in a lack of irresponsible governance and it is ignorant to
move forward without proper plans, full public discourse and disclosure of the budget and
financials.
My wife and I are Aspen residents and we both, like many others, are very unhappy with the
lack of transparency and forward thinking these civic projects demand but frequently never
get.
Respectfully,
Brent & Sissy Miller
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
139
1
Kevin Rayes
From:pcarman237@aol.com
Sent:Sunday, September 10, 2023 8:59 AM
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard
How is it possible to embark on a significant project the size of the lumberyard without a reasonably
comprehensive set of financial projections? Do you not think it is important to allow voters, who will
ultimately pay for the project to understand what it is likely to cost them?
I will not vote for any councilperson who does not support a responsible level of financial
transparency for a project if this size and importance.
Peter Carman
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
140
1
Kevin Rayes
From:g@ggrayson.com
Sent:Sunday, September 10, 2023 11:37 AM
To:Public Comment
Cc:'The Red Ant'
Subject:Lumberyard
I agree with Elizabeth Milias that the project is not ready to be approved and commenced without full understanding of
the costs and financing, and also that the project should be structured as a public-private partnership with an
experienced developer that will be able to make the project financially sound.
Gerald Grayson
Aspen
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
141
1
Kevin Rayes
From:Jack Miller <jmiller@haltoms.com>
Sent:Sunday, September 10, 2023 2:31 PM
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard
We are facing the exact same issues and the same obfuscaƟon as we did in 2006-2008 about the Burlingame housing
project. The development plan for The Lumberyard is our problem in 2023. The public has not been presented with any
informaƟon on how the city intends to finance and pay for this project. We request:
Financial informaƟon and models
budgeƟng
Sourcing plans
All responsible disclosures
We want full transparency of the financial details.
Jack Miller
Haltom's Jewelers
1360 Horse Ranch Drive
Snowmass Village CO. 81615
jmiller@haltoms.com
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
142
1
Kevin Rayes
From:Pam Alexander <pam@pamalexander.org>
Sent:Sunday, September 10, 2023 8:35 AM
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard Budget and Full Financial plan
City Government,
Please do not proceed with the Lumberyard project unƟl you publicly supply the complete detail on the financial and
budgetary informaƟon and plans with Aspen residents.
Thank you,
Pam Alexander
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
143
1
Kevin Rayes
From:Mizen Fm <m.mizen@mizen.com>
Sent:Sunday, September 10, 2023 1:25 PM
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard comment…
As a part owner of rental property in Aspen for 58+ years I continue to ask for an explanation of how the project will be
financed and how the financing will be repaid to the lender(s).
City of Aspen Staff is convinced the project is important to our future. But to those having to pay this bill the project
needs to define how much will this cost and how will it be paid back.
I would be delighted to review these documents.
Michael R. Mizen
809 s Aspen and
Lakewood Ohio USA
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
144
1
Kevin Rayes
From:marcus blue <mblue@me.com>
Sent:Sunday, September 10, 2023 5:44 PM
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard decision
This is a big upcoming decision and I feel that it is irresponsible to move forward with a massive price tag project that has
not been transparent to the public. There are roughly 3000 employee housing units that are hugely mis-managed.
Employee housing homes are not forever homes. That’s not parƟsan or cruel. It’s a reality that everyone moving in needs
to understand. As long as you working and contribuƟng to our workforce community then you shall have housing
opƟons. When you reƟre and stop working or are contribuƟng far less than the 20-something who is working 3 jobs and
commuƟng to town then you should downsize or find new housing. Tax-payer subsidized housing is not reƟrement for
those who are no longer working. That single issue needs to be addressed prior to any aƩempt to “build your way out of
a problem”. And even sƟll it’s truly not affordable for anyone living in Aspen under the current model. The enƟre system
disincenƟvizes anyone to further themselves to make more money for fear they will lose their housing. Yet because of
the regulaƟons in place the price tags have ballooned further, widening the gap and making living here a bit more
impossible. Development regulaƟon, Land Use Code, and STR’s all need a whole new look and revamp. Whitefish, MT
was facing the same issue and completely refocused their land use and development and have turned the Ɵde (see
extensive arƟcle in TheAtlanƟc). If the Lumberyard is to truly be developed it can be done so for FAR less of the price tag
that has been esƟmated and pitched about. I have personally spoken to mulƟple developers who cannot believe the
esƟmates and the absolute WASTE of potenƟal money on this project. VOTE NO and revisit the enƟre project, but AFTER
the management and enforcement of APCHA.
Sincerely,
Marcus Blue, DDS
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
145
1
Kevin Rayes
From:Tiffany Smith <tsmith6134@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, September 10, 2023 10:25 AM
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard Project
Dear Aspen City Council Members,
Please delay any further, much less final, decision-making regarding the Lumberyard Project until the actual project
budget and all financials (expenses and proposed funding) are released not only to your council but also the public. A
publicly-funded project, affordable housing or other, must be transparent about its budget. Imagine if this was a free-
market home, would a property owner hesitate for one second to not only ask, but demand, to see a detailed expense
sheet and timeline of a project before they agreed to go forward with it? Same with a commercial property. No, they
would not. It is expected. This enormous multi-million dollar public housing project must be treated with the same level
of professionalism and discretion as any private venture, if not more so since you’re planning to use public money that
the entire community is contributing - not just one or two individuals. If you go to the store to buy a pair a shoes, you
want to know the price before you get to the cashier’s desk, right? I certainly do.
Honestly, this is a no-brainer and would be an embarrassment to Aspen and a stain on its reputation if handled
improperly and unethically. Not to mention, if you go ahead without fully understanding the numbers and something
goes awry with the funding or the project. Not okay from public leaders.
Bottom line, please remember that you five, NOT the COA Staff, are the “bosses” - the top of the civic food chain and
were elected to represent the best interests of the Aspen voters and the entire community. Although you wisely try hard
to work as a team, the COA Staff ultimately answers to you, the sitting Aspen City Council, not the other way around.
Don’t let them pat you on the knee and tell you not to worry your pretty little heads about the budget, and that they’ve
got it covered. Insist they prove it by making the financial details (not “guesstimates") public for all to see, especially if
they’re planning to spend an approximated estimate of about $2.25M/unit. Think about that on a per-square-foot basis.
Let’s just take the crazy “bottom” price projection of $1.8M/unit and do the math based on a 1,200sf unit, and that
equals $1,500 per square foot in building costs. Really? Based on what I’ve personally witnessed in Aspen’s AH units,
there is NO WAY the finish-out in these units and the amenities on this property will reflect those expenses. And my
husband has developed both FM and AH projects in Aspen and the RF Valley, and that per-square-foot number is
ridiculous - and he’s told both P&Z and Aspen City Staff that. It’s like the US Army’s mysterious $100 hammer.
You have a fiduciary duty to the Aspen community to demand to see a detailed, professionally-(and independently-
)prepared budget of the Lumberyard Project that is then openly shared and discussed with the public before any next
steps.
It’s puzzling why Aspen seems to struggle so much with transparency, honesty and equity when it comes to affordable
housing?
Sincerely,
Tiffany Smith
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
146
1
Kevin Rayes
From:glenn beaton <glennbeatonn@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, September 10, 2023 8:30 AM
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard
I suggest that Council have a detailed plan for the construction, financing
and governance of the Lumberyard project -- and that it all be in place
before committing to construction, not after.
And I further suggest that this all be made public for debate and
discussion. It is wrong and irresponsible not to do so.
It appears that instead secret decisions have been made in that regard --
for the express purpose of avoiding legitimate criticism of the project. But
democracy dies in darkness, remember?
Glenn K. Beaton, theAspenbeat.com
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
147
1
Kevin Rayes
From:Matt L <himattlevy@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, September 10, 2023 10:32 AM
To:Public Comment
Subject:Sept 12
Dear city council,
I’m asking you to pause the lumberyard project until the relevant financial information,
models, sourcing plans and other responsible disclosures can be provided by city staff for the
public to review. To proceed without these things is negligence and opens the city up to
financial and legal issues (not to mention it is for the public good and it’s the councils job to
do this).
Please help us not be negligent as a town. The downstream financial issues this will cause
can be addressed now and should be fully understood prior to proceeding.
Respectfully,
Matt Levy
Concerned resident
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
148
1
Kevin Rayes
From:dennis young.biz <dennis@young.biz>
Sent:Sunday, September 10, 2023 8:26 PM
To:Public Comment
Subject:September 12 council meeting regarding the lumberyard project approval
I urge each and every council person to refuse to vote for the approval of the Lumberyard
project. Without both a complete and comprehensive budget and having arranged sufficient
funding that you can present to your consƟtuents to jusƟfy moving forward you must not
approve this project.
Dennis Young
Phone: 970-920-4706
Mobile: 970-379-2423
Email: dennis@young.biz
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
149
1
Kevin Rayes
From:Stephen Slade <sgs@visiontexas.com>
Sent:Sunday, September 10, 2023 10:10 AM
To:Public Comment
Subject:September 12
Where are the financial projecƟons, plans and financing for the Lumberyard?
Why are we not transparent on this?
Do we know the need?
Do we know how our current housing is being uƟlized?
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
150
1
Kevin Rayes
From:mel ronick <melron347@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, September 10, 2023 10:45 AM
To:Public Comment
Subject:September 12
As a ciƟzen and taxpayer of Aspen I find it bizarre, and deeply troubling, that the City is on the verge of commiƫng
millions of “our” dollars on the Lumberyard project without divulging any details of the financial details. Are we just
nothing more than a herd of sheep waiƟng to be slaughtered, yet again, by a City without shame or accountability?
It’s Ɵme for you to enlighten those of us interested in the fiscal details of how you squander our money on a
quesƟonable development.
Mel Ronick
Aspen
Sent from my iPhone
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
151
1
Kevin Rayes
From:Wido Schaefer <wido.s@travelstore.com>
Sent:Sunday, September 10, 2023 12:48 PM
To:Public Comment
Subject:September 12
We urge you to be more transparent and disclose the budget and financial plans for The Lumberyard Project.
Approval of this project without full disclosure of what you are commiƫng our community into is against the interest of
all Aspen residents and taxpayers.
Respecƞully
Wido & Carla Schaefer
603 W North
aspen , co 81611
Sent from my iPhone
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
152
1
Kevin Rayes
From:Kim Coates <kimcoates@me.com>
Sent:Sunday, September 10, 2023 2:01 PM
To:Public Comment
Subject:September 12
Please Aspen City Council!
Do not approve the Lumberyard project without full disclosure relaƟng to the enƟre project, most especially a financial
overview of project costs and sources of revenue.
There are those of us who are highly skepƟcal of the real need for more employee housing given the lack of oversight
with exisƟng inventory. The abuse is rampant and of course no one wants to come forward to report knowledge of such
abuse. NOR SHOULD THE PUBLIC HAVE TO BE THE GATEKEEPERS! That is the job of the APCHA.
The amount of inventory we have as affordable housing is far too complex and massive to have so few employees to
monitor the occupancy and update the requirements to receive public funds for one’s domicile. BUILDING MORE IS NOT
NECESSARILY THE ANSWER.
Can you imagine a homeowner or builder coming in for permit review by the county without the required disclosure?
And asking the taxpayers to pay for it?
Please Council, be more responsible to all your ciƟzens and look into who moves to Hawaii for the winter while renƟng
out their “employee housing”. Who owns property in the valley while receiving the benefit of employee housing?
Thanks for considering,
Kim Coates
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
153
1
Kevin Rayes
From:Leslie Duncan <leslie@cwd3.com>
Sent:Sunday, September 10, 2023 9:02 AM
To:Public Comment
Subject:September 12
Please do not vote on the lumberyard project.
It is fiscal irresponsibility to vote on this plan with providing a full detailed and transparent budget for this project.
The project budget and the financing plans should be provided to the public.
To vote on this without this informaƟon is truly irresponsible.
Leslie Duncan
Sent from my iPad
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
154
1
Kevin Rayes
From:Ladye Ann Miller <lamiller@haltoms.com>
Sent:Sunday, September 10, 2023 2:18 PM
To:Public Comment
Subject:The Lumberyard
We are facing the exact same issues and the same obfuscation as we did in 2006-2008 about the Burlingame housing
project. The development plan for The Lumberyard is our problem in 2023. The public has not been presented with any
information on how the city intends to finance and pay for this project. We request:
Financial information and models
budgeting
Sourcing plans
All responsible disclosures
We want full transparency of the financial details.
Ladye Ann Miller
1360 Horse Ranch
Snowmass Village, CO 81615
970-923-9223
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
155
1
Kevin Rayes
From:Karin <klange@hickorytech.net>
Sent:Sunday, September 10, 2023 11:17 AM
To:Public Comment
Subject:The Lumberyard
Dear Sir/Madam:
It is irresponsible to proceed with the Lumberyard project without a budget and detailed financial projecƟons. This
project can be an asset to the community if it is structure thoughƞully and precisely. The council needs to have a study
session devoted to this project and take a deep dive into the objecƟves and financials for the proposal.
The council needs to be reminded that the city staff works for them and the taxpayers. Please slow down and conduct in-
depth financial studies before going farther down this road.
Sincerely,
Karen Lange
Snowmass Village.
Sent from my iPhone
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
156
1
Kevin Rayes
From:Neil Siegel <neilbsiegel@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, September 10, 2023 12:03 PM
To:Public Comment
Subject:The Lumberyard
Dear Members of City Council - Let me briefly weigh in to suggest that prior positive
experience with building affordable housing using the public-private partnership (PPP)
model should be explored as a means of advancing this project to success. Specifically,
the template used to build 802 W. Main and the two other properties demonstrates that
projects of scale can be accomplished within the framework of the existing land use code
and affordable housing goals. Our local community worked for several years with the
developer, Aspen Housing Partners, Jason Bradshaw and the City staff to achieve a
balanced result. When the project came up for final approval and public comment,
there was no opposition. PPP worked then and it can work now.
The PPP model balances equities, makes the best use of City resources (land), and does
not put the City in the seat as the developer. Most importantly, the model expressly
creates common guidelines for development at the inception but then allows the
developer to take the lead once the project is approved.
Given the extraordinary management requirements and financial stakes involved with
the Lumberyard project, the PPP model simply makes sense. I would encourage the
Council to step back and explore the viability of this concept.
Thank you - Neil Siegel
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
157
September 10, 2023
City Council:
When contemplating a 277-unit deed-restricted RMF development, it is vital to understand that
a “public-private partnership” (PPP) is NOT the process whereby the city of Aspen hires a
private developer who builds a pre-designed project for a fee.
A PPP is one that leverages the private sector’s expertise, minimizes the public’s downside
exposure, and enables/incentivizes the private sector’s upside potential because it assumes the
financial risk while delivering a high-quality mutually desired outcome.
There are critical considerations that differentiate a city-controlled and executed project from a
private sector one:
City as Developer Private Sector Developer
100% publicly funded Broad access to capital
Responsible for: Responsible for:
Construction Cost Overruns Construction Cost Overruns
Lease-up Operating Deficits Lease-up Operating Deficits
On-going Operations On-going Asset Management:
Public Reaction Ongoing CapX Budgeting
Compliance (if enforced) Establish Reserves
Project Performance Required Compliance
Set appropriate rents
Limited recourse with GC ‘Skin in the Game’ oversight/selection of GC
Minimize construction defect
exposure: low construction
quality leads to increased
ongoing CapX which
decreases long term value
Lack of market trend knowledge Intimate familiarity with:
Don’t “live” the market Construction
Only focused during execution Leasing
Don’t know if it’s a good time to build CapX
Shallow knowledge of capital markets Capital markets
Market trends
Realities
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
158
In short, the “public sector” vs “private sector” developer models are dramatically different.
In the case of The Lumberyard, the city (public sector) has identified a “need” based on
assumptions, designed a project based on what is “wanted,” has estimated costs yet has not
presented a financial model for funding the project, and is posed to execute blind to the
considerations of economic reality. This proposal is lacking in “best practice” standards
imposed by experienced capital markets and ignores the long-term benefits to the public of
incentivizing the development community.
In contrast, developers (private sector) understand market realities: rents, costs of construction
(land has already been purchased) and expected capital returns (debt: interest rate and
leverage, equity: IRR thresholds). The private sector designs projects based on a pro forma that
can deliver financing in the current capital market environment, creates an income stream that
provides debt service and cash flow, and results in a valuation based on market cap rate and
market rate of return to the developer that aligns with the risk profile of the development.
The Lumberyard is uniquely positioned for a great PPP. Please seriously evaluate the financing
challenges, long term operational and asset management costs, and risk profile of this project
when evaluating the pros and cons of going it alone.
Furthermore, beginning horizontal construction at the site is not only unnecessary, it is
detrimental to the PPP process. A development partner seeks flexibility to deliver the promised
units in a manner that also makes good financial sense.
The development community does this for a living. Let them help.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Milias
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
159
1
Kevin Rayes
From:Sara Ott
Sent:Monday, September 11, 2023 4:10 PM
To:Kevin Rayes; Mike Sear
Subject:FW: ERV
Hi,
Please add to the public record for the Lumberyard project.
Thanks,
Sara
Sara G. OƩ, ICMA-CM
City Manager
(she/her/hers)
(O): 970.920.5083 | (C): 970.230.2692
www.aspen.gov
Our Values: Stewardship | Partnership | Service | InnovaƟon
-----Original Message-----
From: Lucas Franze <zglfinc@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 9:33 AM
To: City Council <council@aspen.gov>
Subject: ERV
Hi Sara and Sam,
I’m wriƟng to request that the ERV from the lumberyard be removed and placed in the red brick gymnasium.
Thank you,
Lucas Franze
Sent from my iPhone
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
160
1
Kevin Rayes
From:Patricia Weber <ipeb@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 11, 2023 9:47 AM
To:Public Comment
Subject:Hold Lumberyard Project
Aspen City Council,
While I support Employee Housing for our city, I believe you are rushing the approval of this project.
I don’t see that you have exhausted the opƟons for this very permanent complex right in the entrance of Aspen.
Massive buildings don’t seem like the best opƟon, there is no urban planning, no traffic or financial soluƟons.
Do not rush into a mulƟmillion project and commit taxpayers money when taxpayers are asking you not to … please
slow down.
Patricia Weber
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
161
1
Kevin Rayes
From:Dave Hotchkin <dave@anchorpacifica.com>
Sent:Monday, September 11, 2023 10:10 AM
To:Public Comment
Cc:petergrenney@gmail.com; Alexandra George
Subject:Lumber Project
Regarding the Lumber Project:
The City of Aspen has been able to buy condos in Aspen area and Snowmass for $1.2 to $1.4
million. Twenty minutes away, the City of Aspen can buy condos and homes in Basalt and
Carbondale for under a million, and the cost of living (restaurants, food, other services) is a lot
less. Most of the occupants of the Lumber project are now commuting now from much further
away. To have housing only a few minutes further away than the Lumber project would
remain a huge benefit.
Its insanity for the City of Aspen to bear the risk of this project when great alternatives are
available.
David Hotchkin
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
162
1
Kevin Rayes
From:glenn beaton <glennbeatonn@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 11, 2023 11:24 AM
To:Public Comment
Subject:lumber yard comment
This project has been poorly thought out. In a panic to create more
taxpayer-subsidized housing, important concerns have been ignored or
poorly considered. This included the financing, the timeline, the budget,
the cost/benefit analysis, and the traffic issues.
The project should be completely planned, start to finish. Then, and only
then, should it proceed. This is too much money and too many
implications to do it on-the-fly.
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
163
1
Kevin Rayes
From:Thomas Howells <thowells_clsaspen@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, September 11, 2023 12:19 PM
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumber yard project
The project is far too large and must be scaled back. Traffic impact will be terrible. It is far too expensive. Thanks !
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
164
1
Kevin Rayes
From:R <ryanxpress11@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, September 11, 2023 10:28 AM
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard
The building of this monstrosity at the lumberyard would be the final nail in aspen’s dwindling coffin. We will be vail,
with less room.
Aspen council has never said “no” to anything it’s presented with. “No” would have saved this town.
-Another 500+ residents strategically placed to make traffic unbearable.
- another 500+ people means more infrastructure with no reasonable places to eat, shop, or live.
- quality of life vanishes where overcrowding is present. Aspen is already overcrowded.
- I grew up in aspen. A lot of people like me want to leave aspen, but we are stuck due to only geƫng 3% when we sell.
Up that percentage so we have an opƟon to leave, and you will open up housing units naturally, without ruining what’s
leŌ of our town.
Just. Say. No.
Save what’s leŌ of this town.
Thanks
Sent from my iPhone
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
165
1
Kevin Rayes
From:Evan Marks <evan.marks@alben.net>
Sent:Monday, September 11, 2023 9:43 AM
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard ("LY") Public Comments
Hello
My name is Evan Marks. I live full-time in Aspen. I am a member of the Pitkin County Financial Advisory Board.
During my four-decade career in financial management, and as a former financial advisor to large municipalities, I have
never seen a process quite like the LY.
Politics aside, prior to greenlighting this project CoA's city council and staff would be wise to fully flesh out and
disseminate all of the pertinent details regarding the LY's execution, inflation-adjusted costs, and financing plans
(specifically including the proposed details for public partnership JV financing, the likely need for municipal bond
issuances, and the scope for potential increases to real estate and sales taxes).
Moreover, the location of such a dense housing project near the entrance to Aspen seems imprudent at best.
Respectfully,
Evan Marks
Evan Marks
Alben Asset Management LLC
Trailhead Lodge
133 Prospector Road
Aspen Highlands, Colorado 81611
Tel +1.646.872.0909
evan.marks@alben.net
**The information contained in this email (and any attachments hereto) may be confidential and/or legally privileged. It has been sent (and is intended) for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination,
distribution, printing, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, or any attachments hereto are strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error, please reply to the sender and permanently destroy the original email and all copies of the email (and any attachments) and any printout(s) thereof. **
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
166
1
Kevin Rayes
From:Millard Zimet <millardzimet@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 11, 2023 9:18 AM
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard
When are you going to let the taxpayers vote on the Lumberyard project?
To date Aspen has spent over $35 million on this project, without any authorizaƟon from the taxpayers.
Enough is enough. This must be put to a vote before you spend any more money or grant any more approvals.
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
167
1
Kevin Rayes
From:Karen Devlin <karenrubeybering@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 11, 2023 9:53 AM
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard
Aspen does not have the money to build such a large project.
I LOVE our town but it is Ɵme to realize we need more than volunteer commiƩees. We need highly qualified consultants,
whatever to look at these things and negoƟate on the city’s behalf.
Aspen GAVE away its FBO, one of the the most valuable in the world. The income could have easily paid for the
lumberyard.
Instead of endless traffic studies, lets invest in the future by hiring people that know what they are doing!!
Sent from my iPhone
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
168
1
Kevin Rayes
From:Tricia Louthis <louthis@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, September 11, 2023 10:47 AM
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard
Please make this rentals only. We need workers. Young workers. I know it costs more money, but
we need to keep our town vibrant with young people. thanks, 65yoa woman.
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
169
1
Kevin Rayes
From:glenn beaton <glennbeatonn@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 11, 2023 11:26 AM
To:Public Comment
Subject:lumberyard
Shouldn't we have an audit of the existing APCHA organization and
governance BEFORE spending another half billion of taxpayer money?
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
170
1
Kevin Rayes
From:Michael Dumeresque <dumeresque@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, September 11, 2023 12:18 PM
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard
The costs of this project are outrageous! Why would you use such a high pet unit cost? Our monies over which you have
control could go so much further with better planning and much more affordable construction.
How long would it take to pay off? You couldn’t charge nearly enough in this “affordable “ housing to make it a sound
investment.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
171
1
Kevin Rayes
From:Chris Penrose <chris@penrosecorp.com>
Sent:Monday, September 11, 2023 3:02 PM
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard
As a developer who built 4,000,000 square feet of Public-Private Partnership (PPP) projects for the United States
Government, I find the Lumberyard project to be thoroughly mismanaged. And you haven’t even broken ground yet.
How the City can progress this far without sharing financial models and details with the public is almost
criminal. Had you run a proper Public-Private Partnership, you would have never spent $5,000,000 for a design.
Development Teams would have fronted that cost, not the taxpayers. A proper implementation of a PPP would
have exposed the City of Aspen to the best and brightest solutions for the Lumberyard site. Instead, we are
looking a ludicrous numbers ranging anywhere from $500 million to $750 million; that’s $1.8 million to $2.7
million per unit. You should recalibrate, and use private sector know-how by implementing a Private-Public
Partnership.
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
172
1
Kevin Rayes
From:mel ronick <melron347@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 11, 2023 9:55 AM
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard
>
> As a ciƟzen and taxpayer of Aspen I find it bizarre, and deeply troubling, that the City is on the verge of commiƫng
millions of “our” dollars on the Lumberyard project without divulging any details of the financial details. Are we just
nothing more than a herd of sheep waiƟng to be slaughtered, yet again, by a City without shame or accountability?
> It’s Ɵme for you to enlighten those of us interested in the fiscal details of how you squander our money on a
quesƟonable development.
> Mel Ronick
> Aspen
>
>
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
173
1
Kevin Rayes
From:joel lee <joel.aspen@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 11, 2023 3:36 PM
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard Project
Once again, I'm voicing our concern for the accuracy of this project and the evidence presented by the Project
Team.
The noise study is simply a blue and red line around an airport runway.
The traffic study is based on a two day affair (one in Summer and one in Winter) that relies on nobody from the
project actually driving.
Has anyone looked at the affect Phase 3 will have on Elk Migration and the Deer
Air Quality
It is too high!
We can do better, please consider reducing the number of units and/or only proceed with Phases 1 & 2 on the
current lot and DO NOT build on Open Space.
Current plans will double the population of the AABC, infrastructure (traffic, parking, etc..) can not handle it.
Thank you.
Also, if you're looking for a place to put the solar panels, build the Annie Mitchell Housing Complex carports
and put Solar on the roofs. It will block the views and provide a bone for the residents most affected by this
project.
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
174
1
Kevin Rayes
From:Alan Quasha <aquasha@quadrantmgt.com>
Sent:Monday, September 11, 2023 11:09 AM
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard project
Dear council members,
In my opinion, it is a complete derelicƟon of your duƟes to approve such a large and potenƟally impacƞul project,
parƟcularly aŌer the Burlingame fiasco, without (1) clear transparency as to the project’s budget and financing plans and
(2) without exploring ways to de-risk the project, such as a public/private partnership.
And to insist on addiƟonal employee housing, which may be a good idea, without a proper census and accounƟng for
exisƟng public housing is an affront to all Aspenites who are not living in subsidized units.
I implore you to be respecƞul to the enƟre Aspen community to provide us all with the informaƟon which you would
would to have if you were in the outside looking in.
Thank you,
Alan Quasha
Sent from my iPhone
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
175
1
Kevin Rayes
From:Stephen Slade <sgs@visiontexas.com>
Sent:Monday, September 11, 2023 9:14 AM
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard
Have we excluded a PPP?
Do we have the needed transparency on this?
Do we know the need and current usage for housing?
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
176
1
Kevin Rayes
From:Berg, Summer <summer.berg@evrealestate.com>
Sent:Monday, September 11, 2023 9:40 AM
To:Public Comment
Subject:PLEASE WAIT ON LUMBERYARD
The community is not ready for council to make a vote on this at this point in time. IT is not to say no
indefinitely, it is saying 'no' in 2023.
So much needs to be flushed out before we can expect our elected officials to cast a vote on the entitlements
for this project- the biggest ever in Aspen's history.
Please do not vote Yes on this project right now.
Summer Berg, Esq.
President | Managing Broker | Licensed Partner
ENGEL&VÖLKERS
Engel & Völkers Aspen Snowmass | Roaring Fork
720 E. Hyman Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611 USA
Tel: +1 970.925.8400
Mobile: +1 970.379.6626
Internet: aspen.evrealestate.com
Mail to: summer.berg@evrealestate.com
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please immediately delete its contents and notify us.
This email was checked for virus contamination before being sent - nevertheless, it is advisable to check for any contamination occurring during
transmission. We cannot accept any liability for virus contamination.
No Attorney-Client Relationship or Legal Advice. Communication of information from this email address and your receipt or use of it (1)
is not provided in the course of and does not create or constitute an attorney-client relationship, and (2) is not intended to convey or constitute legal
advice. Although a licensed attorney, Summer Berg does not practice law by, for, or through Engel & Volkers, which is a real estate sales
company. You should not act upon any such information without first seeking qualified professional counsel on your specific matter.
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
177
1
Kevin Rayes
From:Katie Tiernan <Katietiernan@outlook.com>
Sent:Monday, September 11, 2023 10:29 AM
To:Public Comment
Subject:Public Comments - Lumberyard Project for 9/12 Meeting
I am not able to attend the public comment zoom tomorrow on 9/12. In lieu of attending, I am emailing my comments.
Please see below.
As a full-time resident of Snowmass with a full-time job in Aspen, I am in the traffic in/out of Aspen Monday through
Friday... During high season and off season. Year round.
On average to cover 9~ miles in the morning it takes me well over 40/45 mins to get to work, and another 40/45 mins to
get home each day.
Adding another traffic light is an unacceptable option for the commuters of the upper valley. It is already a complete
nightmare trying to get around town just to complete daily tasks whether personal or professional. I believe it is
imperative that alternate traffic control strategies need to be proposed.
Most, if not all part/full time residents are aware that Aspen's roadways were not built to support the town's current
post-pandemic population. But here we are and many of the newer full-time residents have no plans on leaving as their
children are in our schools, the parents are often involved in the community organizations, etc.
All of the newer residents who add value to this community are being brushed off and ignored as it relates to traffic
control feedback. Do not make this instance another opportunity turned to error.
Thanks.
Katie Tiernan
Katie Tiernan
katietiernan@outlook.com
312-823-5638
LinkedIn
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
178
1
Kevin Rayes
From:Dave Hotchkin <dave@anchorpacifica.com>
Sent:Monday, September 11, 2023 10:09 AM
To:Public Comment
Cc:petergrenney@gmail.com; Alexandra George
Subject:Re Lumber Project - Low Risk Development Alternative
Regarding the Lumber Project:
I am a developer of apartments of the size of the Lumber project and here is how I have seen
similar projects competed with public private collaboration. For the City of Aspen to take on
the financial risk of the Lumber project is too great. Let a private developer tank the risk, but
the City of Aspen control the project. A private developer can do the project for less for many
reasons, however, for one primary reason. There are tax credits and tax benefits available for
such a project for a private developer, that are no benefit to the City of Aspen, for the City is a
public entity. These tax benefits offset some of the cost.
The way the City of Aspen can remain in control is to ground lease the land to a private
developer and the City of Aspen do the “public improvements” (streets, etc). The land is a
huge portion of the development. The City of Aspen then ground leases the land to a
developer for 55 years, with say a few 25-year options. at a rate of $0 per year, with
participation in future cash flow and upside. In the ground lease are requirements of
restrictions on rental rates for the apartments.
I would be happy to share with you a similar arrangement we used for a low income 155-unit
seniors project we used with the City of Glendora in California. We are 30 years into the
project. The City of Glendora got the project built with no risk, other than ground leasing the
land. We built the project, at no risk to City of Glendora. When built, they received the
apartments with the rent restrictions they wanted, and over the years, the City of Glendora is
receiving cash flow participation from the development, because the rents have moved up
over the period. They take these funds and subsidize other rents within the City of Glendora.
The capital to make the project happen, was raised thought the private sector and these
investors received the tax benefits. Since the City of Glendora is the ground lessor, if we ever
defaulted, they simply foreclosed on the unsubordinated ground lease and took back control.
David Hotchkin
818 404 0072
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
179
1
Kevin Rayes
From:DrPikes1 <drpikes@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 11, 2023 9:52 AM
To:Public Comment
Subject:Sept 12
How can the Lumberyard project go forward without full public disclosure on the details, let alone a responsible budget
to study? This council, besides Mr Guth, seems to not care about such public disclosures. Does this council have a clue to
their responsibilities to the public?
Mike McLaughlin
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
180
1
Kevin Rayes
From:Judd Clarence <juddclarence@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 11, 2023 9:05 AM
To:Public Comment
Subject:September 12 - You're not ready
Dear City Council,
I want to appeal to you all to slow down and get this process with the Lumberyard correct before you
keep charging forward with a poorly considered plan and lack of community support. This is a major
capital project – as I understand it, possibly the largest ever in Aspen history. So why is there a
complete lack of transparency here?
Where is the full disclosure to the public about the project’s budget? Where are the proposed
Financials? Where is the detailed project plan showing estimates of all costs and documenting the
various components and plans that those are modeled off?
As I understand it, you don’t even have a consensus from the public of what should be built or how it
should be configured? Instead, you are allowing city staff to drive this plan.
City staff is leading you down a path that is not approved or laid out correctly, without having done
their job per the required laws and rules in place. It’s like the tail is wagging the dog here. We need
to first see the plan figured out correctly, and then be provided a detailed budget. Where are the
funds being sourced from? Why are no plans for a PPP? This is the obvious way to proceed in this
type of endeavor with the money at stake. The city is not a developer and has no business acting as
one. There is a complete lack of competency to carry out such a complex and expensive project like
what is proposed. There is a clear path to how this gets done – why are you just ‘winging it and
hoping for the best”?
I urge you to hit the brakes, do your homework, and then proceed accordingly. You are not ready to
move this conversation forward.
Best,
Judd Clarence
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
181
1
Kevin Rayes
From:Michael Flory <mflory2305@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 11, 2023 9:04 PM
To:Public Comment
Subject:HI-As a registered voter and long time Aspen resident, I am compelled to share my opinion about
the Lumber Yard project.
The need for employee housing is undeniable, which has been the case since I came out as a ski bum after college in
1989. Housing was a problem back, then, and unfortunately has clearly gotten worse. However, despite our current
situation, this project is indescribably flawed for SO many reasons.
1. APCHA- Was not a presence when I was working at the Jerome. It is completely ineffective and actually a driving force
in our current situation. I know SO many people that have qualified out, left the workforce or make money outside the
valley in APCHA mandated housing. It has created an imbalanced marketplace.
2. The price tag is BEYOND insane. In 2020 I completed a complex in Denver for $350K/key via modular
construction. OK, things are more expensive up here...but 4X-5X? Completely out of touch with reality.
3. Financing- Who and how will we pay for this? As a taxpayer and resident, I just saw my valuation shoot up by
70%. You charge me almost $1000/year in permits just for the right to rent MY OWN HOME to be able to afford to live
here. But I figure it out. I don't want to figure out how to pay for the Lumberyard.
When I was here after college, I figured it out. Kids are still figuring it out now. I left the valley to make (barely) enough
so I could come back and buy free market housing. They will continue to figure it out.
Given the staggering amount of money, there are SO many options to consider. As a positive set of recommendations,
how much work has been done around:
1. Offering incentive payments to buy out leases? Buy out homeowners who are no longer in the workforce?
2. Complete revamp of APCHA. New thinking, new methods of qualifying...tying housing to businesses so we know the
units are accomplishing their objective?
3. Expanding rideshare, van pooling, busing, e-bike, etc.
4. Expanding parking/busing from the Intercept lot and putting in a parking garage on the Lumberyard land with access
only for employees?
There are SO many possible solutions for the amount of money that is on the table...let's get creative and stop with the
"make the rich pay for it" mentality. You are only driving out guys like me who's heart never left the valley.
Thanks for listening.
Michael Flory
206-799-5010
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
182
1
Kevin Rayes
From:Alison Richman <squab7@aim.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 12, 2023 8:00 AM
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumber Yard
Morning,
I am unable to attend in person and would like my position to be heard. Thank you in advance.
I am NOT in favor of the projected project. There are way too many listable items as to why
this is a bad idea. I am very aware that the project will go forward no matter what public
comment is or the overall NO energy surrounding this. that is the way of politics and
government.
Traffic, water, sewer, environmental, general infrastructure, noise, wildlife impact, & most of
all the understanding of human behavior that is uncontrollable are the main factors that are not
really being thought about in going forward. Actually I do believe these are thought about but
rather ignore for the supposed "greater good". Once this door is opened it cannot be closed adn
the yard could be used as public space or open space as that is the original premise of Aspen. All
the founders of Aspen have set forth open land in order to prevent mass buildings.
Together as a community it has been allowed to grow exponentially, and without infrastructure.
The direct need to support the growth should not be provided so closed to town. We have
always been a hard place to get to and an even harder place to live. This is Aspen! If you allow
this growth then this special place becomes overrun with population which is NOT why most
people choose t live here.
I am aware you will most likely just read this and move on to what YOU want to do. But as you all
were voted in to represent the public and your constituents it would make sense to vote their
way and not your personal way.
Overall the impact to the community is negative and outways the positive I really wish you could
see that.
Thank you for reading ..
Alison Richman
20 year resident.
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
183
1
Kevin Rayes
From:Lorrie B. Winnerman <lorrie@lbaspen.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 12, 2023 9:00 AM
To:Public Comment
Subject:lumberyard
Real life issues to consider before building the lumberyard:
1. Please review serious issues on the exisƟng over 3,000 units-like singles living in
3-4 bedroom homes, deferred maintenance on numerous govt owned rentals, poor construcƟon
And complaints in Burlingame, etc.
2. The govt must consider a public/private partnership. Private companies stay in business by
Watching budget and Ɵme -govt does not.
3. The bridge into Aspen must be rebuilt for safe entrance and exit before considering adding more
New housing at the lumberyard…
Thank you.
Lorrie B. Winnerman
Lorrie B. Aspen, Incorporated
Broker/Owner
C: (970) 618-7772
https://url.avanan.click/v2/___www.lbaspen.com___.YXAzOmNpdHlvZmFzcGVuOmE6bzo0YzMxMjA0OGU4NTQ5NjcxM
WQ0N2QyNmRiMDYwYTlkMzo2OmI1NjA6YjQ4ODExMmRmZTQwZjE5NjdkN2M0ZmViMDljOWJlNGUyNDc3N2I4ZDA3OG
FlNzc4YmYzMzNmNDk5OWE3NWVlMTp0OkY
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
184
1
Kevin Rayes
From:WILLIAM LIPSEY <billriverstudio@me.com>
Sent:Monday, September 11, 2023 11:10 PM
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard
Why should Aspen taxpayers subsidize housing for under paid employees of over priced luxe retailers , restaurants,
employees of the .001 percent-ers, etc., while doctors, nurses, teachers, health & safety workers, etc., the cornerstones
of a healthy community are being pushed out?
A big NO to the Lumberyard as presented unƟl the mix is rebalanced in favor of an essenƟal community workforce.
Period.
Regards, Bill Lipsey
Factoid: It's now necessary to go all the way to Carbondale to buy a 2x4.
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
185
1
Kevin Rayes
From:David Scruggs <dscruggs@evanspetree.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 12, 2023 8:14 AM
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard Project
Council Members
There is a saying :
“Plan your work and then work your plan.”
Have you done that?
Have you determined
The Traffic impacts of an additional traffic light on Hwy 82
Explanation of project cost & feasibility
Determined Funding source and financing plan
Analyzed Growth impacts
Solicited RFP for private partner
Considered Impacts on the Airport Business Center neighborhood
These are important elements of “plan your work -before you work your plan”.
David Scruggs
212 W Hopkins
Aspen CO 81611
David Scruggs
Attorney at Law
Evans | Petree PC
6060 Poplar Avenue, STE 400
Memphis, Tennessee 38119
Phone: 901.525.6781 | Direct: 901.525.6781
Fax: 901.374.7502
dscruggs@evanspetree.com • evanspetree.com
NOTE: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain CONFIDENTIAL and/or
PRIVILEGED material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and promptly delete the material
from your computer system. The attorney-client and work product privileges are not waived by the transmission of this message.
IRS Circular 230 requires that we inform you that the advice contained herein is not intended to be used, and it cannot be used, for the purpose of
avoiding penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
186
1
Kevin Rayes
From:Jacqueline Duba <aspenjacqueline@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 12, 2023 7:37 AM
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard project
To whom it may concern,
I am wriƟng regarding the new proposed employee housing project at the lumberyard. I have lived in the valley since
1989. I am raising two children here end I own a business in Aspen. Over the last 5 to 10 years we have seen a dramaƟc
increase in traffic. The traffic that we are currently experiencing throughout the valley makes it challenging to conduct
business during the high tourist seasons- it is challenging to get kids to and from school to get to and from sports,
medical appointments, hard to get to the hospital when there’s an emergency. In my opinion of traffic has changed
recently from a slight annoyance and irritaƟon to a genuine threat to public safety - ParƟcularly aŌer watching the events
unfold and Maui, we can no longer ignore the fact that traffic can be deadly. I strongly urge policymakers and planners to
reconsider adding more high density housing to the most heavily clogged part of Highway 82.
Thank you for your consideraƟon.
Jacqueline Duba
970.404.1606
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
187
1
Kevin Rayes
From:West Hubbard <west.hubbard@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 11, 2023 6:28 PM
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard Public Comment
Dear Aspen City Council,
I hope you will take a hard look at improving APCHA, the process in which residents/employees secure their APCHA
housing and working to addressg the known subletting and violating of rules (resulting in long waitlists) before
embarking on such a large capital project. Doing so will ensure Aspen has the correct mix of rental/owned unites, and
the correct mix of bedrooms. We need more APCHA housing, we need more entertainment/food options for people
who work in town, but we don't need to rush to spend millions when there are units available next door Truscott.
Let's get this right. The money already spent by Aspen on this is a sunk cost. Deep breaths and good
community conversation will allow us to do this correctly.
All the Best,
West Hubbard
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
188
1
Kevin Rayes
From:Peter Grenney <petergrenney@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 12, 2023 5:48 AM
To:Public Comment
Subject:Lumberyard
Dear City Council,
I have reviewed many of the public comments for the Lumberyard and spoken with others about it and what's at risk of
moving the project forward tonight is damaging trust with the community.
Yes, the project has been in process since 2019 and there have been countless outreach sessions, but since first
reading the response to concerns - the 90+ written comments leading up to the June 12th hearing and the many others
submitted in the last few days - and the request for the financial model and a reasonable explanation for how the
project will be paid for have been not transparent enough.
My personal concern is adding a traffic light on Hwy 82. This does nothing positive for the community and visitors, only
the project and even then we're trying to discourage the Lumberyard residents from driving.
I encourage you to address the written public comments you've received to build confidence with the community rather
than erode it, and I hope you'll solve not needing a traffic light at Hwy 82 before entitling the project.
Sincerely,
Peter Grenney
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
189
1
Kevin Rayes
From:Steve Goldenberg <steve@goldenberg.com>
Sent:Monday, September 11, 2023 4:58 PM
To:Public Comment
Subject:Please do not approve final entitlements until costs and financing details are made available.
Steve@Goldenberg.com
970-379-9778
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
190
1
Kevin Rayes
From:Karen Kribs <karenkribs@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 12, 2023 2:25 AM
To:Public Comment
Cc:Kribs Karen
Subject:Public comment re: Lumberyard
Dear City Council,
The Lumberyard project is huge…..too big to get it wrong. While the majority of the community supports
employee housing, I have a sense that there is little support for this project in its present form. As I write, it
appears that 93% of the public comments are negative. City Council needs to pause.
We need a proposal which the community can support and can afford.
I do not believe the community is going to support a project which invites nearly 400 more cars to town. 1.4
parking spaces per unit is ridiculous. If we are serious about minimizing traffic impact, we could build a project
with a bus stop, a car share station and a few parking spaces for service vehicles and visitors.
$1.5 million per unit is far too expensive. There must be some upper limit to the financial burden which Council
is asking the taxpayers to bear.
Many people are questioning the wisdom of selling some of the units. Would an all rental apartment project be
better? Could that help avoid some of the maintenance problems which APCHA is dealing with in other
communities?
These are just a few items from a long list of considerations. We need a better plan, physically and
fiscally. Most of the community has no enthusiasm for jumping in without a solid and acceptable plan. We
want to know exactly what we are getting, how it is going to benefit the community in general and how we are
going to pay for it. Please delay until you are able to impress us with a great new idea.
Karen Kribs
25 year Aspen resident
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
191
1
Kevin Rayes
From:Richard Kipper <rekip39@earthlink.net>
Sent:Sunday, September 10, 2023 4:42 PM
To:Public Comment
Subject:The Lumberyard
Council members,
How can you in good conscience and as elected representaƟves of the ciƟzens of Aspen, move forward on the
lumberyard “affordable”
housing project? UnƟl all the esƟmates and Ɵmeline for this project have been veƩed and presented to the community,
making any decisions is irresponsible.
Dick Kipper
Sent from my iPhone
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
192
From:Scott Miller
To:Christopher Everson
Cc:Kevin Rayes
Subject:FW:
Date:Wednesday, September 13, 2023 12:05:39 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
Scott Miller
Public Works Director | City Manager’s Office
(O): 970.920.5085 | (C): 970.319.4754
www.cityofaspen.com
Our Values: Stewardship | Partnership | Service | Innovation
From: Nicole Henning <nicole.henning@aspen.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 12:01 PM
To: City Council <council@aspen.gov>
Cc: Public Comment <PublicComment@aspen.gov>
Subject: FW:
From: Scott Freidheim <scott.freidheim@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 10:14 PM
To: Public Comment <publiccomment@aspen.gov>
Subject:
Kindly dispel growing negativity and transparently disclose Lumberyard project including budget.
Thank you
Scott Freidheim
Aspen full time resident
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
193
From:Sara Ott
To:Kevin Rayes; Mike Sear
Subject:FW: ERV
Date:Monday, September 11, 2023 4:10:30 PM
Hi,
Please add to the public record for the Lumberyard project.
Thanks,
Sara
Sara G. Ott, ICMA-CM
City Manager
(she/her/hers)
(O): 970.920.5083 | (C): 970.230.2692
www.aspen.gov
Our Values: Stewardship | Partnership | Service | Innovation
-----Original Message-----
From: Lucas Franze <zglfinc@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 9:33 AM
To: City Council <council@aspen.gov>
Subject: ERV
Hi Sara and Sam,
I’m writing to request that the ERV from the lumberyard be removed and placed in the red brick gymnasium.
Thank you,
Lucas Franze
Sent from my iPhone
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
194
From:Nicole Henning
To:Public Comment; City Council
Cc:Kevin Rayes; Phillip Supino
Subject:FW: Lumberyard - vote no
Date:Tuesday, September 12, 2023 6:28:11 PM
From: Evan Morris <evanscottmorris@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 6:22 PM
To: Public Comment <publiccomment@aspen.gov>
Subject: Lumberyard - vote no
To whom it may concern,
I would like to humbly submit my concerns re: the Lumberyard Project -
a) Ownership units vs rental unit - owned units are very clearly susceptible to fraud (I grew up in
APCHA, my parents owned a unit, majority of folks in our neighborhood were bending the rules)
b) Traffic - for sure, let’s add another traffic light! Sounds like a fabulous idea! (No, it doesn’t)
c) design - project looks horrible from initial designs, are we not better than this?
d) where is the money coming from?!
Humbly yours,
Evan Morris
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
195
From:Nicole Henning
To:City Council
Cc:Public Comment; Kevin Rayes
Subject:FW: Lumberyard Project
Date:Thursday, September 14, 2023 1:56:29 PM
From: easim@aol.com <easim@aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 1:00 PM
To: Public Comment <publiccomment@cityofaspen.com>
Subject: Lumberyard Project
Dear City Council,
I just read an article indicating the Lumberyard project is projected to cost $400
Million and to contain 277 small employee housing apartments. That computes to
almost $1.5 Million per apartment!
I wonder if someone, or everyone, involved in this project, needs to have their head
examined. How is it possible that anyone could seriously consider a project this
costly. And to add absurdity, the project is “estimated” to be completed in 2031, eight
years from now! By then we won't need any employee housing because there won't
be any employees to house. And to further add, the project is several miles from
Aspen which will require car or bus transportation into town, increasing traffic
congestion and pollution.
Once again, I believe this project ought to be abandoned now. I believe the City
should concentrate on properly administering our existing employee inventory to
ensure only current employees actually working (not just at home) live in these units.
Further if any additional units are deemed necessary, the only practical solution is to
build then in the Marolt open space so residents can walk to town.
PLEASE STOP WASTING TIME ON THIS PROJECT.
Eric Simon
561-350-3881
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
196
From:Mike Sear
To:City Council
Cc:Public Comment; Jenn Ooton; Kevin Rayes; Christopher Everson
Subject:FW: Lumberyard project
Date:Tuesday, September 12, 2023 3:14:17 PM
Attachments:image001.png
From: Kim Raymond <kim@krai.us>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 3:05 PM
To: Public Comment <publiccomment@aspen.gov>
Subject: Lumberyard project
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to ask City Council to PLEASE spend more time on thinking this project through.
The lack of a clear path forward to finance this project is of huge concern. We should not be
saddling
ourselves and future generations with a huge tax burden to cover this; especially since there is not a
final price tag nor a way to get the funding for it. Since this will likely come down to tax payer
dollars,
it should be a topic that is discussed with the taxpayers, not held in secrecy. Just because the City is
the
developer, or rather especially since the City is the developer, the finances need to be public.
Secondly, the further congestion on Hwy 82 is a serious concern. Having yet another traffic light is
only going to
create more of an impediment to everyone getting into town, these new employees and all of the
thousands
of workers that have been coming into town for decades.
The safety of everyone on the Highway needs to be taken seriously. We just lost a member of our
community
to a senseless, tragic car accident on 82. More information needs to be provided to the community
on how this
density will affect the traffic.
Further, there is serious concern about the design of the proposed project in many minds. Adding a
bunch
of condo type living does not foster community or neighborhood. The sort of mass and scale
represented
by this project is reminiscent of suburban living in the city…. people don’t want to look at that type
of housing as
the entrance to Aspen, nor is that the best option for the people that will be living there. The
housing needs to
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
197
foster a sense of community and long-term residency. Condos give the impression of short term or
temporary residency.
I am all for housing employees, but in a fashion that encourages them to become an integral part of
the fabric of the
community, not just here today and gone to the next job next season.
PLEASE put the brakes on this project until further information can be obtained and put into the mix
of public
awareness and comment. I understand employee housing is critical, but rushing into a half-baked
project that
will have decades long impacts is foolish. As can be seen from the public forum, the negative
responses out way
the positive by 94 to 7.
Thank you for taking the time to consider these points.
Respectfully,
Kim Raymond
Kim Raymond
KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTURE+INTERIORS
www.kimraymondarchitects.com
Mobile: 970-379-8938
Office: 970-925-2252
kim@krai.us
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
198
From:Nicole Henning
To:Public Comment; City Council
Cc:Kevin Rayes; Phillip Supino
Subject:FW: Lumberyard thoughts
Date:Tuesday, September 12, 2023 5:50:45 PM
From: fun22 <fun22@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 5:39 PM
To: Public Comment <publiccomment@aspen.gov>
Subject: Lumberyard thoughts
Hi
Thanks for listening.
YES we need as much housing for workers as possible.
Increase the number of rental units for yearly leases.
Have seasonal only rentals.
Can height be deduced... Too big boxy.
Can you reduce 400+parking spaces, that's alot of cars.
NO to free market units.
If you build too many owner occupied you face same issue in 20 years as now.. Retirement home
(somebody who works in Aspen many many years should not lose housing.
Not sure how to handle empty nesters who had 3 bedroom, but now they live alone.
Do not give into the new community members who have no idea what it is like to work and move,
and move again, and again with no stability...
They cannot relate!
Best
Mark Tye
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
199
1
Kevin Rayes
From:Alexandra George <alexandrakgeorge@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 11, 2023 6:36 PM
To:Public Comment
Subject:Aspen Lumberyard
Attachments:Burlinggame Advertisements 2023.pdf
Dear City Council Members,
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing as a concerned citizen regarding the Aspen Lumberyard Housing
Entitlement project currently under consideration. While I wholeheartedly support the city's commitment to providing
affordable housing and addressing our community's housing needs, I have significant concerns about the size, scope,
and unit designation of this project.
It has recently come to the attention of many that the Burlingame Phase III development has not been sold out, causing
the City to invest in costly advertising campaigns across newspapers and social media to promote the sale of the
remaining units (please see attached examples). This situation raises questions regarding the demand for ownership
models versus rental models within our community. It is critical to examine this when evaluating the Aspen Lumberyard
Housing Entitlement to ensure that our decisions are based on the actual needs and preferences of our residents.
Learning from the outcomes of each project is vital, and I am not sure this aspect is being given sufficient consideration.
Additionally, I firmly believe that transparency regarding APCHA's current housing inventory and reserves is essential. A
clear understanding of APCHA's long-term sustainability plan for housing over the next 50 years is vital. Providing
transparency in this area is not only fundamental for establishing public trust but also crucial for the enduring success of
the housing we have!
Here are a few links to articles about the inventory that we know needs attention. I am concerned that this is just the
beginning of these stories, and we need to take steps to safeguard what we have for the future:
https://www.aspentimes.com/news/local/city-of-aspen-claims-immunity-against-burlingame-ranch-hoa-8m-claim/
https://www.aspendailynews.com/news/sellers-standards-under-scrutiny/article_75479586-86c7-11eb-a0fd-
73a4d77281be.html
https://www.postindependent.com/news/local/aspen-apartment-owners-sue-city-county-over-mold/
https://www.aspentimes.com/news/after-failed-talks-centennial-condo-owners-renew-suit-against-city-county-and-
apcha/
I am also concerned about the precedent set by granting entitlements to a project without exploring all potential
avenues. Have we thoroughly considered alternatives, such as partnering with an external developer, exploring mixed-
use possibilities, or conducting comprehensive traffic studies? The Aspen Lumberyard Housing Entitlement project
represents the most expensive undertaking in our city's history, making it imperative that we scrutinize every aspect to
ensure that it aligns with the best interests of our community. Seeing as it is a result of public funding, the public has a
right to know the money being spent is done so responsibly.
In addition to these concerns, I would like to echo the now hundreds of sentiments expressed by other concerned
citizens who have written to you publicly urging you to vote against the project in its current form. It is vital that the
project's financial details, including comprehensive budget projections and financing plans, are made transparent to the
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
200
2
public before any further steps are taken. Again, this project involves public funds, and taxpayers have a right to
understand the scope and cost of this entitlement.
It is risky business to entitle a project of any scale that is not fully vetted. Given that this is the largest project in our
town's history, it could represent the largest failure or missed opportunity if not handled correctly. Therefore, I
respectfully request that you vote against this project at tomorrow's meeting. Let's spend time addressing our existing
housing inventory before seeking to build more without fully understanding the true need.
Sincerely,
Alexandra George
alexandrakgeorge@gmail.com
Alexandra K. George
c. (304) 561-8760
alexandrakgeorge@gmail.com
Exhibit C | Public Comments Received
201